- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The letters thread is now closed.
I get the impression that politicians think they are doing something and all it looks like to me is tinkering around the edges. As if there was a growing hole in a dike and the discussion was about how much of the hole should be plugged. As if slowing the rising flood levels is the end objective. Even bringing carbon emmissions back to 1990 levels would not STOP the increase in atmospheric carbon, only slow it down. So the world is merely puting off the invetable to a more distant future. To cease increasing the carbon levels would mean such significant changes to the way we live that no politician can contemplate even suggesting them.
Given that the lag betwen cause and effect in climate change is 20-40 years, by the time the truth becomes evident, it will be too late.
The earth (oceans soils etc.) absorbs about 40% of the CO2 we generate each year. If we could reduce CO2 emissions by 60% we could freeeze the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at their current levels. To do this requires that we swallow some bitter pills. We could convert all coal, oil and fired power plants to nuclear (but of course there is an environmental hazard there) and reduce CO2 emissions in the USA by more than 40%. We can accelerate the transition to a hydrogen economy but that would be incredibly expensive or we can do what liberals are doing now, nothing more than incredible amount of posturing.
