Submitted by Barking Watchdog, Apr 11, 2007 11:45

Hello folks

I have to wonder, when seeing politicians debating the question of global warming, why even ask the question whether or not to reduce carbon emissions? To reduce pollution is only smart: Poison the earth or air, and either one will also poison you. It also would seem to me, where a survival issue is even a question, that it is only smart to take the protective view first, take protective action, then continue all lively debate thereafter. Skepticism is okay, and questioning is healthy. But hey, if the extinction of the entire globe is even up for question, why brush aside responsibility as an "alarmist hoax" ? Sometimes, I think our wisdom becomes our folly. Denial can and will take us to our collective graves, at the rate some people are going.

If industries are concerned about the bottom line, then perhaps they might best be reminded that The Bottom Line cannot be earned without survival, the Real Bottom Line. Oops! Hey, and if reduced carbon in the atmosphere results in fewer cancer cases, then aren't employees and CEO's more likely to be reliable? Health is wealth after all, isn't it? What about converting to alternatives as ways to make money? Variet is the very spice of life, and sometimes we have to let go of the old in order to welcome the new. Hanging on to death is not exactly a smart way to make big bucks, is it?

Thank God for Al Gore's movie, the impact he has had, and the impact brave scientists have had even when speaking out after being gagged by the Bush administration. Good people!

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.