Convenient Half-truth

Al Gore made a huge contribution to the world by making so many people focus on the warming up of the planet Earth. Ever since, however, I have this creeping feeling that his truth is not so much inconvenient but more importantly, it isnt the full story. Although I am not an article writer, this prompts me to sum up my uneasiness. 1- For some reason the fact that the rise in CO2 is less the cause and more the symptom of the heating of the earth is being blurred out. Why? Is it to mobilize the human guilt to focus on the issue of burning up earths fossil fuels that we are lead to believe heating is CO2 induced? That seems to be gambling with the publics trust and likely lead to some ineffective measures. 2- The Kyoto and Bali solutions dont seem to add up with the underlying trends of growing world population (from 6.5 to 11 billion this century) and developing countries aspirations to Western levels of prosperity (32 x more consumption per capita). Unaddressed, these trends will completely wipe out any of the planned saving measures. The need for individuals in the West to save energy unfortunately is only a half-truth. 3- The energy crisis is genuine, but only the first in a number of crises caused by explosive number of humans and their increase of consumption levels. As a reference, if the whole developing world caught up with American-level per capita consumption rates, this would be as if the world population ballooned to 72 billion people, retaining present consumption rates. (Cf. Jared Diamond, IHT Jan 3rd 2008) 4- With the increased levels of attention for planet earths health, why is there so little mentioning of its real plague, namely humanity as a whole? Is it the argument nothing we can do about it that stops us from recognizing the true nature of Earths predicament? Is it some moral taboo? This state of denial is not going to do any good to either our planet or the human race. 5- We need to recognize Earth cannot support both growing prosperity and growing number of humans. We should establish how many people with what consumption levels our planet can support with regard to water, food, sustained nature, assuming reasonable technological progress. 6- The prospect of nature dealing with its human plague as it generally does with overpopulation, i.e. massive decimation one way or another (disease, flooding, self destruction, e.g.) should encourage us to consider all options, no matter how radical. 7- It is almost certain that no degree of technology will allow 11 billion people to live on this planet anywhere near the levels of consumption of the Western world. Consumption rates and living standards will become more equal around the world. Unavoidably levels of consumption in the USA and Europe will therefore reduce, willingly or unwillingly. This evidence should guide us in our strategies and policies. Also our population policies (birth, health, aid) should take into account what is feasible on earth. As an example, we may have to come to accept that prolonging individual human life (at almost any cost) no longer serves humanity as a whole. 8- I realize this is considered unmentionable and thus rarely mentioned, but closer to the full truth: The freedom for all to aspire to growth and greater prosperity is becoming a fallacy. We should address this openly so this can guide our research and actions.