Andy points us to Nick Kristof’s column in the Times Sunday (yeah, yeah, TimesSelect bleccch), which suggests that arguments that dealing with global warming will hurt the economy are so much Chicken Littling:
But all across the country, states and local governments have chipped away at those arguments for delay â actually, pretty much demolished them â by showing that there are myriad small steps we can take that significantly curb carbon emissions and that are easily affordable.
A leader of that effort has been Portland, earnestly green even when it is wintry gray. In 1993, the city adopted a plan to curb greenhouse gases, and it is bearing remarkable fruit: local greenhouse gas emissions are back down to 1990 levels, while nationally they are up 16 percent. And instead of damaging its economy, Portland has boomed.
Because, like, spending less money on energy is good for everyone who’s not an energy company. That would be most of us.
Of course, with a Republican presidential wanna-be as our current figurehead, we can’t even keep our word to stay in the eminently sensible Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to bring down CO2 emissions.
The next few days are going to be an enormous energy drain for a region that really doesn’t have power to spare. Would a Portland-style plan in our region save us the trouble of having to create new nuke and coal capacity, and prevent further greenhouse gases? Uh, you think we should look into it?
UPDATE (by David): And here’s yet another article with evidence that global warming is a big, imminent problem (this one has to do with the ongoing drought in the Amazon rainforest). Alarmist claptrap? Solid science? You make the call.