November 10, 1997
Return to this forum's introduction.
Questions answered in this forum:
Can the science behind global warming predictions be trusted? Can an effective program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions be created? Should there be a tax on gas-guzzling vehicles? Could nuclear power reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions? Can a system of emissions credits reduce America's production of greenhouse gases? Should developing countries be included in a global climate treaty? Viewer comments
October 22, 1997:
A discussion of President Clinton's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
June 25, 1997:
President Clinton is backing the EPA's push for tougher air quality standards, but critics say they're too costly.
February 18, 1997:
The federal Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new clean air standardsthat have been criticized by some industry, state and local officials.
March 6, 1997:
The fastest rise in temperature for perhaps ten thousand years is having a dramatic effect on the brittle ecosystem of Antarctica.
January 4, 1996
British meteorologists report that the Earth's surface temperature was higher than the average in 1995.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of science and the environment.
EPA Web site on global warming
Environmental Defense Fund
Trevor McNeil of San Francsico comments:
Everything humanity has strived for, everything that mother nature has adapted for, to be destroyed only because humans can't function without car? It's not worth it. We need to, now more than ever begin to slow emissions which every scientist who isn't working for Chevron has told you to take seriously. The effects of our own actions and daily activates are second only to nuclear war. Do you honestly think that there is any other reasonable alternative? Do you honestly think that we can keep on doing what we're doing for another generation?
Kent Sauter of Mobile, AL, comments:
I find it difficult to see how investigators can make recommendations involving billions of dollar on such a small sample of data (several decades) about a planet which has been evolving for several billion years. It seems to me that we should sample data for at least several hundred years before drawing any reasonable conclusions; after all the planet has survived several ice-ages with mean temperatures that have varied much more than measurements in this past millennia. It seems to me there is a lot of fatalistic thinking without taking into account the through geologic/environmental history of the planet. How can investigators be so certain of the doom and gloom without taking into account the long history of the planet?
Dan Weessies of San Francisco, CA, comments:
Why isn't there a climatologist, a meteorologist, a computer modeling specialist, a chaos theory expert, or someone else with some scientific expertise on this panel? Two environmental activists and a business lobbyist hardly constitute a panel capable of discussing this issue from a scientific viewpoint. Maybe the political discussion, which is all this panel can do, of how to deal best with a problem should be shelved until we can PROVE that their is one?
Clarence D. Bassett of Clifton Park, NY, comments
In looking over the material on this page on global warming, it appears that I only see statements from persons representing environmental groups who have been at the forefront of efforts to advocate a strong position by the U.S. regarding global warming. It appears that the scientific study of the problem is completed and the answer is an unequivocal finding that the increase in CO2 is a problem that threatens the long-term continuation of our society without dramatic changes. Is it true that there is no credible dissenting scientific opinion on this issue? Can we dismiss all those who offer arguments that the pace of global warming is much slower or immeasurable as the pleadings of quacks who were bought and paid for by industrial interests? I personally have not formed an solid opinion on this issue. But, the fact that we refer to "opinions" instead of "understanding" on what must be a decision based on scientific information says a lot about the difficulties we as a society are having in dealing with this issue.
Harold Gunzerman of Orlando, FL, comments:
It just does not make sense that about 133 countries will NOT have to abide by the Global Warming Treaty. We will be asked to limit ourselves while countries like China, India, Mexico, etc.,--will NOT be limited and be able to pollute the atmosphere to their heart's content. If this supposed global warming is such a catastrophe that needs immediate attention; would not ALL the countries need to be involved? Who's fooling whom now??
Jimmy Koss of Wichita, KS, comments: Through outrageous protests and lack of science facts, the eco-activists have already destroyed the nuclear energy industry for a clean, non-soot causing form of electrical energy. These eco-fascists have actually CONTRIBUTED to the use of fossil fuels. They have no one to blame but THEMSELVES. Why should we listen to this latest scam they are trying to promote on us? They will not be happy until all humans are living in a grass hut and in a socialized world. This issue has NOTHING to do with the climate!
Mark Haslanger of Oshkosh, WI, comments:
We've already seen the ease with which domestic companies move offshore for cheaper labor. Without global commitment to lower emissions, won't they move to get to more favorable emission standards?
The developing nations want the "American way." They want to pollute to get rich, then worry about the consequences. I don't see how they can have it both ways. If they are concerned about global warning, then show it. Don't expect others to shoulder the burden while they do nothing to improve the situation.
Sure, we're the wealthiest nation and the biggest offender. We got there, not through malice, but through innovation within the accepted norms. The rules have changed and so must the globe. This is not an exercise in limiting the most successful so the wannabe's can catch up. This is an exercise in saving our global environment...everyone has a part.
The PBS NewsHour is Funded in part by: Additional Foundation and Corporate Sponsors
Copyright © 1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.