CO2
and other "greenhouse" gasses
are accumulating in atmosphere, and this warms the planet.
Americans use the most energy per capita, generating over 20 tons of C02
per person per year.
The "Day After Tomorrow."
So Hollywood makes a fast buck exploiting fear --
And what else is new?
US alternatives are not being developed at an expedient pace. Scientific knowledge about of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change may never be "complete."
However, if self-control is eventually needed, the Bush Administration proposes "capturing" C02 from coal fired power plants.
At an estimated cost of at least $30 per ton, this would mean spending $90 billion or more and would double or triple our electric bills. The technology would not be ready for at least another 15 years.
How does that compare to the alternatives? And how could we know, given the lack of initiative on renewables?
Do technological choices have to be politicized? Or are they always political?
Change is usually opposed by traditional political interests -- usually with what seems like a good excuse:
"... A tax to prepare for a potentially catastrophic future... [is] a course of action [which] fits a particular ideological agenda, yet is entirely unwarranted..."
U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla)