Robert Hart is correct that Earth's climate has changed before ("Climate cycles are natural, not man-made," The Daily News, Nov. 2). However, it's the pace of the current change that's most troubling.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: "(T)he amount of rise in carbon dioxide levels since the late 1950s would naturally, in the context of past ice ages, have taken somewhere in the range of 5,000 to 20,000 years; we’ve managed to do it in about 60."

In its report, “America’s Climate Choices,” the National Academy of Sciences states climate change “is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities,” and it calls for strong national action and international cooperation to address it.

The academy contends this is wise risk management because climate impacts will last for hundreds to thousands of years, but climate action can be scaled back if it's shown to be more stringent than what's needed.

Global warming should be a bridge, rather than a wedge issue. I'm encouraged that the bipartisan Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act has been introduced in the House of Representatives.

Let's reach across divides and provide U.S. leadership in the fight to slow climate change.

Terry Hansen

Hales Corners, Wisconsin

Recommended for you

(39) comments

Gary Miller

The only provable effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is the related increase in food production. In 2014 the WHO reported world farmers produced, for the first time ever, 3,100 calories for every person on earth. A 5 or 6 percent surplus. Food is more available and affordable than ever as CO2 increases vegitative growth.

Carlos Ponce

"bipartisan Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act has been introduced in the House of Representatives." H. R. 763 Introduced by Rep. Theodore Deutsch (D-FL) on January 24, 2019. Last action: referred to Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy on January 25, 2019, no action since.

"bi-partisan" - One Republican co-sponsor, Rep Francis Rooney (R- FL)

If this legislation hasn't seen action since the day after it was introduced, it's as good as dead. RIP

This bill would crate a "carbon fee" if enacted.

Carlos Ponce

This bill would create a "carbon fee" if enacted.

Bailey Jones

"Let's reach across divides and provide U.S. leadership in the fight to slow climate change." I'm afraid that coal powered steam ship (the S.S. Trump) has sailed. America has retreated from leading the stewardship of our planet, and China has filled the vacuum. Who is leading the world in the next generation of power generation? Hint - it's not us. We're approaching a tipping point in the affordability of solar and wind power. This point in history is analogous to the situation with semiconductors in the 1950s - a great new technology, but expensive and of limited utility. Then, ten years later, boom. We had the vision to embrace that technological revolution, and lead it - to our great profit.

Miceal O'Laochdha

Hey Bailey, easy on the coal-fired steam ships there. I am proud that my original seaman's papers included the endorsement for Coal-Passer. The Steinbrenner family's ore ships on the Great Lakes were still burning coal in the boilers in those days, although admittedly most steam ships had gone over to burning Bunker C.

Bailey Jones


Carlos Ponce

"that coal powered steam ship" - Bailey must be thinking about the Democrat led House. The bill never made it out of House committee, nor to the House floor for a vote, nor ever went to the to the Senate, nor to the President's desk yet you put the blame on Trump. But haters gotta hate.

Bailey Jones

Nopers, Carlos. I'm talking about withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, removing restrictions on coal power generation, opening up ANWR for drilling, making ludicrous claims about "wind mill cancer", you know, that Trump stuff you defend here daily.

Carlos Ponce

The Paris Climate Agreement is WORTHLESS. It will not change the global temperature one degree. It would cost the United States BILLIONS increasing the cost of goods and your taxes. READ THE TEXT:

Carlos Ponce

Bailey, do you have any PROOF that wind mills do not cause cancer? I don't think you live next to one. There must be a reason Bailey does not.

Miceal O'Laochdha

Carlos, do you have any PROOF that The Donald doesn't cause cancer? I have not heard of any scientific research to prove he does not...

Carlos Ponce

Donald causes CANCER![scared]

Wayne Holt

And easy on the role of China as leading the stewardship of our planet. China is the single largest plastics polluter of the world's oceans from what is dumped in the Yangtze and other river sources. The air in many of their great cities frequently reaches the point of severe health threat to millions of citizens there. They may be ahead of us in some next-gen power technology but they also are in the early 1970s phase of pollution control. Running out of fresh water, clean air and arable farm lands, China is importing much of its food supply from other countries. If you want a eco-warrior nation, look to Iceland and geo-thermal energy. Bonus points: they shafted the bankers who nearly blew up their country in 2008 and after. Smart folks!

Bailey Jones

I was thinking political leadership - being the big dog at the table, now that the US is gone. China certainly doesn't come to mind when one thinks of environmental stewardship.

