Saturday, January 21, 2006

6 former heads of the EPA call for action on carbon emmisions. Why are the govornment following not leading?

The Bush Administration has come under renewed pressure at a recent conference 6 previous heads of the EPA called for federal action to fight climate change and not just token funding for technology, but for actuall mandatory caps within a trading system.


"The message to the Bush administration on global warming couldn't be clearer: Do something.

Since 2001, climatologists, environmentalists, economists, world leaders, governors, senators and business executives have been begging President Bush for something more than another study or voluntary cutbacks by industry on greenhouse-gas emissions, which trap atmospheric heat and warm the Earth. (more below...)

Rising surface temperatures are melting ice caps, raising sea levels, and hurting plants and animals in ways scientists predict will increasingly endanger human health. A study published in last week's journal Nature documents the first species believed to have been wiped out by global warming.


The heat is definitely on.


Joining the chorus for action this week were six former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency dating to William D. Ruckelshaus, the agency's first leader, who served President Richard Nixon.


During a discussion Wednesday celebrating the 35th anniversary of the EPA, five Republicans and one Democrat agreed: Global warming is real and getting worse. The United States should stop ignoring it.


William K. Reilly, who served President George H.W. Bush, called remaining skeptics "outliers." He demanded remedies - such as energy-efficiency incentives or mandatory emissions reductions - instead of more hot air about the validity of climate science.


Global warming is rising on Congress' agenda, thanks to influential advocacy from senators including John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.). But key committee chairmen such as James Inhofe (R., Okla.), who once termed global warming a "hoax," still block most good ideas. Last year, Inhofe called novelist Michael Crichton, father of the "techno-thriller," as an "expert" witness. A medical degree and well-footnoted fiction don't qualify Crichton to advise Congress on protecting the atmosphere.


Other countries are acting aggressively to reduce man-made contributions to warming. They're wisely heeding scientists' warnings that the ill effects of climate change will only accelerate the longer humans tarry.


It's time Congress and Bush likewise listened to the chorus."

Postscript; Climate Change, InternationalA, NewsA

Labels:

Climate Change Action

Home furl google deliciousdel.icio.usnetvouz newsvine diggDigg This!reddit spurl Technorati

Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

3 Comments:

At 7:06 PM, Anonymous Agroblogger said...

While I appreciate and essentially agree with the sentiments expressed in the article, I think it nicely illustrates a tired and ineffective approach to fomenting change. Mitigating climate change is much more about rebuilding vibrant communities than passing more legislation.

Please read the full article:

http://www.agroblogger.com/2006/01/26/rebuilding/

 
At 6:55 PM, Blogger John said...

Pay a tax, change the weather. I don’t think so. Humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually (Google: carbon cycle). Congresswoman Pelosi's and Senator Reid's plans for regressive new carbon offset and green tax legislation are designed in concert with UN and Kyoto Accord mandates. The goal is to reduce human CO2 production by 1/3. How high would new carbon offset taxes on transportation and heating fuels need to be to motivate you and everyone else to cut back by 1/3? At best that level of taxation will reduce annual CO2 production by a mere 1 percent globally. Not much mitigation or hope there. Certainly 1% is not enough to make a difference in the perceived problem of anthropogenic (human) global warming gases. The impact of such draconian tax measures can only be imagined. However, it does beg the question, "If humans can't really be expected to make much of an impact on global warming gases, how can they possibly be blamed for warming in the first place?" Why are people compelled by politicians and the media to feel responsible and guilty for causing global warming? For the answers, Google "blame, shame and guilt used as political controls", read "Unstoppable Global Warming" and “TheChilling Stars" for the scientific facts and "State of Fear" for the political dynamics behind this renewed eco-tax controversy. Those party faithful that think this debate is over are sorely mistaken.

 
At 7:13 PM, Blogger Calvin Jones said...

John, the point that:

"Humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually (Google: carbon cycle)."

Sounds reasonable but your insinuation that this is insignificant is just plain wrong. It is a carbon CYCLE. There is however nothing cyclical of an extra 3% from humans!

The science is clear, the policy options are not. Lets hope the discussion move on to what we can do to fight climate change at lowest posible cost.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home