Environmental Issues

[rounder]

As you can see, the US is the worst emitter out of all nations, in terms of per capita emissions and total emissions.

Your graph is almost 10 years old by chance able to find one a little more up to date?
i also found that 650 million gallons of diesel fuel used by truckers each week. Dont know how this compares to other countries.
The US is also the 3rd largest country at 9,629,091 sq km only canada and russia are larger.
It would also be nice if someone could find a economy to emissions comparison for the countries. The US is the biggest
economy and that means we are probably gonna emit more, but that should be expected because we are doing more. Right?

Lastly how did Canada get 3rd on the list wouldnt think to be that high, but I dont know alot about Canada so i cant really comment on it

 

[Iceberg]

Your graph is almost 10 years old by chance able to find one a little more up to date?

If I found one more up to date, the European nations would be far lower on the list and the US would be far higher, since the nations that make up the EU have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and have already started decreasing their emissions.

In a way, finding a more up to date graph would be even more embarassing to the US than this one is.

Lastly how did Canada get 3rd on the list wouldnt think to be that high, but I dont know alot about Canada so i cant really comment on it

Canada is that high partly because we have a cooler climate than the US (and therefore must use more energy heating our homes) and that we have similar automobile fuel efficiency ratings as the US, since producing automobiles for Canadians only would be "too cumbersome" for the auto industry. If we didn't have NAFTA, we could have done it ourselves, but with NAFTA, it is apparently more costly to produce vehicles for one nation only.

 

[Conman]

It took two pages and Iceberg's brilliant research to discover what I already knew and mentioned on the second post of page 1.

Regardless of findings, discussions and American patriotism, the bottom line is still clear ... America is not doing enough because they are afraid of the legal and financial rammifications if they acknowledge any of these findings.

We may not be fucked in our lifetime but our children and their children may.

The US is also the 3rd largest country at 9,629,091 sq km only canada and russia are larger.

FYI ... did someone forget China? :wink:
http://geography.about.com/library/misc/bllgcountries.htm

Your graph is almost 10 years old by chance able to find one a little more up to date?
i also found that 650 million gallons of diesel fuel used by truckers each week. Dont know how this compares to other countries.

Here's one that 9 years old ... stil interesting reading tho'.

http://www.geocities.com/combusem/WENCO2.HTM

No one is faulting the US for "doing more". I am sure the world appreciates the advancements it has made for the sake of mankind. Its just that mankind is trying to give something back to mother nature and the US is not/can't/won't "doing anything" significant to make that difference.

I'm out.

 

[cableguy]

another reason canada ranks so high on the per capita list is that even though it is an industrialized nation, it has a population of roughly 40 people... any industry distributed over no people will look dirty... china was absent from that list, largely because it gets to pollute 4-5 TIMES as much as the US before it comes close to the number you see there...

cars made for canada can NOT be imported to the USA... they are different, though im not sure how...

i still cant trust a statistically negligable fragment of time as the basis for such drastic economic measures... regardless of data, which is, for the most part speculative, there simply isnt enough to justify a conclusion that is so narrow.... looking at tree rings can tell you if the tree had a good or bad year for growth... sometimes, one can tell that there was a fire in a given year... the reasons for that growth, good, bad, or average, are purely speculative without observation... 20 million years ago, there were no people to observe ANYTHING...

could someone index greenhouse gases by %man made vs %volcano and other NATURAL causes??

i still reject the assertion that global warming is anything but a scare designed to handcuff the US economy..

 

[Iceberg]

Cableguy, your arguments fit those of people who thought the Earth was flat, and those that later thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

i still cant trust a statistically negligable fragment of time as the basis for such drastic economic measures... regardless of data, which is, for the most part speculative, there simply isnt enough to justify a conclusion that is so narrow.... looking at tree rings can tell you if the tree had a good or bad year for growth... sometimes, one can tell that there was a fire in a given year... the reasons for that growth, good, bad, or average, are purely speculative without observation... 20 million years ago, there were no people to observe ANYTHING...

could someone index greenhouse gases by %man made vs %volcano and other NATURAL causes??

This is NOT "a statistically negligible fragment of time." The warming that has occurred over the last 150 years IS statistically significant, and the correlation between carbon dioxide emissions from human activities and global temperature increases is present.

How is the conclusion "so narrow?" Tree rings and ice core data have been calibrated to temperature records for hundreds and thousands of locations around the world and have been accurately displaying temperature (and precipitation) trends for thousands of years. This data is valid and those scientists who are studying climate change are so dedicated to their research that they're wagering their careers on these conclusions!

