<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2><IMG
src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/sites/twpweb/img/logos/twp_logo_300.gif"><FONT
size=3> </FONT>
<HR>
<DIV style="DISPLAY: block" id=slug_flex_ss_bb>
<DIV id=wpni_adi_flex_ss_bb class="ads slug flex_ss_bb print"></DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=content>
<H1 property="dc.title">Climate change denial becomes harder to justify</H1>
<H3 property="dc.creator">By Editorial, <SPAN
class="timestamp updated processed" contenttype="article" pagetype="leaf"
datetitle="published" epochtime="1305502417000">Published: May 15</SPAN>
</H3>
<P>“CLIMATE CHANGE is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and
poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”</P>
<P>So says — in response to a request from Congress — the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s preeminent
institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers.</P>
<P>In a report titled “America’s Climate Choices,” a panel of scientific and
policy experts also concludes that the <A
href="http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Americas-Climate-Choices/12781">risks of
inaction far outweigh the risks or disadvantages of action</A>. And the most
sensible and urgently needed action, the panel says, is to put a rising price on
carbon emissions, by means of a tax or cap-and-trade system. That would
encourage innovation, research and a gradual shift away from the use of energy
sources (oil, gas and coal) that are endangering the world.</P>
<P>None of this should come as a surprise. None of this is news. But it is
newsworthy, sadly, because the Republican Party, and therefore the U.S.
government, have moved so far from reality and responsibility in their approach
to climate change.</P>
<P>Seizing on inevitable points of uncertainty in something as complex as
climate science, and on misreported pseudo-scandals among a few scientists,
Republican members of Congress, presidential candidates and other leaders
pretend that the dangers of climate change are hypothetical and unproven and the
causes uncertain.</P>
<P>Not so, says the National Research Council. “Although the scientific process
is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences
of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research,
are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the
face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of
alternative theories and explanation.”</P>
<P>Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in
wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three. And their
recalcitrance is dangerous, the report makes clear, because the longer the
nation waits to respond to climate change, the more catastrophic the planetary
damage is likely to be — and the more drastic the needed response.</P>
<P>That response, the panel concluded, ought to include not only a strong policy
to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also a plan to begin adapting to
climate change, some amount of which is already inevitable; more research into
climate science and alternative energies; and active engagement in international
efforts to control climate change. Given the global nature of the problem, the
report says, U.S. action can’t be sufficient, but “strong U.S. emission efforts
will enhance our ability to influence other countries to do the same.”</P>
<P>What happens when Congress asks a question and gets an answer it doesn’t
like? The response from Texas Rep. Joe Barton, senior Republican on the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, provides a clue. “I see nothing substantive in
this report that adds to the knowledge base necessary to make an informed
decision about what steps — if any — should be taken to address climate change,”
Mr. Barton told the New York Times.</P>
<P>He’s right, of course — there is essentially nothing new, and that’s the
point. Every candidate for political office in the next cycle, including for
president, should be asked whether they disagree with the scientific consensus
of America’s premier scientific advisory group, as reflected in this report; and
if so, on what basis they disagree; and if not, what they propose to do about
the rising seas, spreading deserts and intensifying storms that, absent a change
in policy, loom on America’s horizon.</P></DIV></FONT></DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV>__________________________________________<BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen
Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID 83843</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>208
882-7975<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>