Next year the EPA will start regulating greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, a gas that was ruled a pollutant by the Supreme Court in 2007. Many Republicans on the hill are up in arms over this new policy, which they see as another overreach of the federal government.
It is perfectly rational to think that the EPA’s new regulations may be bad for businesses in the short-term. But in the long-term, what could be worse for businesses than global warming? It is not like the EPA is padlocking refineries and dragging people out of their cars.
The changes they are making are piecemeal. These essential changes will become increasingly more difficult as more people start to question the validity of the science of global warming.
According to a 2010 Gallup poll, 48 percent of Americans believe that the science on global warming is exaggerated. That is a seven-point increase from the 41 percent of Americans who thought so in 2009.
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has questioned the causes of global warming.
“Mankind, is it responsible for global warming? Well, I’ll tell you something. I have seen evidence on both sides of it. I’m skeptical,” Christie said.
Not all evidence is equally valid. Christie has been misled, as many have, by global warming skeptics.
Groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Heartland Institute are the prime emitters of anti-global warming rhetoric.
The website of the Heartland Institute published an article saying, “The fundamental concern is whether globally warmer temperatures are factually worse (or better) for human societies — and more (or less) damaging to the environment — than colder temperatures (like those experienced during the ice ages and Little Ice Age).”
The article also discusses how global warming is actually good for the environment because plants need carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is good for plants, but not when carbon dioxide levels make it too hot for that plant to exist in its native environment.
Faulty reasoning must be avoided to help pass some environmentally friendly legislation. And hopefully lawmakers will realize this before D.C. turns into the new Venice, although the idea of traveling through D.C. on a gondola is rather romantic.
Daniel Renfrow is an anthropology junior and may be reached at [email protected].
Nice quip at the end, but lawmakers are usually too slow even on a time scale of a couple hundred years.