Michael Gerson: Battle over climate change is more divisive than government shutdown

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Oct. 12, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    It's not a scientific discussion on the opposing side. Statements such as we could all live in Texas are a perfect example.

    We know how much CO2 we have released and we know it's in the ocean and in the air. It's going to DO SOMETHING!

    The atmospheric CO2 levels we have now have not been sustained for the last 10 million years until now.

    But do whatever you want. Just make sure you tell your kids so they know who to slap later.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Oct. 12, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    @ Maudine

    I agree with every thing you said. Texas is an example of how much space all the people could live in. Food is another problem, Genetic engineering and chemical sprays are depleting the vitamins and minerals in the food and polluting the ground water. What is happening is we are polluting the food we eat and the water we drink and the air with every smoldering stinking cotton mattress burned.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    @ george of the jungle: The problem is not so much where is everyone going to live - the problems are what are people going to eat? What are people going to drink? How are food and other resources going to get from spot A to Texas? What about waste disposal?

    A family of four needs about 2 acres to grow a year's worth of food - and that is if the family is vegetarian, eggs, meat, and dairy require even more space.

    That same family needs 1460 gallons of water a year just for drinking - that does not include water for growing or preparing food nor for personal hygiene.

    There are a great many places in this world that are not suitable for growing food and there are many, many places where safe water is in limited supply. Global climate change impacts food growing regions and seasons and water supply. These are the things that are limited - not space.

    Just because everyone could fit in Texas, doesn't mean we could live in Texas - without access to food and water, we die.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    Hmmm… an article that tries to rationally explain in how science actually works (i.e., no such thing as absolute certainty), the facts of climate change, and the dysfunctional political landscape of today.

    For those who prefer ideology and emotionally charged media (in the words of Keith Moon), this will go over like a Le(a)d Zeppelin…

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Oct. 11, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    Conservatives: "There's no warming." Science: "There is warming." It comes down to that. The next generation will drown and broil due to our inaction. Utah may very well become uninhabitable.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 11, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    Immediate hard costs for long term "uncertain" benefits is a political nightmare. The benefits will be to our grandchildren and (as our budgeting process has shown) we are more than willing to stick them with our bills. Further, we need to pay the environmental "bills" of our grandparents who did not fully understand the environmental consequences of their actions.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 7:02 a.m.

    When everyone in the whole wide world can live in a space of Texas. I think of Texas to the earth. How much of any thing we do can ever effect climate change. It's going to do what it's going to do and there isn't anything any one can do about it. We must think we are some thing if if we think we can. Ego what an ego.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Oct. 11, 2013 6:29 a.m.

    Change is hard and costly. Think about how costly it was to change from horse and hand cart to railroads in America's great Western expansion. Or how costly it was for the government to build the Internet in America's transition from snail mail. But the capitalism benefits of the transition were enormous!

    There are economic benefits of transitioning to cleaner energy. Iowa, Kansas, and South Dakota all get more than 20 percent of their electricity from wind power, which is price stable. And wind energy's economic impacts in rural communities have been enormous, creating second-income streams for farmers and landowners who benefit with lease payments from hosting turbines.

    California's push into cleantech has created an economic boom to include Tesla to solar energy that is driving Silicon Valley's next generation of innovation and profits. Sure electric vehicles will hurt oil companies, but they allow our future transportation system to be potentially run by sun and wind. And we don't have to fight wars in the Mideast or build leaking pipelines across America's bread basket states to keep "our" oil flowing.

    Addressing climate change means new economic opportunities for a cleaner, healthier future!