The Environmental Protection Agency's well-timed announcement that greenhouse gases are dangerous pollutants responsible for climate change has lit a fire under global warming activists and skeptics alike, framing the debate as world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss the next steps to be taken on the climate front.
As ClimateGate 2009 heats up, the question remains: what should we do about that "global warming" thing?
- On the summit's Monday open, 56 newspapers from across the globe including London's The Guardian and The Miami Herald published the same editorial calling on conference politicians to push for reform. Lawmakers in Copenhagen have two choices on how to define our generation, the editorial reads: either as "one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it."
- Paul Krugman at the New York Timeswrites that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is "essential." Giving climate change reform a chance can even bolster the flailing economy with investment spending, Krugman writes, helping to "save the planet at a price we can easily afford."
- Michael Fumento at the Washington Timestook the opposite tack, writing that fighting climate change could be necessary -- when the American piggy bank is a little fuller. "For those who say we can't afford to wait," Fumento writes, "the answer is, we can't afford not to."
- The Wall Street Journal's editorial staff pointed fingers at the EPA, calling the government agency a "bully" picking on playground kids in Congress as it pushes for greenhouse gas legislation in favor of the stalled Senate "cap and trade" agreement. "The White House has opened a Pandora's box that will be difficult to close, that is breathtakingly undemocratic," the editorial reads.
- Not one to miss an important opportunity to dispute the accuracy of global warming research, conservative talking head David Frum took to the blogs on CNN, blaming "arrogant" scientists for the ClimateGate fallout. "Everything important about global warming remains disputed," Frum writes, calling out advocates who "cheat and twist and betray scientific standards and public trust."