If you don’t believe in it, it can’t hurt you

We’re nearing the end of 2006. Electronics are outdated almost as soon as they are released, just because the technology improves so quickly (unless you’re like me, and insist that Windows 98 was the peak of innovation). If the motivation (i.e. money or government mandate) was in place for corporations, I’m sure we’d all be driving cars powered on water and leftover french fry grease.

But the motivation is not there. Why? Well, part of the reason seems to be that our government still won’t admit that global warming exists. When 12 states went to the Supreme Court along with a group of environmental agencies, arguing that global warming is causing diminishing coast lines and poses a threat to American and global health, the reply was:

“The EPA says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant”

“It would be foolhardy to enact a regulation imposing requirements on motor vehicles when it is not clear whether that would sufficiently address the problem”

“No national solution will solve the problem of carbon emissions”

and my personal favorite, by Justice Scalia: “I don’t want to deal with global warming.”

That’s right, the government that deemed it absolutely necessary to preemptively invade a country (cost: thousands of lives) doesn’t want to rush in to a strategy to reduce carbon emissions (cost: “You may do some damage to the economy“).

My question is this: if the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the authority to regulate climate change-causing emissions, who does?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: