Is Congress Dealing with a "Planetary Emergency"?

Al Gore, following his environmental boost in the public eye after his compelling film An Inconvenient Truth, is now taking another stance to address global warming. Last Wednesday (3/21) Gore came to Congress promoting his idea that global warming is an issue of emergency that needs to be taken care of aggressively by the federal government with immediate action.

Gore reiterated the anthropocentric nature of the global warming crisis and that taking no action would cause severe negative global consequences. He suggested that the U.S. government should be setting the precedent for immediate action on this issue; potentially following the British model of curbing greenhouse gas emissions and enacting energy-saving tactics. He brings up the question, “Why are we waiting around for another country to take command of the issue of global warming when we have the capability and international power to embark on this mission ourselves?”

The reaction from Congress showed that there was no debate about the underlying science surrounding the issue, but rather that Gore’s comments took on a more radical than rational tone. There was a definite trend showing far les support from Republican committee leaders than their overall “rank-and-file” colleagues. Republicans tended to focus their argument on how the U.S. was going to take on this issue, given the country’s current fuel and power driven economy. The overall consensus growing out of this debate is the agreement that global warming is an anthropocentric problem that needs to be addressed. However, what still lies in debate is whether such an extreme, “right now”, and potentially costly approach the best approach?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washington/22gore.html?_r=1&ref=environment&oref=slogin