A Few Words on Global Warming, the Environment, and Governmental Regulation

Via Wikipedia

By now, few sane people could doubt that global warming is real. Debate, if any, might still be had, no matter how quibbling, over the causes -- is it primarily natural or man-made (frankly I don't doubt that there is a significant man-made component, but whatever)? -- and the long term consequences -- how big a problem is this (but almost all assessments, it's a huge problem)? Yet, regardless of debates of the causes or ignorance of all consequences, the reality of global warming results in some consequences that must be addressed. Regardless of debates, there are reasonable things we can do to reduce the problem.  The point, again, being that regardless of the extent of human cause, the problem must be addressed, regardless of knowing the full extent of the problem, some things still can be done.

Nonetheless, extremist Republican viewpoints and rhetoric are still preventing exercising any meaningfully solutions. Such a course, in my view, is irresponsible. Let us suppose that there is a basis to doubt the full extent of the problem or full human cause. Given the magnitude of the danger, the prudent thing to do is to act. This is not a speculative danger; this is one scientists overwhelmingly agree upon.


The thing is, the refusal to take action on a nonmilitary matter is a Republican hallmark, particularly when it action would hinder moneyed interests. Republicans have a pronounced practice of opposing most environmental regulation and allowing consumption of public resources by a few. Likewise, the safety of our food, drugs, and material goods depends on independent oversight. Providing that oversight is an important governmental function. Citizens/consumers cannot do this themselves; it is difficult or impossible to do. Republicans oppose much of this oversight and have seen it grossly underfunded. Which is sad, because it is such a small part of the federal budget (about $2.5 billion out of more than $500 billion in non-defense federal discretionary spending (more than $1.2 trillion overall)).

There is nothing immoral about regulation. There is nothing immoral about coordinated action of citizens through their nation to try to protect their common weal. The question we should ask is how much destruction in the name of the Republican's moneyed donors should we continue to tolerate?

Part of this post appeared previously in my post Why I am Not a Republican and is posted here as part of my 2012 election series.