Wayne Holt

With that I would agree.

Bailey Jones

"Bailey, do you have any PROOF that wind mills do not cause cancer?"

Wow Carlos, you really hurt my feelings. It's like you don't even know me. OF COURSE I have proof:

If you ever find yourself at JSC, check out the windmills that provide power to the Child Care Center. In operation since 2007, nary a cancerous child yet.

Carlos Ponce

I still haven't heard that you would live next to one. No need to wonder why. Remember all the scientific and medical PROOF that cigarette smoking was not harmful?????

Bailey Jones

As always, Carlos, you've lead us to the answer. "All that scientific and medical PROOF that cigarette smoking was not harmful" was bogus science funded by large corporations with a financial interest in continuing to poison the world.

Just like.... wait for it .... the fossil fuel industry.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

And thanks for playing.

I would totally live next to one - but I don't think the good people at in my historic district would look too kindly on it. (I also don't live next to an oil well, coal mine, or nuclear power plant.)

Carlos Ponce

"bogus science funded by large corporations with a financial interest in continuing to poison the world." There's a lot of money invested in windmills.......

Bailey Jones

Carlos - you're like the proverbial junk yard dog. Your loyalty and tenacity are admirable, but the junk you defend - slavery, treason, and now bogus science and corporate malfeasance - are they really deserving of your loyalty? Are these the fruits of your philosophy?

Carlos Ponce

" junk you defend - slavery, treason, and now bogus science"

As far as slavery I do not defend it, never have and your claim is a lie. Wanting to preserve HISTORY is NOT defending slavery.

As far as treason since citizenship and treasonous acts prior to the 13th and 14th Amendment were defined by the individual states, it appears that one of us does not have a grasp of history. (Hint: It's not me!)

As far as "bogus science" much of what was once defined as "bogus" is now viewed as proven. Wait to see what the science of sound frequencies unveils. Some frequencies can cure while others (Low Frequency Noise -LFN) can cause maladies.

Do a web search on "Wind Turbine Syndrome".

Bailey Jones

Sure, I get it Carlos. If you deflect and obfuscate and stretch real science hard enough maybe some people won't see "windmills cause cancer" as the idiotic ramblings of a scientifically illiterate con man.

And if you de-emphasize and downplay the role and impact of slavery as a cause for the civil war and pretend that southern society wasn't racist because there were only a few million slaves and not everyone owned one so the statues of confederate leaders erected in Jim Crow Texas weren't really about white supremacy because for some reason you've adopted southern culture and the "Lost Cause" as your own and...and ... I'm not going to lie, I have no idea why you go on about this.

But, you're going to have to help me out with this treason thing. You seem to be relying on the untested legal argument, suggested by Salmon Chase, that since treason is the act of a citizen against the United States, and "citizen" wasn't yet defined, it was literally impossible to commit treason.

This, despite the fact that the founding fathers defined treason in the CONSTITUTION as "levying war against them" - them being these Unites States. So that no one, previous to the 14th Amendment, could possibly have committed treason against the US? Not even those who had held national offices reserved for citizens only - thus demonstrating their citizenship? That's your argument? So Lee marching an army into the sovereign states of Maryland and Pennsylvania and levying war against them wasn't treason. And the treason indictments against Davis and Lee were, what - political theater? And your purpose for this defense of men who waged war against America and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in order to preserve their right to hold millions more, and their descendants, in absolute bondage, forever, is what again exactly?

Carlos Ponce

Hint to Bailey: The world is not flat......

Jeff Patterson

Please tell me that we are not seriously having a conversation about windmills actually causing cancer....

Bailey Jones

Welcome to the Trump Administration.

Charles Douglas

Mr. Jones> You may not understand Mr. PONCE'S point but I don't understand ýours when you draw a line between to RACIST WHITE slave owners, who owned, beat, deprived slaves of their liberty, and raped many. I find it offensive for an individual, WHITE OR BLACK, to throw out this type of argument as though it could be taken for the truth! It is nonsense to say, because one man was a President and owned and abused BLACK SLAVES, ..that he was better than a man who was a General who owned and abused BLACK SLAVES! SIN IS SIN!!!! WRONG IS WRONG!!!! Now since yall are changing names, and tearing down statues, and eradicating words out of the English language we cannot use, and telling us who is qualified to speak at colleges in this country, and who is not, I am waiting to see if the names of Galveston, Houston, Washington State, and WASHINGTON DC, will change because slave owners founded them! Hey, didn't Old Jim Bowie, own slaves? Okay what does that do for the Alamo? What about The 600-700 slaves Thomas Jefferson owned? What about his head on Mount Rushmore? What we gonna doooooo? I say this, either teardown everybody's legacy who owned slaves or leave everybody's legacy who owned slaves alone, ....and MOVE ON!!! Now, what do you say?

