<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
  xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
  xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
  <title>Green Options &#187; war on global warming</title>
  <link>http://greenoptions.com/tag/war-on-global-warming</link>
  <description>Posts tagged 'war on global warming'</description>
  <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
  <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
  <language>en</language>
  <item>
    <title>The War on Global Warming</title>
    <link>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/04/16/the-war-on-global-warming/</link>
    <comments>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/04/16/the-war-on-global-warming/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Jennifer Lance</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[administration and bureaucracy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[elections and campaigns]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/04/16/the-war-on-global-warming/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/04/wecandoit-169.jpg" title="Rosie the Riveter Goes Green"><img src="http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/04/wecandoit-169.jpg" alt="Rosie the Riveter Goes Green" align="left" /></a>The US government likes to declare war on issues in which there are no clear enemies, while physically fighting undeclared wars against foreign people.  President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer and recreational drugs.  Will George W. Bush declare war on climate change?</p>
<p><a href="http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/04/15/could-action-on-climate-change-really-be-bush-legacy/#more-144">Tim Hurst</a> wrote, &#8220;I would argue that <strong>the only opportunity the current president has to leave a positive and lasting legacy is to take ownership of the climate change and global warming issue&#8221;</strong> in response to rumors that Bush supports a new climate proposal. Could this be Bush&#8217;s declaration of war on climate change?  I hope not, as the United States has failed to previously win a war on cancer, poverty, or drugs, and these wars have gone on for decades. We don&#8217;t have decades to solve the problem of climate change; we must do it now.  Of course, when Bush is involved, I have to be skeptical of his true intentions, especially when the <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jJbf8oA_G6zwKdTKlJJNq_G_g8RQD901U7R00">Associate Press</a> reports the Bush administration is motivated to avoid a &#8220;<a href="http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/041508EA.shtml">train wreck&#8221;</a> of climate change regulations.  I suspect the Bush climate policy would be a watered down version of these other regulations, besides the <a href="http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/041508EA.shtml">White House may already be retreating on the issue</a>.<!--more--></p>
<p>We don&#8217;t need to declare war on global warming; we need to take action. Action will require governmental regulation that is effective and not impotent. Water-downed policies created in an election year will not solve the problem and place the United States in a position of world leader on climate change.   Action should be taken not for political reasons; actions should be taken to preserve our climate.</p>
<p><em>Image credit: <a href="http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=48341.0&amp;dlv_id=44884">Sierra Club </a></em></p>
<p>Related posts:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/04/15/could-action-on-climate-change-really-be-bush-legacy/" rel="bookmark" title="Could Action on Climate Really Be Bush Legacy?">Could Action on Climate Really Be Bush Legacy?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://ecoscraps.com/2007/12/31/350-parts-per-million-its-the-magic-number/" rel="bookmark" title="It’s the Magic Number!">350 Parts Per Million: It’s the Magic Number!</a></li>
<li><a href="http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/04/14/bush-just-says-no-to-science/" rel="bookmark" title="Bush Administration Just Says ‘No’ to Science">Bush Administration Just Says ‘No’ to Science</a></li>
<li><a href="http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/03/16/bush-continues-to-erode-own-scientific-integrity/" rel="bookmark" title="Bush Continues to Erode Own Scientific Integrity">Bush Continues to Erode Own Scientific Integrity</a></li>
</ul>
]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[ [1]The US government likes to declare war on issues in which there are no clear enemies, while physically fighting undeclared wars against foreign people.  President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer and recreational drugs.  Will George W. Bush declare war on climate change?

Tim Hurst [2] wrote, "I would argue that the only opportunity the current president has to leave a positive and lasting legacy is to take ownership of the climate change and global warming issue" in response to rumors that Bush supports a new climate proposal. Could this be Bush's declaration of war on climate change?  I hope not, as the United States has failed to previously win a war on cancer, poverty, or drugs, and these wars have gone on for decades. We don't have decades to solve the problem of climate change; we must do it now.  Of course, when Bush is involved, I have to be skeptical of his true intentions, especially when the Associate Press [3] reports the Bush administration is motivated to avoid a "train wreck" [4] of climate change regulations.  I suspect the Bush climate policy would be a watered down version of these other regulations, besides the White House may already be retreating on the issue [5].

We don't need to declare war on global warming; we need to take action. Action will require governmental regulation that is effective and not impotent. Water-downed policies created in an election year will not solve the problem and place the United States in a position of world leader on climate change.   Action should be taken not for political reasons; actions should be taken to preserve our climate.

Image credit: Sierra Club  [6]

Related posts:

	Could Action on Climate Really Be Bush Legacy? [7]
	350 Parts Per Million: It’s the Magic Number! [8]
	Bush Administration Just Says ‘No’ to Science [9]
	Bush Continues to Erode Own Scientific Integrity [10]


[1] http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/04/wecandoit-169.jpg
[2] http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/04/15/could-action-on-climate-change-really-be-bush-legacy/#more-144
[3] http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jJbf8oA_G6zwKdTKlJJNq_G_g8RQD901U7R00
[4] http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/041508EA.shtml
[5] http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/041508EA.shtml
[6] http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=48341.0&#38;dlv_id=44884
[7] http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/04/15/could-action-on-climate-change-really-be-bush-legacy/
[8] http://ecoscraps.com/2007/12/31/350-parts-per-million-its-the-magic-number/
[9] http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/04/14/bush-just-says-no-to-science/
[10] http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/03/16/bush-continues-to-erode-own-scientific-integrity/]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/04/16/the-war-on-global-warming/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- 46 queries in 0.311 seconds. -->