by Annemarie Garrett

Created on: February 14, 2007   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

So, the EPA 2008 budget fails to address climate change directly. However, it does address air pollution and outlines strategies with the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And exactly why do we care that it "fails" to address climate change directly? It is actually amazingly intelligent of them. Either that, or incredibly cowardly of them, depending on the motives involved, but in either case the end result can be quite positive. I will explain what I mean.

If you tell certain people that air pollution caused by humans is causing global temperatures to rise, setting the stage for potentially devastating consequences, they can get pretty irate. Have you noticed this? They start spouting about conspiracy theories, cite global climate change being a natural phenomenon over the many millennia of this earth's existence, or simply inform you in a fiery way that God is in control and we humans could not possible cause such mischief as you are describing. Yet if you discuss with these same people the importance of cleaning up the air for the sake of the health of our children and the beauty of our cities, or the importance of reducing our dependence on foreign oil from possibly hostile sources, they will nod sagely and agree with you. So why fight when you can get the results you want by simply taking another tack? Wasn't it once said that diplomacy is "the art of letting someone have your way"? If we all can agree on cleaning up the air and reducing dependence on foreign oil, let's just call it cleaning up the air and reducing dependence of foreign oil and let everyone be happy. If the result is the same, why does it matter if the whole world does not admit that global warming is a problem? If it is a problem, then the main thing is to stop it. Right? Or is that just too reasonable?
So we may never know whether the EPA's failure to address climate change directly is a cowardly submission to the forces that refuse to acknowledge it or a clever way to skirt the opposition. The point is that working on goals that everyone agrees on will actually make a difference. Fighting, name-calling, or even debating, will not.

Learn more about this author, Annemarie Garrett.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.