Bailey Jones

Oh Charles, I wish I knew how to quit you. Last time - the issues with confederate statues are

1) They celebrate treason and violence against the US

2) They celebrate violence against blacks - and were part of the southern strategy after Reconstruction to reaffirm white supremacy, which included debt peonage, chain gangs, the KKK, Jim Crow and segregation.

3) They are symbols of oppression - not incidentally, but intentionally erected for the purpose of intimidating non-whites.

4) They are not appropriate in many public places, for instance a court house where a POC might be looking for justice, or a school where a POC might be looking for enlightenment.

What is NOT the issue with confederate statues is

1) they depict people who owned slaves.

The fact that America was founded and built on the backs of slaves is so integral to our culture and national character I would never try to remove it from public view. If anything, I bring it up for the opposite reason. It is our original sin, our unfulfilled promise, our greatest moral failure and it should never be forgotten, rationalized, or minimized - it should always be seen, like a malignant wart, on the bronze face of every American "hero" who participated in slavery. Treason, on the other hand, is not a part of our national character and does not deserve to be celebrated. The confederacy is by definition and creation anti-American, and does not deserve to be celebrated.

Charles Douglas

Okay, Mr. Jones, I know that I'm being a thorn, and I'm done nic-picking, ....until somebody bring slavery up again! That is the best I can do. I started to tell you about one of my forefathers who served or was conscripted into serving in the Confederate Army, but I better save that for another day!

Bailey Jones

Charles, I hope you would agree with me that people should be honored for the good things they've done, and not the bad. We honor Washington for leading the continental army through the revolution and being our first president - not for accidentally starting the French and Indian War, or being a slave holding land speculator. We depict him as president, or general, not holding a slave whip, beating one of his slaves. For Jefferson, it's the Declaration, and his presidency, and his embassy to France, the University of Virginia, etc., not for fathering (and disowning) 6 children with a slave who was also his dead wife's half sister, Sally (how messed up is that?). We depict him as a statesman, not as a rapist. But when you have a statue of a confederate general in confederate garb, or a confederate president - what are you honoring? Is there any reason to erect a statue of Jeff Davis, a Mississippi politician, or the Virginian Robert E Lee, in Texas, other than because of their association with the confederacy? I don't think so. America, for all her racial problems, has always held the hope and promise of an end to slavery and the equality of all mankind. The confederacy destroyed that hope and promise - indeed it was established to destroy that hope and promise. That's the difference.

Jim Forsythe

The president and some special people have "wind-turbine syndrome. Why is the president so against wind power? Ever since he battled with Scottish officials over a plan to build what he called a “really ugly wind farm” within sight of his golf resort in Aberdeen and lost, it started. This is when he started with his unfounded idea about wind power. He has nothing to back up his claim (facts), and he has no-one backing these type of ideas he comes up with, but a few that back anything he says. Wind farms reduce the national burden of cancer particularly lung cancer—if they replace coal-fired electrical generating plants. Air pollution from the fine particulate matter that coal plants spew is linked to a higher risk of early death from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Who's the idiot?

In 2012, Trump warned that L.E.D. light bulbs cause cancer, and that one must “be careful,” because “the idiots who came up with this stuff don’t care.” Meanwhile, he believes fracking poses “ZERO health risks” and is, in fact, good for you.

Carlos Ponce

After reading Jim's post I was able to decipher his intent and meaning: "GRR GRR. ORANGE MAN BAD!"[wink]

Jim Forsythe

I never referred to anyone as "ORANGE MAN ". You can if you want.

My intent is not hidden, people that make unfounded claims about wind power causing cancer, are just wrong!

You complain about fake news, and you are now defending fake news.

Carlos Ponce

I still read "GRR GRR. ORANGE MAN BAD!" [wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink][wink]

The extra winks because you missed the first one. Should I include more or do you get the idea this post was done tongue in cheek. Oh Liberals - no sense of humor!!!

Jim Forsythe

You have no reason to call the president ORANGE MAN.

