SEARCH BLOG: POLITICS and GLOBAL WARMING
About 2 weeks ago, I sent a letter and attachments along with a CD to Sen. Carl Levin of my home state, Michigan.
Sen. Levin Global Warming Issues.pdf
I received this form letter which pretty much shows that neither the senator nor the staff read the material I sent... big surprise!
Dear Mr. Hall:Well, Sen. Levin, I guess that means we will be insisting that the Chinese build nuclear-powered electricity-generating plants. And will we be doing the same to replace the 50%+ of our electricity generated by coal?
Thank you for contacting me regarding global warming. I am glad you shared your concerns with me.
There is a consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring, that human activity is causing it, and that we need to act now for the sake of future generations. However, there has been no consensus in the United States about what we should do to stop global warming.
In February 2007, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is made up of hundreds of scientists from over 100 countries, including the U.S., released a report which predicts that if we do not make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth's average temperature would very likely increase between 3.2 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels would likely rise between 7 and 23 inches during this century.
Climate change is a global problem, and it requires a global solution. The most important action that would tackle global warming is to create an effective and enforceable international treaty that binds all nations to reduce greenhouse gases, including developing countries such as China and India. Although the U.S. is currently the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China and India are polluting more and more each year. China, for example, is opening up a new coal-fired power plant every 7 to 10 days. By 2014, China will be emitting more greenhouse gas emissions than the United States. Without actions to limit greenhouse gases worldwide, nothing we do in the United States will really matter. One way to enforce such a treaty would be to allow countries to reject products from other countries that are not on board with greenhouse gas emissions reduction limits. We should also insist that international development agencies the U.S. helps to fund, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the USAID, not support countries that violate international agreements in global warming.
Proposals that mandate greenhouse gas emission limits in the U.S. alone would create an incentive for U.S. businesses to move their facilities, and the jobs that go with them, to other countries that do not have costly environmental standards. The United States must take a leadership role in addressing climate change, but our actions need to move us in the right direction by addressing all sectors of the economy, not by simply shifting industries, jobs, and emissions to another part of the world. By working with industry leaders to achieve new technology breakthroughs, we will help create jobs and spur our economy as well. With significant investments in research and development, public-private partnerships and incentives for manufacturers to invest in new technologies, we can make great technological leaps in hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles and dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions not only here, but around the world.
It is critical that we take steps equal to the environmental challenge at hand and that do not needlessly hurt the economy. This type of global, comprehensive approach is the way to address this very real problem of global warming.
Thank you again for contacting me.
It's amazing how quickly government can turn the opinions of some scientists into billions of dollars of costs for all of us... without considering what other scientists are saying. Still, at least he is saying that the whole world needs to be involved... whether anyone really needs to or not.
The real problem is the word "consensus". There may be a consensus among marketing managers or art critics or politicians... somewhat of an agreement... but I like to think that scientists should "agree" ... not somewhat agree. That" somewhat" part is just a little too loose for scientific accuracy.
Scientific fact is not based on democratic principles. Prove it or lose it.