An article in the L.A. Times posted on August 25, 2009 is beginning to generate a lot of media attention. Here is a brief summary:
The EPA is planning to announce that global warming is beginning to threaten human health. They want to use the laws that fall under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emissions of the gasses believed to have caused global warming.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who, according to the article represent 3 million large and small businesses, have declared their intention of preventing these regulations by challenging the validity of the EPA’s scientific data in a public hearing.
Critics of the EPA’s findings say that it is not conclusive that global warming is directly affecting human health and studies cited by the Chamber Of Commerce state “predict higher temperatures will reduce mortality rates in the United States”. Meanwhile, heads of top science agencies have sent a letter to world leaders stating that “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable”.
So who do you believe? Are we headed towards destruction or is the EPA full of hot air? Click here for the full text of the article.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Woot! Josh’s first post!
August 27th, 2009 at 7:45 am
A little of both…
The Clean Air/Clean Water acts have their issues also, but they did do a lot to help clean things up in the decades after they passed. Unfortunately, the EPA was essentially decimated under the Bush admin. cuts. It is good they are finally focusing on policies to help reduce anthropogenic impacts to global warming.
I think it is amazing how the ‘non-science’ world continues to introduce debate. The scientific community has been at a consensus on anthro. global warming for a long time. There IS no debate, save for a small group of scientist/pariahs.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Anthropogenic: Anthropogenic effects, processes or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in biophysical environments without human influence.
I had to look it up on Wikipedia. Sheesh Frank, go an be all smart.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Seems like this debate is shaping up to run parallel to the “Evolution vs Creationism” bit to me. But that’s a topic for another blog, I’m sure!
September 1st, 2009 at 6:24 am
@Katie: Glad to present a word you hadn’t heard of
. It is a common term in the physical sciences. The Wiki definition is succinct.
@Hans: It is interesting to hear that debate as well. There are a lot of reasoned discussions out there, but pretty much all you will hear about it the divisive stuff. For slightly more reasonable discussions which consider Evolution in the context of religion (btw, I’m a Christian who wholeheartedly agrees with the theory of evolution, but that’s another blog post as you say…) start with Francis Collin’s “The Language of God”