Should a) We take immediate, decisive and effective measures to curb human-induced global warming?

Question

. . . or b) Is such action far too expensive and too de-stabilising given our fagile economy - and we should either nibble at the edges of it, or maybe just wait a little longer and see if it gets worse?

. . . or c) What's global warming?

!!!!! Officials of 18 states are taking the EPA back to court to try to force it to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that rebuked the Bush administration for inaction on global warming.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said the EPA "has failed to lead, it has failed to follow the states' lead, and we are prepared to force it out of the way in order to protect the environment."

"The EPA's failure to act in the face of these incontestable dangers is a shameful dereliction of duty," said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Answer 1

a) i) We take immediate, decisive and effective measures to curb human-induced global warming, and;

immediate measures to begin carbon sequestration to reduce the atmospheric concentration back to 350 ppm carbon dioxide.

Answer 2

At least to start remedial actions .

Shame  that called " Global warming " in first place because people think cold winter mean no global warming.  Problem is  bigger because also all extra energy from mens activity  into ecosphere create violent and  inuisual wether condition, more rain and storm, or less rain  and effect all life on sea and land . Natural climate fluctuation is not whole  explanation as some have said , there is much more to it as  has been clearly demonstrated .

Answer 3

The court case would be a major waste of money and time, as far as the EPA it is government and by its very nature is self preserving and inaction guarantees its existence. I would like to see the money given to a private agency that would actually take a look at climate change and teach us how to adapt to it.  Another issue we need to address is that all of us need to work together to ensure the environment is managed correctly.  We have the intelligence and the ability the problem, do we have the will?  The future will give us the answer.

Answer 4

The EPA has done a heck of a lot more than that.  They quit enforcing the laws the agency was created to enforce during George Bush's entire term.  This forced the States seeking enforcement to sue them over and over to get them to do their job.  The courts upheld the States every time, because the law is clear and Bush was just breaking it.  By doing this, many violators got off scout free, since the States don't have the money to do this every time.  Even with the ones that were litigated and the States upheld, the polluters got to go on polluting (and profiting by doing so) for several additional years.

Governor Schwartzenegger is absolutely correct.  Many States including his have worked to set up their own Global Warming initiatives, when it became clear the Administration was blocking action by the EPA .  The EPA has been trying to take the States to court and make them stop, claiming they have jurisdiction and the States don't.

The proponents of denierism always claim that environmental responsibility is much more expensive than pollution, prohibitively so.  There are surely cases where that is true, but as a general rule, the opposite is true.  They also like to promote another piece of their wisdom-- that environmental responsibility requires that everyone return to the stone age.  Environmentalists disagree with that, although its one solution, its not for everybody.  The article in the link below discusses the answer to a. and b.  They suggest the next few generations will be determining developing and making the technology to deal with the problem.  Sounds good for employment, doesn't it?

Answer 5

I don't think immediate and decisive action is required at this juncture... that is way too reactionary and like you mentioned, could possibly destabilize our economy and the world.  We are way too dependent on fuels that emit greenhouse gases and while I think we should work to curb these emissions, an all out cessation or similar practice would make things worse.

The United States should be leading the world in new technology to combat global warming, but instead we have barely changed our ways and still remain the largest polluter in the world.  I think that this can become a big problem for us, but it is not as large as some believe.

Alternative energy is becoming more and more efficient, and I expect within the next 50 to 100 years we will have a viable alternative to oil.  This will not be an easy transition, since rebuilding the infrastructure of our nation alone will be very costly... not to mention the interests of the gigantic oil companies will be detrimental to this pursuit.

It will happen and it must happen, because we will run out of oil at some point and besides that... our energy requirements will soon surpass that which traditional energy sources can provide.  I firmly believe that alternative energy will be the next booming sector following the technology and real estate collapses.  There will be so much money pouring into infrastructure and other development projects that it will be impossible to not create piles and piles of wealth.

