Now, I don't think it's speciest to make decisions for the nematodes, chilopoda, herd beasts and our brethren thinking animals such as chimps, dogs, birds, horses, whales, dolphins, not to mention the plants whose raison d'etre is --- non-existent? Seems that way anyhow.
Let's just make sure they're the right decisions, for All the right reasons.
From the CSM.
But beyond detailing current and projected effects of warming – including sea-level rise, vanishing alpine glaciers, and increases in severe-weather events – the report hints at the need for a conscious control over the environment and a unity of purpose that humans have yet to achieve on such an enormous scale.Emphasis mine, because, well, it's long been obvious if in only the abstract to most folks. It's a choice we now know we have between Social Survival of the Fittest or Simply Survival of the Species.
Flip a coin, eh. Whadda you care once you're "in Heaven", right?
It doesn't necessarily mean we can outlive this catastrophe of our own consequence, but it certainly offers the only hope we have of doing so.
In case you're not paying attention, Congress. Your unaddressed business begs your prompt and Constitutionally recommended attention.
And in Washington, the report is likely to add considerable momentum to various bills in Congress aimed at reducing US CO2 emissions using a mandatory cap-and-trade approach – something that has been anathema to the Bush White House. Although the issue earned a brief mention in his State of the Union address as a serious problem, the president made no mention of the IPCC report or of global warming in general in a radio address Saturday.
[Warming? What warming? Laura, turn up the heat, will ya?]
Despite the Decider's decision to not mention the only issue more important to America than his personally realized catastrophe in Iraq, there are things we can do now, as an entire nation, via sound policy. Starting last decade was the advisable choice of times to git it, but it's not too late to salvage 3 centuries from now so our descendants don't have to live on Waterworld.
Setting emissions targets isn't enough, he says. With a firm target that means something from the atmosphere's perspective, policymakers are in a better position to determine the technological path countries will need to follow, as well as put a firm economic value on carbon dioxide so the costs and benefits of mitigation – and of delay – can be more accurately assessed.In other words, there's a hell of a lot money to be made by everyone in the long run, just as long as we provide for there being a long run.