There is no way that 2500 scientists (in the IPCC) and the tens of thousands of other scientists can possibly be doing this just "to handcuff the US economy." It's the whole planet's future that hangs in the balance! Our LIVES and the future of our children and grandchildren are at stake.

Also, volcanism does play a small part in influencing the climate system. However, volcanism usually results in a cooling of the Earth and the carbon dioxide volcanoes emit in the eruption process pales in comparison to what we humans have produced through industrial processes.

As for this: "the reasons for that growth, good, bad, or average, are purely speculative without observation... 20 million years ago, there were no people to observe ANYTHING..."

A tree falls in the forest no matter if someone observes or doesn't observe it falling. You're just grasping for straws there.

Cableguy, you often mention the economy and the "disastrous" effects of such initiatives like the Kyoto Protocol. You fail to understand how bad the economy will be when the Earth is dying and that the economy will be extinct if these measures are not taken. What use is a good economy if we aren't able to inhabit this planet? The economy will matter little if we kill ourselves off by screwing with the delicate balance of the Earth.

 

[Conman]

... global warming is anything but a scare designed to handcuff the US economy..

No body is doing anything to handcuff the US or any other country. By virtue of the American Constitution, America has cuffed themselves because any acknowledgment or form of admission, is going to create a libel suit bigger than anything we would have ever seen in our lives. The American economy, which is already in debt, is going to suffer a huge blow that could end many a large corporation or at the very least, damage it bad enough for major cutbacks and lay-offs. These in turn will become the responsibility of the American Govt as more Unemployment Welfare $$ have to be shelled out, further sending the economy into decline .... so on and so forth.

I admire cable's patriotism and outstanding defense of his beloved country. Which leads me to believe that cable is either very young, very gullible or the product of a successful patriotic education. It is this closed minded rejection of the obvious that is the very danger the world is facing now.

I give you two industrial "secrets" which over the last 10 years, have played themselves into our lives so smoothly that no one will consider these "threats" as an admission of the obvious and thus, relieving these major corporations of any legal implications:

1. Unleaded Petrol. What is the very first purpose of introducing this form of fuel? It is not because of a more profitable margin from a Premium Product, I assure you. It costs the Petrochemical Industries more to produce this fuel than the normal Fomula fuel. Their margins are about the same if not insignificantly more than regular Formula. So why was this fuel introduced and made a way of life over these last ten years? Why are these same industries spending billions of dollars today to research and develop Hydrogen Fuel whch is fast becoming a normal feature at pump stations across the world (save the US)? The answer, I assure you, is not because we are running out of fossil fuel in the next 100 years.

2. Why have other industries introduced products to reduce CFC emmisions? Airconditioning, refrigeration and aerosol industries have taken strict measures over the years to eliminate the use of CFC in our lives. I think it was you, cable, that mentioned something about ozone?

Your arguments so far have been in stern defense of the American industry and way of life. Where this indignation comes from is indeed puzzling and why you would choose to close yourself out from the obvious is even more baffling. I hope that you are merely making your case for the sake of keeping this thread going because if you are serious about your case arguments, ....

I'm sorry .... I am at a loss for the moment. Really I am.

 

[OCC-402]

re

We have trouble accepting what could possibly be the end of our current way of life.

 

[war|forever]

My roomate's car runs on vegetable oil. He fills up his diesal tank (needed to start the ignition), once every 4 months or so. Just something to think about considering the vast amounts of fast food this nation tears through in a day.

 

[cableguy]

i have seen many things affect the size of a tree ring... drought, abnormally warm OR cold temps, too much rain, and fire... i am quite certain there are other reasons as well... the FACT is that any ONE of those things can, and does, influence what a tree ring looks like...

until you can prove to me that volcanoes dont pollute in quantities SIGNIFIGANTLY higher than mankind, i will continue to reject any assertion that includes that item....

it has been impossible, until very recently, to even measure various things in our air/water/atmosphere...

i am 31, not gullible, and have come by my patriotism on my own, the schools here indoctrinate you a different way entirely...

