We all walk the same Earth and breathe the same air. But some must drink different water. Why else would there be such opposite opinions on the environment? Why do some politicians believe the earth is in a crisis and the party opponents across the aisle don't? Political differences can and should exist on such issues as America's role in the world, the size of the standing army, and the system of health care, but not on whether glaciers are rapidly melting. Debate about size and share of the stimulus package strictly follows party lines, but why should an issue that involves the whole planet succumb to similar divisions?

Doesn't it seem odd that the belief or disbelief in the science of greenhouse gases corresponds with a person's view of abortion? How are they even remotely connected? What is in the water that makes people predictable on one issue due to their stand on another that has no logical association? Why can't a person who is for marriage between a man and a woman also be in agreement with limiting production of greenhouse gases? Why does a Democrat believe and a Republican question?

Since there is no relationship between the U.S. Constitution and CO2, there are some basic questions that all political persuasions need to answer: Does carbon dioxide in the atmosphere influence the amount of solar energy that is reflected back into space? By increasing gases such as CO2, does that raise the amount of heat that is retained and not bounced back into space? If the answers to those two questions are yes, then it is pretty important to ask the next one. Is there an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, and is that increase sufficient to have an impact on the global temperature? If so, then it follows to know, what are the causes of the increase in the gases? Is it a rise in the production or a decrease in the elimination — or both? If it is a boost in the production, where does that come from? Does the burning of fossil fuels like coal and petroleum create CO2 in sufficient quantities to explain the measured increase? If those answers are also yes, then the world should collectively react accordingly.

The anti-fossil fuel argument is further supported if we consider eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, if for no other reason than it is a finite commodity that is dwindling daily. Why have our whole civilization rest on a foundation that is literally being pumped dry? An economy built on an exhaustible substance will only last as long as the liquid flows. So for no other reason than common sense we should do everything in our power to divorce ourselves from the goo created from dead, rotting plants buried underneath the ground.