XPost: az.general   
   From: michelle@michelle.org   
      
   Even the GOP is starting to get the message, except for the far-right   
   wingnut faction, that is.  Curious how nuts like Inhofe and Lott spend   
   so much time and energy trying to save fetuses, but don't care about how   
   we're killing the planet and ourselves.   
      
   March 25, 2007   
   NYTimes Editorial   
      
   Warming Up on Capitol Hill   
      
   Al Gore held his first hearing on global warming about 25 years ago,   
   when he was a member of the House of Representatives, and a quarter   
   century later Congress seems to be listening to him. Apart from the   
   usual dinosaurs ‹ James Inhofe, who took great glee in pointing out that   
   Mr. Gore had a big house that used lots of energy, and Trent Lott, who   
   dismissed the former vice president's ideas as "garbage" ‹ Mr. Gore   
   received a strong welcome from the two Congressional committees that   
   will frame any legislation to deal with the warming threat.   
      
   Legislating, of course, will be the hard part. But Mr. Gore's efforts to   
   raise both public and Congressional awareness are likely to make that   
   easier. As is his habit, Mr. Gore spoke in dramatic, almost apocalyptic   
   terms, at one point demanding an "immediate freeze" in carbon dioxide   
   emissions. This certainly overestimates America's capacity for rapid   
   social and technological change in much the same way that his movie, "An   
   Inconvenient Truth," seemed on occasion to overstate how quickly we will   
   see the consequences of climate change.   
      
   As Mr. Gore concedes, he is more salesman than scientist. But most   
   scientists acknowledge that he is absolutely right on the fundamentals:   
   humans are artificially warming the world, the risks of inaction are   
   great, the time frame for action is growing short and meaningful cuts in   
   emissions will happen only if the United States takes the lead.   
      
   An increasing number of business leaders and politicians outside   
   Washington are moving his way. These include Republican governors like   
   Arnold Schwarzenegger, major investment companies like Goldman Sachs,   
   venture capitalists hoping to profit from cleaner technologies and even   
   a few big power companies preparing for the day when they will have no   
   choice but to reduce their emissions.   
      
   Congress is paying attention to this shift. Representative Henry Waxman   
   of California has signed up 127 co-sponsors for a very tough bill he   
   proposed last week that seeks to reduce United States greenhouse gas   
   emissions by 80 percent by midcentury, which is close to what Mr. Gore   
   wants. When you consider that Mr. Gore and President Bill Clinton could   
   not find five senators willing to ratify the far more modest 1997 Kyoto   
   treaty ‹ which called for a mere 7 percent reduction below 1990 levels,   
   with no further reductions scheduled after 2012 ‹ you get some idea of   
   how far the debate has come.   
      
   The next task will be to translate this new awareness into legislation   
   capable not only of surviving the House but also of mustering a   
   veto-proof 60 votes in the Senate. All of the bills ‹ there are now five   
   ‹ start with the premise that forcing polluters to, in effect, pay a fee   
   for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit will create powerful   
   incentives for developing and deploying cleaner technologies.   
      
   Setting up a system that fairly distributes the cost of reducing   
   emissions across a giant economy ‹ without creating a bureaucratic   
   nightmare ‹ will require great skill. And nobody, including repeat   
   viewers of "An Inconvenient Truth," has a real grip on what it will   
   cost. Given the consequences of doing nothing, it's surely worth it, but   
   Congress will have to be upfront about the numbers.   
      
   Then there will be those who argue that it is pointless for America to   
   go down this road if China and India will not come along. But that one   
   is easy. The United States produces 25 percent of global emissions with   
   only 5 percent of the population. If the world's biggest per capita   
   emitter of carbon dioxide doesn't act, why should anyone else?   
      
   --   
   Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)