public opinion has, and will continue to influence politics here far more than science does... the public was told that leaded gas was bad, so demands were made to change it... public opinion is what pushes policy change... good or bad, if you sell the American people on something, it will be done... regardless of science... also, science has been wrong before, and global warming is on far shakier ground than many other theories that turned out wrong... cfcs are another area that public opinion made the difference... you may not have been paying attention when mcds quit using styrene foam, or when air conditioners were forced to use the new, far less effective freon, but i was... i still resent that move... now, i am forced to put gas in my car that contains ethanol, NOT something my engine was designed for... why?? because enough people whined loudly enough...

i am highly skeptical, to say the least, that ANYTHING from the earths surface, absent a motor, can make it high enough to have any effect on the ozone layer... i am left to conclude that whatever is happening is a natural phenomenon...

the generally accepted age of the planet earth is 4.55 BILLION years, +/- 1%.. you cannot, with a straight face, tell me that a mere 100 or so years can generate enough information to conclude ANYTHING with regard to more than a localized trend, much less the cause of such a thing...

if i am wrong, humanity will have a rough go for a while... if i am right, well, id rather not miss out on certain things, or make compromises i need not...

 

[Conman]

I give up. Think I'll just stick to porn. :roll:

 

[oscaraustin]

I feel like Ross Perot is in this thread with all these graphs and charts.

I don't think anyone argues that temperatures are rising worldwide. People are just arguing whether or not we are the reason for the increase or just a catalyst of the process. I believe the latter, which, is where the gas and chemical increase graphs come into play. It's common sense why there is a rise in these "greenhaus gases," 1) more industry, but more importantly 2) more people and more urbanization, which means less rural/forest/non-cement landscape to kick back out the CO2 we machines as well as our created machines produce. Methane, same kind of story, but just the first part: more population = more methane produced. Nitrous, ditto. et cetera. H20 (of the most influential g-haus gases) if it's warmer, there's more, so it's warmer, so there's more and so on. I think the problem is more in that the "western", urban-industrialized lifestyle cannot go on with a population as high as this world has. If global warming is as bad as some say it is, then the population will become much less some day and our lifestyle will again be fitting, until we overreproduce again.

My roomate's car runs on vegetable oil. He fills up his diesal tank (needed to start the ignition), once every 4 months or so. Just something to think about considering the vast amounts of fast food this nation tears through in a day.

...and I bet it is one of those cars on the highway that doesn't pull the speed limit and pisses me off. Hence, making me burn more fuel and expending more CO2 into the atmosphere by hitting my accelerator in rage at his inability to drive on the road. I really need to move to Germany, so that i can drive on Hitler's masterpiece, the Autobohn. I hate slow drivers, and thus i really hate slow environmentally friendly cars.
I'd rather live a gluttonous life, and let my children live the repercussions. I really don't care about thousands of years from now.

 

[cableguy]

*****AHEM*****

the following is an associated press report copied verbatim off the website for the kansas city star, though the article appeared in many other newspapers as well....

Mount St. Helens Is State's Top Polluter

Associated Press


SEATTLE - Washington state's top polluter isn't a pulp mill, a power plant or refinery. It's the newly awakened Mount St. Helens.

Since the volcano began erupting in early October, it has been pumping out 50 to 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze. At peak, that's more than double the amount from all the state's industries combined.

Normally, the state's No. 1 polluter is a coal-fired power plant owned by the Canadian firm TransAlta. The plant churned out 200 tons a day of sulfur dioxide until regulators demanded $250 million worth of renovations, bringing the level down to 27 tons a day.

Tough to get those kind of results from a volcano.

"You can't put a cork in it," said Greg Nothstein of the Washington Energy Policy Office.

Because the area around St. Helens is so sparsely populated, officials say they haven't heard complaints about respiratory problems linked to the emissions. But people with breathing ailments probably would feel the effects if they lived close to it, said Bob Elliott, executive director of the Southwest Clean Air Agency.

"We are very fortunate, in terms of the impact on human health, that Mount St. Helens is pretty remote," Elliott said.

Worldwide, sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes add up to about 15 million tons a year, compared to the 200 million tons produced by power plants and other human activities.

anyone still want to tell me volcanos dont pollute much?? anyone still want to tell me that kyoto makes any sense at all, given that china is exempt, AND volcanos produce greenhouse gases and other pollutants, AND ozone is created by lightning and sunlight, none of which are man made, much less anything that mankind could do anything about...

 

[Conman]

Anyone want to tell me why I still don't have an answer to why America doesn't want to sign the agreement to do something about man made pollutants?

 

[Iceberg]

Ummm, cableguy, re-read the article, especially the end of it.

