cur-mud-geon: anyone who hates hypocrisy and pretense and has the temerity to say so; anyone with the habit of pointing out unpleasant facts in an engaging and humorous manner
The EPA has declared "greenhouse gases", including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), are major hazards to our health. Their conclusion was that these gases warrant action under federal air pollution laws.
Now we are faced with either Congress creating legislation to control these gases or with the EPA creating rules to control them. It is generally believed that Congress will move in this direction very quickly.
Setting aside the argument, for the moment, about the validity of this finding, we are faced with determining just how this can be tackled without harming our already fragile economy. Some zealots will tell us that the economy should be the least of our concerns, but we do not live in their perfect world. We live in a world where not one other country has indicated that it will risk its economic well being to limit greenhouse gases.
There is no controlling world body that exists that will attempt to make other countries follow similar courses of action. The United Nations has no stomach for nor any real power in such matters. Its only concern is that the United States be forced to do something about the problem. This, of course, neglects to deal with whatever the other countries will continue to spew into the atmosphere but that will be okay with the UN's members who simply despise us for our success.
So it seems that there is a very clear conclusion to be drawn. We will be compelled to limit greenhouse gases, and we will damage our economy and we'll have to learn to live with whatever that causes.
We'll be the only country doing anything like this, the global warming issue will not get any better as the result of just our actions, and we'll be plunged into a standard economic malaise thus reducing the standard of living of our citizens and our presence in the world.
Doesn't it make sense to avoid killing our country's economy unless and until one of two things occurs? If the rest of the world's countries will take the same actions we're prepared to take, then we launch whatever those actions call for and learn whether there is any real positive effect on "global warming". Or, if there is some way to finally develop conclusive proof that global warming is significantly more a man made issue than a natural issue, and is not simply going to ebb and flow over the centuries as it has appeared to do up to now regardless of man's activities, then we move forward.
Our actions will do nothing to amount to anything even if there really is man-induced global warming of any appreciable level, which I cannot agree is the case given current information. We are simply condemning ourselves to becoming a lesser force both economically and militarily, both of which will auger to our detriment in a much shorter period of time than will global warming.
I welcome the suggested solutions that may be offered by readers who are global warming believers.