Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Bill

The Lieberman-Warner Climate Change bill is scheduled for debate in the Senate. Before our elected officials -- the ones who represent us and our best interests --is yet another chance to help curb climate change before the effects become so severe life as we know it is in jeopardy.

Am I being dramatic? I don't think so. The vast majority of independent, reputable scientists have already stated that the world is and will continue to warm, and that a notable cause of the warming is humans and human activities. In fact, so many scientists agree that it's now considered a consensus by most of the world. The questions that have not been settled are what will the impact of climate change be, how much would it cost us and can we afford to make the changes we need to now to keep the impact from being devastating.

And that brings us to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change bill, the next in the line of proposed legislation that actually DOES something instead of just LOOKING LIKE we're doing something. This bill could cut US global warming emissions by 66 percent by 2050. THANK YOU, SENATORS!

Oh, but wait. Before the debate has even begun, Bush has said that he would veto the bill even if it did pass Congress. He claims the cost to the US economy would be $6 trillion dollars. What I have not heard him say is where he got this figure, over what period of time would this money be spent and why money spent protecting the planet for future generations of Americans is not as well-spent as money fighting unwinnable wars against invisible enemies.

To be specific, Bush has been quoted by journalist Deborah Zabarenko as saying, "I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans. We'll work with the Congress, but the idea of a huge spending bill fueled by tax increases isn't the right way to proceed."

I'm sorry, but WHAT? Is "a huge spending bill" coupled with tax CUTS the right way to go; after all that's what he's been doing since he landed in office! Now there's a better approach: let's spend less AND earn less.

I don't understand this man. I don't believe he is a bad guy trying to screw us Americans or the rest of the world. I don't think he is intentionally being maleficent. And that's what scares me the most about Bush. I don't understand his motive. Are those Texas big-business, pro-oil values popping up? Is he trying to keep lobbyists happy? Or is it simply easier to stay the status quo for now instead of embarking down the difficult journey of making change?

The upside is that the Senate isn't expected to pass this bill before the Nov elections, so whoever our President is after Bush will be able to make a reasonable decision not based on facts supported by experts. Even if McCain is elected, I'm hopeful about this bill -- or a variation -- getting passed. After all, he was co-author of a previously shut-down climate change bill: the McCain-Lieberman bill.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all the details of this climate change bill, nor do I understand yet the possible economic impacts. But I do know three things: 1. The long term economic impacts -- not to mention the health impacts -- of continuing to do nothing will outweigh the impacts of acting now; 2. Bush's short-sidedness and horrible track record with the environment AND the economy makes him the last source I would turn to for an analysis of either; and 3. what is easiest isn't always right.

And now for a Deep Thought by Jack Handy: It's easy to sit there and say you'd like to have more money. And I guess that's what I like about it. It's easy. Just sitting there, rocking back and forth, wanting that money.