Worldwide, sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes add up to about 15 million tons a year, compared to the 200 million tons produced by power plants and other human activities.

This means that human activities are spewing out 93% of all sulfur dioxide emissions, while volcanoes spew out the remaining 7%.

Face the facts. People are f***ing up this planet, and environmental changes that once were natural are now due to our own activities (such as industry and transportation). People will have to do something to minimize their impact on the Earth or else face dire consequences (such as the end of our species in the next couple of centuries).

anyone still want to tell me that kyoto makes any sense at all, given that china is exempt,

China is exempt, but I believe there is something in the Protocol that says once a nation becomes a developed nation (i.e. per capita GDP reaches a certain level or something like that) they will be required to reduce their emissions.

volcanos produce greenhouse gases and other pollutants, AND ozone is created by lightning and sunlight, none of which are man made, much less anything that mankind could do anything about...

This may be true. However, mankind is emitting far more pollutants than natural processes are. Mankind cannot do anything about ozone-producing lightning or GHG-emitting volcanoes, but we can (and damn well should) reduce the pollution that results from our own activities.

I'd rather live a gluttonous life, and let my children live the repercussions. I really don't care about thousands of years from now.

That's the reason why this planet is in the trouble it's in. Too many people only thinking of themselves and not of others. :roll:

For an idea of the extensive research into the global warming problem, check out this site:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

 

[cableguy]

mount saint helens has been responsible for more pollution than EVERY SINGLE CAR AND TRUCK EVER PRODUCED... sadly, this fact wont coincide with what you want it to, so you will simply reject it... it is true, take it or leave it...

china is exempt from the kyoto protocol, and you say that once they reach a certain per capita gdp, which with 1/4 of the worlds population, should happen roughly....NEVER, they will be subject to it... if you are so concerned with the planet, why not include every nation??? if reduction of pollution is your goal, why NOT look to where pollution is the worst??? aggregate pollution is a garbage number, regardless of whether it is accurate or not... allow me to illustrate... i need you to find me two numbers.. the percentage of the worlds pollution produced by the US, and the percentage of the worlds food produced by the US... while youre at it, you might also pick any other industry the US has a large world market share in... actually, you can take a smaller industry share if you want as well... until ALL of those numbers are identical, one cannot be linked to anther...

perhaps the US is producing too much food as well... we should probably scale food production back to only produce whatever the world percentage of our population is... you and i both know this is rediculous, and will not, and should not happen, but i feel it is a valid argument to make...

you agreed that mankind isnt responsible for naturally occurring pollutants, BUT nothing i am aware of can seperate how much, exactly, is mankinds share of a certain pollutant in a certain area... apparently, natural or manmade, kyoto nations are held to standards regardless of origin...

when ALL scientists agree on global warming, or the lack thereof, the outcome will become a scientific fact... until then, global warming simply does not meet the principles necessary to call it one... it is not provable, it is not repeatable, and the outcome is not definitely known... show me unanimity, and you will have a convert... until then, i reject the premise...

 

[Conman]

mount saint helens has been responsible for more pollution than EVERY SINGLE CAR AND TRUCK EVER PRODUCED...

Where did that come from?

china is exempt from the kyoto protocol, ... if you are so concerned with the planet, why not include every nation???

Every nation has signed and/or agreed to sign the agreement except the US who have unconditionally rejected it. Without justification. :roll:

allow me to illustrate... i need you to find me two numbers..

If you are illustrating, you have to find the figures, not us. We're attacking US policy against their rejection of any agreement. You're defending it. We, the attackers have provided all the proof of our cases but you have yet to show us anything substantial.

perhaps the US is producing too much food as well... we should probably scale food production back to only produce whatever the world percentage of our population is...

The US is out producing the rest of the world in a market competition for dominance, not need. Outside of North and South America, very few countries and individuals are buying American, I assure you. In fact, the rest of the world, China included, are MAKING FOR America. Labor costs and resources are way cheaper for America to produce outside of it. So lets say American pollution is also exported? OK, that was unfounded but to say the US is producing for the world as if it were its saviour if it didn't, is pure ignorance. There was mention that Japan imports loads of American rice. Agreed. But not because it doesn't produce enough for itself. Japan's soil and climate is only good for the short grain variation of rice which is the staple of their sushis and dons. They import long grain rice from the US as well as Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia.

So by all means scale back and give the rest of the worlds' economies a chance.

... nothing i am aware of can seperate how much, exactly, is mankinds share of a certain pollutant in a certain area... apparently, natural or manmade, kyoto nations are held to standards regardless of origin...

That's because the agreement is based on a collective understanding to acknowledge and accept that there is a problem at all. The agreement to act is yet another matter to be addressed. The discussions are stalled not because America rejected the agreement but because America refuses to accept that there is a problem at all.

when ALL scientists agree on global warming, or the lack thereof, the outcome will become a scientific fact... until then, global warming simply does not meet the principles necessary to call it one... it is not provable, it is not repeatable, and the outcome is not definitely known... show me unanimity, ...

And we have spent three pages of this forum proving, reiterating, providing ..... ?

 

[Iceberg]

when ALL scientists agree on global warming, or the lack thereof, the outcome will become a scientific fact... until then, global warming simply does not meet the principles necessary to call it one... it is not provable, it is not repeatable, and the outcome is not definitely known... show me unanimity, and you will have a convert... until then, i reject the premise...

This won't happen, because some "scientists" are so far up the asses of the oil, gas, and coal industry that they will never see the light of day! :x (I put scientists in quotation marks because their methodology is far from scientifically-honest and leads to severe biases in their results.)

If you want proof of this, read Ross Gelbspan's books "The Heat is On" and "Boiling Point." In it, he speaks the truth about the obstructionistic and obfuscatory nature of the fossil fuel industry (by deliberately misinforming and disinforming the public so they will get confused, as you, Cableguy, seem to be).

I am no expert on climate issues (yet, anyway). However, I am set to receive my B.Sc. in Geography with an emphasis on the weather and climate system. This amount of education in the discipline immediately makes me more informed about the system than 99.99% of the population (with the other 0.01% being meteorologists or climatologists or those with Masters' degrees in the subject). This makes me resistant to being confused by the fossil fuel industry's "climatologists" (like Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, and Sallie Baliunas) whose studies on global warming have never been published in peer-reviewed journals.

The latter point says it all. Those who study global warming who aren't skeptics get published in peer-reviewed journals (the most prestigious and scientifically-accurate, those that critically review the methods and means of study to determine if biases exist and if the conclusions satisfy the premise of the study, such as Science and Nature) while those who are skeptics cannot get published in such journals because their methodology and their results are so biased that no true scientist would ever consider associating themselves with them.

(If you want to see which "scientists," politicians, and industry people are trying to derail true scientific progress on this issue, take a look at http://www.exxonsecrets.org/.)

Oh, and Cableguy, these studies that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming is happening are repeatable. Look at the graphs I provided a while back, in the message posted Nov 22, 2004 at 11:31 pm. There are no fewer than five studies on the graphs of the Northern and Southern Hemisphere and there are 13 (yes, THIRTEEN, studies on the temperature reconstruction of the past 1800 years which show a rate of temperature increase since the Industrial Revolution that is unprecedented over a century-long resolution.

 

[cableguy]

perhaps the scientists who are promoting gthe global warming theory are also "scientists." from your post, i learned that there is no room for the discussion of the validity within the "global warming" scientific community... two of the four weather guys on the local tv stations have publicly rejected the hysteria over this issue, and one has rejected the premise altogether, as i have... also publicly... it seems to me that the burden of proof belongs with the alarmists, not with those who believe there is no such problem... if you have proof, you remove any controversy...

not once have i stated that global temps havent risen over the last century or two, though i believe there is satellite data that even refutes that claim... my position is that there is no proof whatsoever that this is an unnatural thing... 200 years against billions... that is the hurdle you must overcome...

this is an opinion issue, not a science issue... no matter where you start, there is plenty of evidence to support your claim, and it is relatively easy to refute the opposing side... i have arrived at my position based on the burden of proof argument above.... that someone proposing massive changes must justify them... that has not happened... try starting from where i stand... for a moment, reject the premise that there is global warming... sit back, take a deep breath, and consider the other side... this is somewhat difficult to do initially, but with practice, it becomes much easier.. look at those who would have us believe that global warming exists, AND that it is caused by mankind... think of chicken little and the boy who cried wolf... just for a brief moment, imagine that a mass hysteria has been created over a non-issue...

who benefits from there being a global warming scare??? what other issues have the pro-warming theory scientists taken any stand on?? is there another agenda??? most importantly, who is HURT by there being a global warming scare, and by the proposed measures to slow or stop this "problem.." who has sponsored studies that show there to be a problem???

