Adventures in My Mind
 |
 |
 |
 |
May 15, 2007
Senate defeats climate change measure - Yahoo! News
The Senate today defeated a proposal(51-42. Senate rules required 60 votes to pass.) requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the impact of climate change in designing water resources project. What? WHAT! The patricians in the Senate can't even agree that considering the impact of climate is a good thing. How is this possible?
Okay. Hang on here. Let me settle down before I blow a gasket.
When talking about the vote on his proposal, John Kerry said:"Tonight we got a majority of senators to stand up and demand that climate change be taken seriously ... [the Senate] has gone on record about global warming and sent a statement that its impact must be considered in our public policy debates.Well everyone but the 42 who disagreed with him that is. So once again that means that volumes and volumes of scientific research are being ignored in favor of ... in favor of, uh ... hmm. I don't know what the hell it's in favor of. Greed? Status quo? Political power? Fear? Ignorance? Take your pick.
Let's look at the situation a little further. On one side we have environmentalists and large portions of the scientific community who say that global climate change has been hastened by human involvement, i.e. the burning of fossil fuels and the resultant greenhouse gasses. On the other side we have carbon-based industry bigwigs and their paid-for enablers in congress and the White House who suggest that any changes we see in global climate are simply predictable weather cycles that have nothing to do with unchecked industrialism.
Each has strongly held opinions that are opposite of what the other thinks. Each is spending a lot time and money to shout their message the loudest. What are the consequences if they are wrong?
If the oil burners are wrong and we don't do something to stem climate change, and soon, the consequences will be disastrous: coastal flooding, massive storms, droughts, etc. Are any of these good enough to merit continued inactivity?
If the environmentalists and scientists are wrong, then we are left with renewable energy and new industries to support them, a cleaner environment, and legacy of action and positive change. Yeah, sure Exxon/Mobile won't be able to sell as much oil, but what's to prevent them from selling solar panels or hydrogen or what ever else comes along?
Where's the harm in action? What's the danger in pro activity? Do we need to wait until the water is lapping at the doorsteps of the Capitol before James Inhofe (R-OK) understands that inaction is not an option?
In response to the proposal Inhofe, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said that theory of global warming is supported by "environmental alarmists who want to scare people."
Who needs to be afraid of the environment when there are so many terrorists to be afraid of.0 Comments | Link to this post posted by Teddy 10:24 PM
