Glenn Anders wrote:Three International studies, over 40 years, atest to the fact that Global Warming exists, has existed for some time; that humans have made it wors;l that the U.S. is responsible for much of it; that it is getting worse; and that our Administration first denied the fact, denied the studies, had another study made, admitted Global Warming exists; but said there is nothing the U.S. wants to do about it because it would interfer with our economy.
The terrible fact is that the effects are irreversible, and it is almost too late to do anything. How does one restore the ice caps after New York, San Francisco, New Orleans, and cities on tidal plains around the World are under water.
Oh, I'm certainly aware of the fact that humans have exacerbated conditions on this planet to extremes. But as far as the Bush Administration goes (which really doesn't make it too different from most other political groups), denial is certainly their forte, and has been from day one.
And Hadji, the problem isn't methane itself, which would dissipate in the atmosphere after a very short amount of time under normal conditions, but the addition of carbon monoxide, which essentially concentrates the amount of methane. But, of course, most people don't bother to point out that carbon monoxide does not generally occur (if at all) under normal conditions.
The key, as you pointed out, is that nobody wants to do anything about it. Yes, this includes the government, but I think that the population of the US (if not the whole world) is responsible as well. There are still things that could be done that might not be colossal in impact, but would be a step in the right direction. However, the government doesn't want to waste money on it (and even if they did, they certainly wouldn't want to work!) when they can bring in more revenue through war. And people don't want to spend what little they have on it either (though, ostensibly, that is where any "supplementary income" for government spending is derived because, we couldn't possibly, *gasp* cut back on government spending!)
Social apathy is fatal. Though I should point out that I didn't mean to come off as being similarly apathetic in my previous posting, since I certainly am not (double-negative...). But even optimistic views of the situation would regard combatting social apathy as a losing battle...like that one witness during the old Kitty Genovese trial said, "we didn't want to get involved".