Goverment on global warming?

Question

what does the goverment say about global warming and are they taking any actions?

Answer 1

http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/

http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library...

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climat...

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.htm...

The EPA has also just released a report saying that taking action on climate change will NOT harm the economy. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/... All three presidential candidates (McCain, Barrack, Clinton) support taking steps to limit global warming. Unfortunately as long as the current administration (which is made up mostly of oilmen) remains in the White House, no action will be taken.

Edit for Jazzfan, That is NOT what the EPA report stated. Please don’t make your data up.

Answer 2

which country if canada then stephen harper said that he wont sign the kyoto accord untill china india and america signs it. so he still making pollution he is a dip wad

Answer 3

Ben you crack me up! The EPA report states that by 2050 we'll be paying a total of $2.856 trillion dollars a year to reduce CO2. If that's not your idea of economic harm what is? That's their estimate of the cost of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, which would result in a reduction of US CO2 emissions by 25 ppm in the year 2098. Not a lot of bang for the buck, I'd say.

Without getting China and India to sign, it won't make any difference how much we cut emissions. A better idea is to put a single trillion dollars or so into funding research and development of new energy sources, or at least to subsidize people who want to install solar or wind generators. And use some of the money to come up with some viable carbon sequestration methods. All this emphasis on government controlling our emissions is unwarranted. If we develop CO2 and methane reduction sources and methods, we can let the Chinese have them for free.

***edit

If it seemed like my numbers were specific, Ben, it's because they were. The EPA states that "Under S.2191, GDP is modeled to be between 0.9% ($238 billion) and 3.8% ($983 billion) lower in 2030 and between 2.4% ($1,012 billion) and 6.9% ($2,856 billion) lower in 2050 than in the Reference Scenario." Reference scenario is one in which we don't adopt S2191 (Lieberman-Warner Act). The estimate also assumes a growth in nuclear generating capacity of 150% which may never occur due to environmental objections.

Also, since they don't explicitly analyze global CO2 impact I'm assuming that "the incremental impact of S. 2191 on global CO2 concentrations would likely be greater than 25 ppm in 2095" means they won't be substantially greater than 25 ppm by that date. Read it for yourself, link below.