There are legitimate debates to be had about the relationship between carbon dioxide and global warming (although I think the debate is now overwhelmingly in favor of those arguing for a close and increasingly dangerous connection). But I know of...
There are legitimate debates to be had about the relationship between carbon dioxide and global warming (although I think the debate is now overwhelmingly in favor of those arguing for a close and increasingly dangerous connection). But I know of...RSS Feed
Print
|
|
Print
|
Harlan Watson, State Department Bureau, says the US is taking a three-prong approach to addressing climate change. Of those three prongs: reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prepare for future action, and cooperate with international efforts, only one hints that the US must act in any substantial manner. Thanks to the Clinton administration and the state of California in particular enacting emission standards in 1998, sufficient changes were made to allow the current administration to remain inactive and still meet minimum terms of the agreement.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research tells us the world is getting warmer and dramatically changing the variables upon which our entire ecological system depends. Weather changes and disasters increase. Just count the number of recent hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunami, and earthquakes of devastating proportion. The ozone layer develops holes causing the “greenhouse effect”, increasing smog alerts, and actually causing human deaths, via heat waves. Polar bear habitats
literally melt away, extinction looms.
If you don’t believe what you read, believe what you see with your own eyes.
Notice that this data was gathered by an intergovernmental panel (inter meaning multi) and sanctioned by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. Every scientific mind on this planet is in agreement for the first time in global history; only the US government chooses to remain blind.
Consensus at the G8 summit in Edinburgh resulted in a plea for the largest countries in the world to lead the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. President Bush responded that he would not sign because it looked like ‘Kyoto’. He said, “I made decisions on what I thought was best for Americans.” This statement refers to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 usually deemed insufficient to handle the complexities of the topic yet a strong beginning necessary to the future of our planet (UNFCCC). Obviously, Bush isn’t interested in the future, even though our own Environmental Protection Agency cites significant evidence for immediate action.
Why do we hesitate to act? There is no question as to whom we should trust. Government policies come with political agenda and personal bias. Scientists pride themselves on their ability to objectively observe facts and readily admit when their hypotheses are proved inaccurate. How can we allow anti-environmental policies to continue to make their way through congress and into law without global protest involving millions of voices outraged at such audacity?
This week the Aerosols Safety society is hosting an international conference in Obninsk, Russia and the Nordic Bioenergy Conference is being held in Trondheim, Norway. November will see no less then eleven international conferences concerned with global warming, its causes, and its solutions. The government knows about these efforts; this information came from a government website. Opportunity exists for America to become involved, contribute. Elect officials that will send representatives to these functions, people with the power to make a difference.
Harlan Watson, State Department Bureau, says the US is taking a three-prong approach to addressing climate change. Of those three prongs: reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prepare for future action, and cooperate with international efforts, only one hints that the US must act in any substantial manner. Thanks to the Clinton administration and the state of California in particular enacting emission standards in 1998, sufficient changes were made to allow the current administration to remain inactive and still meet minimum terms of the agreement.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research tells us the world is getting warmer and dramatically changing the variables upon which our entire ecological system depends. Weather changes and disasters increase. Just count the number of recent hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunami, and earthquakes of devastating proportion. The ozone layer develops holes causing the “greenhouse effect”, increasing smog alerts, and actually causing human deaths, via heat waves. Polar bear habitats
literally melt away, extinction looms.
If you don’t believe what you read, believe what you see with your own eyes.
Notice that this data was gathered by an intergovernmental panel (inter meaning multi) and sanctioned by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. Every scientific mind on this planet is in agreement for the first time in global history; only the US government chooses to remain blind.
Consensus at the G8 summit in Edinburgh resulted in a plea for the largest countries in the world to lead the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. President Bush responded that he would not sign because it looked like ‘Kyoto’. He said, “I made decisions on what I thought was best for Americans.” This statement refers to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 usually deemed insufficient to handle the complexities of the topic yet a strong beginning necessary to the future of our planet (UNFCCC). Obviously, Bush isn’t interested in the future, even though our own Environmental Protection Agency cites significant evidence for immediate action.
Why do we hesitate to act? There is no question as to whom we should trust. Government policies come with political agenda and personal bias. Scientists pride themselves on their ability to objectively observe facts and readily admit when their hypotheses are proved inaccurate. How can we allow anti-environmental policies to continue to make their way through congress and into law without global protest involving millions of voices outraged at such audacity?
This week the Aerosols Safety society is hosting an international conference in Obninsk, Russia and the Nordic Bioenergy Conference is being held in Trondheim, Norway. November will see no less then eleven international conferences concerned with global warming, its causes, and its solutions. The government knows about these efforts; this information came from a government website. Opportunity exists for America to become involved, contribute. Elect officials that will send representatives to these functions, people with the power to make a difference.