Answer 6

Yes, "a".

Bush's record is pathetic, starting with when he went back on his campaign promise to reduce carbon pollution.  Note the key role of the EPA in supporting Bush's failure to honor his promises:

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/airenergy...

Bush admits humans cause global warming, but rebuffs action (07/06/05)

EPA scuttled global warming videos to avoid White House wrath (07/01/05)

White House white-washes global warming data (06/08/05)

Bush points to technology as key to climate change fix (02/17/05)

EPA environmental report to include global warming data (02/03/05)

Bush administration impedes progress at international global warming talks (12/18/04)

Bush administration accepts global warming science but balks at solutions (11/24/04)

Bush administration agrees to capture methane gas (11/16/04)

Bush administration ignoring scientific evidence on global warming (11/08/04)

Top EPA air official tells industries it will need to reduce greenhouse gases (10/12/04)

Bush administration slashes funding for global warming research (06/03/04)

EPA will cover climate change, for a change (06/02/04)

Bush administration claims it's misunderstood on global warming (05/10/04)

Secret Pentagon report details global warming threat (02/22/04)

Scientists accuse White House of distorting science for political gains (02/18/04)

Energy Department promoting carbon sequestration (01/27/04)

Court upholds stronger energy-efficiency standards (01/13/04)

Bush's global warming plan produces negligible results (01/01/04)

EPA revs up motorcycle pollution plan (12/23/03)

Bush administration seeks increase in use of ozone-depleting pesticide (11/14/03)

White House plays down global warming evidence (09/21/03)

EPA passes the buck on regulating global warming pollution from cars (08/28/03)

EPA on global warming gases: Bring 'em on! (08/28/03)

Bush climate plan all study, no action (07/24/03)

White House whitewashes EPA environment report (06/23/03)

Department of Agriculture encouraging farmers to cut greenhouse gas (06/06/03)

Bush administration to build world's first emission-free power plant (02/27/03)

Scientists debunk Bush's global warming plan (02/25/03)

White House ordered to reveal climate change documents (02/21/03)

White House gets industry support for voluntary pollution cuts (02/12/03)

Bush administration fosters policy of delay on global warming (12/04/02)

EPA omits global warming section from pollution report (09/15/02)

Bush administration stalls on global warming solution (07/10/02)

Bush and Whitman distance themselves from EPA global warming report (06/12/02)

Bush administration finally admits big trouble from global warming (06/03/02)

Bush administration ousts top global warming scientist (04/19/02)

Bush clean air plan would boost coal use (04/17/02)

Bush administration trying to dump global warming scientist (04/02/02)

White House global warming plan "cooks the books" (02/14/02)

Bush unlikely to offer alternative global warming plan (07/26/01)

NRDC praises global warming agreement; calls on Bush to reconsider (07/23/01)

Bush outlines an 'all talk, no action' approach to global warming (07/13/01)

Bush budget cuts for international global warming programs more significant than reported (07/12/01)

NRDC to President Bush: Get serious about global warming (06/11/01)

Bush administration rejects Kyoto Protocol (03/28/01)

Bush retreats from campaign promise to reduce carbon pollution (03/13/01)

We need to fire the politicians who failed to act, implement severe campaign financing reform, implement conservation efforts and market incentives, halt construction of future coal power plants, and fund research on technologies such as carbon sequestration.

Ex-heads of EPA blast Bush on global warming

Republicans, Democrat say president is neglecting environment

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10913795

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

- Benito Mussolini (Encyclopedia Italiana)

Answer 7

I have not yet heard what DECISIVE measures would actually be implemented ----- even if the USA eliminated 50% of all motor vehicles the calculated global temperature change would be insignificant.

Answer 8

This one's easy....human-induced global warming HAS been curbed (it never existed).  As individuals, we simply need to prepare for higher and higher energy and gas expenses as world demand exceeds world supply...get off of the grid, because it's going bye-bye.