sadly, what always happens is "big business and the evil oil companies lied to us" or other drivel, generally unfounded, nearly always unproven, and sounding more and more like envy, jealousy, or the french... if a panel of 200 scientists told you that jumping from a height of 500 ft (160 some odd meters, i believe), and landing on concrete, without any kind of parachute, would result in no injuries to your body, would you jump??

some assertions by scientists, and well respected ones, throughout history include, but are not limited to:
--the earth is flat
--the earth is the center of the universe
--the earth is the center of the solar system
--heavier than air flight is not possible
--the sound barrier cannot be broken

none of these proved true, and in every case, the burden of proof was on the side advocating the change.... for those of you who noticed that everything in the above list was correctly proven to be true, allow me to remind you that scientists once believed strapping boards with feathers glued to them onto ones arms would allow one to fly like a bird... to my knowledge, this has yet to be accomplished...

i believe most minds are made up on this issue, and are unlikely to be changed, barring a consensus in the scientific community... a consensus we currently lack... if you believe in global warming, you will continue to, regardless of anything you see, hear, or experience.. if you dont, you likely wont, for the very reasons i have outlined in this thread, not the least of which is the statistical negligibility of data due to the possible time span in which it could have been collected vs the total span of the life of the earth....

it is a generally accepted principle that earth has ice ages periodically, and that mankind, or a recent predecessor, lived through the last one, though without thermomenters... of necessity, there must be some opposite of an ice age, which mankind has not lived through yet, but may be starting to... perhaps this is the beginning of such an age... before you jump in about "it isnt time for that yet," please let me know exactly when the next major earthquake will hit los angeles, or when mt ranier will blow... and please do so to within a one hour window... time, and date... some things happen cyclically, but not all of them adhfere to a strict timetable...

 

[Iceberg]

I give up. Cableguy, if you won't stop using Bush Administration talking points on this issue and actually read into the science (where about 95% of all climatologists believe global warming is actually happening), it's impossible to have an informative discussion with you.

If you were to read Ross Gelbspan's books "The Heat is On" and "Boiling Point," you may have some idea of the true nature of the science and that this overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement that global climate change is occurring (and that the rate of temperature increase is on the rise).

It cannot be simply a coincidence that the vast majority of scientists agree on this issue. The facts are there and these facts are what the scientists investigate and evaluate to determine their opinion.

Oh, and here's some testimony to the fact that climate change is occurring.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1211-01.htm

 

[Iceberg]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DECEMBER 15, 2004
4:44 PM
CONTACT: Sierra Club
Brian O'Malley 202-675-6279


Scientists: 2004 The Fourth Hottest Year On Record Sierra Club: Bush Fiddles
Statement by Dan Becker, Director, Global Warming, Sierra Club

WASHINGTON -- December 15 -- "Today, the Geneva-based World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported that 2004 is on track to be the fourth-hottest year since record-keeping began in 1861. The WMO added that global warming trends will lead to increased extreme weather events.

"While the Bush administration continues to deny the seriousness of global warming, temperatures continue to rise and 2004 joins the 10 warmest years on record - all occuring since 1990. Today's WMO announcement is further evidence reinforcing the scientific conclusion that global warming will lead to increased habitat loss, sea level rise, and shifting weather patterns. Sir David King, the British government's top scientist, called global warming 'more serious even than the threat of terrorism.' In contrast to the actions of our leading trading partners and the warnings of the world's leading scientists, the Bush administration's approach to global warming ranges from ostrich-like to flat earth.

"Meanwhile, states are taking the initiative in attacking global warming. California's recently passed Pavley Law will require automobile makers to reduce global warming emissions from new cars and light trucks beginning in 2009. The Pavley Law is a big step in the right direction because it delivers clean car choices for consumers, and encourages cost-effective, currently available technology to reduce global warming emissions. Seven Northeastern states plan to implement California law when it is finalized, and Canada is considering adopting the measures.

"There is more good news. We have the solutions today to curb global warming emissions. By using cost-effective technology, we can slash greenhouse gas emissions from cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs. Using this technology can also wean ourselves from our dangerous oil dependence. We can use energy efficient technology to cut the energy use of lighting, heating, cooling and industrial processes. Finally, we can replace dirty, coal fired power plants with clean, renewable energy sources like wind, solar power and cleaner burning natural gas.

"Its time for the Bush administration to take its head out of the sand and put currently available, cost-effective solutions to work against the problem of global warming."