Thought nuclear power-plants were earth unfriendly? Just wait till you consider coal. The MIT Technology Review says that "Reducing the impact of continued coal use on global warming will require a massive effort to collect carbon dioxide from power plants and bury it underground ... the volume of compressed carbon dioxide that will need to be captured and transported is similar in scale to the amount of oil consumed in the United States..."
The interesting thing about the Global Warming model is that it creates a direct linkage between politics, policy and the natural world. In this model, we manage the natural world by managing human activity. Environmental management is achieved by social engineering.
Unfortunately social engineering is neither easy nor cost free. Accepting the Global Warming model necessarily implies that people not only accept the social engineering of the world in principle (without which Global Warming cannot be fought) but also such probable outcomes as mandated energy budgets for individual countries and the world as a whole. But that is the least troublesome part of it. The deeper problem is that social engineering, if the experience of the planned economies of the 20th century can be used as reference, cannot be made to work reliably. Great Leaps Forward, returns to the Year Zero, Five Year Plans, etc all failed and failed miserably. What guarantee is there that efforts to cap output in developed countries, managing lifestyles and burying carbon dioxide on the scale of the oil industry won't have serious unintended consequences?