As your teacher, I will say this: I believe that this is the most important issue of our times. I want you to pay attention to this as an economic, and life, issue. It is crucial, and something has to be addressed, and now.
The NPR report on the Supreme Court argument today over the failure of the Bush Administration to enforce the Clean Air Act is here. An excellent analysis on CO2 is here. Bush on global warming here (ok, its Will Ferrell). NY Times article on the oral arguments. Forbes writes a balanced report. Flat Earth Advocates opine here. 10,000 EPA Scientists respond.
Please let me know what you think.
5 comments:
That Will Ferrell skit was hilarious. But on the issue of global warming I think that it is effecting us. Its december and we can walk outside in shorts because the temperature is in the sixties. Also, the polar ice caps are melting and effecting many species such as the polar bear which is currently in endangered because of the melting of its habitat. For the Bush adminastration to say that C02 is natural and therefore should not be the cause of global warming is crazy. An excess of anything will cause damage and to say that it is not effecting the increase in the sea level and temperatures is incorrect. We need to find solutions to the problems we are facing with the issue of global warming and we need to find them soon or life on earth will not last as long as it should.
Well, it looks like Scalia kinda made himself look stupid with that “whatever” comment of his. And Breyer’s comment about Agent Orange, I can just imagine him saying that after hearing him talk last month in DC. As for how I feel about the matter, it is certainly a touchy subject. Two sides are arguing a case that is based upon scientific data, but neither side is stupid, and neither side disbelieves the science behind the problem. It’s not like the defense truly believes that CO2 has no effect on the climate, it’s that they are defending their interests, and using the ambiguous or improper wording of the law to do so. Therefore, the true discrepancy in this case is not the scientific facts, but the wording of the law. If the law was legislated poorly and has holes or soft spots, then it either must be fixed or lived with. It will not be up to the court to say if global warming is an actual phenomenon, or if CO2 contributes to it. It will, however, be up to the court to say if the law does or does not give the EPA the power to regulate such emissions. This will revolve around how the law is worded. Whatever the outcome, it will most likely not be based on the scientific data.
As for the science behind it, we certainly should be careful about how we treat the atmosphere and how we affect our long-term well being on the earth. If the Clean Air Act turns out to be too lenient and allows for emissions that are obviously and seriously harmful to our future climate, then I hope the law will be amended. If not, then let the economy do its thing!
obviously saying that C02 is not a pollutant is ridiculious. will farrell is hilarious. how could u even argue taht C02 isnt a pollutant? why would you do it?
why look so stupid? just enforce the laws, i dont get it.
The line between protecting the environment and harming the economy can be a touchy one, but I think in this case it is obvious that CO2 needs to be limited. I think it's becoming increasingly apparent that global warming is more than just a theory- it's been warmer year round, and weather patterns are changing (even if it's slight). I mean, there were three or four tornados on/around Long Island this year alone. From what I know, that's not all that normal, and it really scares me. It is true that the automobile industry is shakey at the moment, and this should possibly be taken into consideration. But in the long wrong, global warming and other serious damages to the environment seem more important to me.
As for the court case itself, as was said in the posts above mine that largely depends on the wording of the document in question. If the wording of it truly does not allow the control of CO2, or somehow allows for the claim that it doesn't, then that is the current law. However, I think that if this is the case, it should be changed to protect the public and world communitiy's health interests.
That also brings to mind the fact that even when the US limits pollution, there are many countries in the world that don't. The first that comes to mind is China. Besides setting pollution controls for our own country and benefits, we need to enstate them before action can be taken for global effort to work against pollution (which I think will eventually be necessary). Europe is mostly ahead of the US with emissions controls, and I think we should step up as well.
okay so i dont understand what our deal is with global warming. its like 56 degrees out and its DECEMBER-why is nothing being enforced? like those clean air acts, come on bush. if the way were acting and producing co2 is hurting our environment and putting ourselves/our children/our future generations at risk, then why are we doing it? for selfish reasons? thats really lame.
(ps i know these other comments put mine to shame but oh well)
Post a Comment