It’s 1 Sky... for all of us
|
|
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Tags: 1 Sky, Climate Change, global warming, Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act
Tags: 1 Sky, Climate Change, global warming, Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act
When I was in elementary school, a ruler was the first school supply on the list. I can't even remember the last time I saw a ruler, but there is something nostalgic about them. They represent an undeniable standard, a truth to which to measure up.
I'd love to have a giant ruler now.
This week, the United States Senate may begin debate on the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act. This debate has been fascinating. Amidst all the arguments on global warming and the economic impact of proposed solutions, one fact has been utterly lost - what America's most respected scientists are saying about carbon emissions.
There is near unanimity among respected scientists that we - all of us - must reduce global warming pollution by at least 80% below where we were in 1990, and do this by the year 2050. And we must do this quickly - we need to be at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. If we don't, we face catastrophic and potentially irreversible damage to our home (not New Mexico, not the United States, but to our big home - the planet).
This scientific standard should be our ruler by which to measure and compare competing climate change proposals, like Warner-Lieberman. All of us can debate about how we get there until New Mexico becomes oceanfront property, but the bottom line is, we need to do what science demands.
Warner-Lieberman has gone the route of other Congressional bills that require consensus building, compromise and concessions to be politically viable. But Warner-Lieberman falls short in the biggest challenge of all - to do what science demands is necessary.
If you have a ruler, dust off the cobwebs on it. We may need it to show Congress that now is not the time for compromise and concessions. Now is the time to stop irreversible damage that our children will inherit, if we don't take bold action now.
I'd love to have a giant ruler now.
This week, the United States Senate may begin debate on the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act. This debate has been fascinating. Amidst all the arguments on global warming and the economic impact of proposed solutions, one fact has been utterly lost - what America's most respected scientists are saying about carbon emissions.
There is near unanimity among respected scientists that we - all of us - must reduce global warming pollution by at least 80% below where we were in 1990, and do this by the year 2050. And we must do this quickly - we need to be at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. If we don't, we face catastrophic and potentially irreversible damage to our home (not New Mexico, not the United States, but to our big home - the planet).
This scientific standard should be our ruler by which to measure and compare competing climate change proposals, like Warner-Lieberman. All of us can debate about how we get there until New Mexico becomes oceanfront property, but the bottom line is, we need to do what science demands.
Warner-Lieberman has gone the route of other Congressional bills that require consensus building, compromise and concessions to be politically viable. But Warner-Lieberman falls short in the biggest challenge of all - to do what science demands is necessary.
If you have a ruler, dust off the cobwebs on it. We may need it to show Congress that now is not the time for compromise and concessions. Now is the time to stop irreversible damage that our children will inherit, if we don't take bold action now.
