[Stitcher]

EPA Calls CO2 a Danger — At Last

Time/Health & Science: By Bryan Walsh Monday, Mar. 23, 2009

It's been two years since the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change laid out the definitive case that human beings were causing global warming, and two decades since NASA scientist James Hansen first told Congress of the threat of rising CO2 emissions. So, why has it taken this long for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to announce that greenhouse gases endanger human health? Change can be slow in Washington.

[RLSmi]

Originally Posted by Stitcher

EPA Calls CO2 a Danger — At Last

Time/Health & Science: By Bryan Walsh Monday, Mar. 23, 2009

It's been two years since the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change laid out the definitive case that human beings were causing global warming, and two decades since NASA scientist James Hansen first told Congress of the threat of rising CO2 emissions. So, why has it taken this long for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to announce that greenhouse gases endanger human health? Change can be slow in Washington.

The least well-kept secret in Washington (and perhaps in the whole world) is that the EPA is one of the most political administration-controlled agencies there, and it is no secret at all that the Bush-Republican administration of the past eight years has little use for those tree-hugging environmentalists or the scientific community with their pesky data. Besides, doesn't everyone know that Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth campaign is just another anti-business effort of the liberal left?

I would hazard a guess that the change in administrations in Washington has everything to do with this sudden 180-degree turn in the attitude toward the dangers of rising CO2 emissions rather than an epiphany of atmospheric clarity.

[Stitcher]

So are we (the USA) suppose to consider climate change issues holy because of the cost involved?

Commentary
Climate Change Is A Trade Issue, Too
Forbes, James Bacchus, 03.24.09, 02:50 PM EDT
Unilateral U.S. moves could cost billions in trade sanctions.

As part of his sweeping agenda for change, President Obama is seeking limits on carbon emissions. Rightly so. Even in these times of economic peril, there is no more imperative issue facing humanity than climate change.

But largely ignored thus far in the debate over climate change is the fact that climate change is not only an energy and environmental issue. It is also a trade issue. Any action on climate change will affect international trade obligations that bind the U.S. and more than 150 other members of the World Trade Organization.

Ignoring this fact in shaping our response to climate change could prove to be an expensive mistake. In particular, if international negotiations falter, and if the U.S. acts on its own to combat climate change, the failure of U.S. legislation to comply with WTO law could expose U.S. goods and services to economic sanctions by our trading partners. Those sanctions could cost billions of dollars--annually.

More...http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/24/car...d=rss_opinions