I did not know it was a wink. Looked more like a s--- eating grin.

You are the one that insisted that wind turbines cause cancer. Now you want to deflect by saying something else. That it was done tongue in cheek, when you were pressing your point, that wind turbines cause cancer. As I can not tell what was funny, please highlight the humor. as I have reread all the post and found noting you said was done tongue in cheek. Maybe you just amuse yourself.

Carlos Ponce

Now Jim's post looks like "GRR GRR GRR ORANGE MAN BAD!"

Carlos Ponce


Bailey Jones

And CO2 is good for you, too. Plants need CO2 to grow - so more CO2 is better, right? Seems simple enough. Of course there's nothing simple about nature. A recent study in Japan and China showed that increasing CO2 makes food crops, like rice, grow faster - but the faster growth results in less nutritional value. "a significant reduction (an average of −10.3%) in protein was observed for all rice cultivars. Similarly, significant reductions in iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) were also observed (−8.0 and −5.1%, respectively) among all rice cultivars tested."

Wayne Holt

"1) They celebrate treason and violence against the US (further up the page)."

Bailey, got to call you on this one. How does one commit treason when the STATE you are fighting for is part of a voluntary FEDERATION? There was NO national government. It is clear from language still in existence in laws such as the IRS code that the states were referred to as foreign to the US government, which was comprised of the seat of federal government in the District of Columbia. Those states that wished to leave that VOLUNTARY union should have been allowed to but Lincoln instead chose to wage war upon them. In the sense our Founders had of a union, the Confederacy was more aligned with the spirit of voluntary association than Lincoln's government, which ushered in the first income tax, closed newspapers for criticizing the Union and even arrested those expressing their First Amendment free speech rights to disagree with the government.

The South has a lot to apologize for regarding that era but treason sure isn't one of them. In fact, it turns the historical record on its head when it does.

Bailey Jones

I'm afraid I don't share your view of history. Nationalism was well established long before the civil war. In fact, one of the fundamental reasons for writing a new constitution in 1787 was the "voluntary" nature of the failed confederacy that preceded it. When South Carolina threatened to secede in 1832, Andrew Jackson - hardly a "big government" proponent, issued this response - "Seduced as you have been, my fellow countrymen by the delusion theories and misrepresentation of ambitious, deluded & designing men, I call upon you in the language of truth, and with the feelings of a Father to retrace your steps. As you value liberty and the blessings of peace blot out from the page of your history a record so fatal to their security as this ordinance will become if it be obeyed. Rally again under the banners of the union whose obligations you in common with all your countrymen have, with an appeal to heaven, sworn to support, and which must be indissoluble as long as we are capable of enjoying freedom. Recollect that the first act of resistance to the laws which have been denounced as void by those who abuse your confidence and falsify your hopes is Treason, and subjects you to all the pains and penalties that are provided for the highest offence against your country. Can you consent to become Traitors? Forbid it Heaven!"

As I suggested elsewhere - reading the editorials of the day (1860) reveals that the dissolution of the union was in fact considered treason by many - and not just in the north. This is typical - from the Wheeling Virginia Daily Intelligencer - "...hear me and remember this: that your only safety is in the Union. Scout the doctrine that your first allegiance is due to the State. It is nonsense. It is worse than nonsense. It is treason in the bud. It is false. It is false in every way. Your first allegiance is to the Federal Union. Your safety is in adhering to the Union while there is a spar, or an oar, or a plank to rest upon. If you do, you are loyal. If not, you are traitors to your country, and will deserve the fate of traitors..."

Obviously, confederates didn't consider themselves to be traitors. There's very good discussion of the origin of nationalism in law and American culture in "What Hath God Wrought - The Transformation of America, 1815 - 1848", and a much shorter summary, here - .

Regardless, it's impossible for me to see the desertion of one's military post to take up arms against the military you once swore to protect as anything other than treason. I think if I was a Union soldier at my post in Fort Sumter, ex-union soldiers firing stolen union cannon balls at me would feel quite a bit like treason.

I'll also take issue with your characterization of free speech rights. No doubt Lincoln cracked down on dissent during the war - as has happened in times of crisis before the civil war and after. But so did the government of the confederacy. And it was southern politicians who censored the US Mail from the 1830's on in order to keep "incendiary" abolitionist literature out of the south. But are we really going to compare Lincoln to Davis in regards to the civil rights of mankind?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.