Opinion: New Leadership Must Address Global Warming

It is time to kick-start a new green economy with millions of new jobs that can’t be exported abroad.

(SALEM, Ore.) - It seems like everyday we hear about the soaring cost of energy and how it threatens to cripple the American economy, which is already suffering.

There is no question that our next leaders will face some big choices regarding energy and the economy as a result. That's why it is so important to understand that we can have a strong economy and a clean environment.

Salem will soon be home to a solar plant, which will bring hundreds of more jobs into the area. Developments like this solar plant can help bring up the economy, and in order to get more of them, we need to take a stronger stand against climate change.

Since the State of Oregon is already acting on global warming, we need to make sure we get represented as climate change champions in Congress by our own new representative, Kurt Schrader. He must let Congress know that serious federal action needs to be taken on this important issue. For example, we need to set science-based goals for greenhouse gas reductions.

Scientists agree that the US needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990s level by 2050 and set an intermediate goal of 25% emission reduction by 2020.

With a national cap-and-trade system for global warming pollution we will not only confront the issue of global warming, we will also kick-start a new green economy with millions of new jobs that can’t be exported abroad. A fight against climate change is a fight for the economy too! Justin Olnes can be reached at: jolnes@willamette.edu

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark November 10, 2008 4:28 pm (Pacific time)

Miles, Jamie: Au contraire, friends ! No bluff here except yours... Plain-English challenge to put up check or shut up. If,when, you either or both dare lay check on Editor's desk, then will produce the documentation you said it was for... Fact is no rational scientist now denies warming trend for planet Earth; those that do simply in thrall to oil et al corporations. IF you can disprove that, we can sell your proof for much more than your $1,000...so, again, put up or shut up. Meanwhile you simply seek to distract attention, steal both space, time here from honest, open dialog with proofs when sought --without check-bluff, by most of us, exchanging courtesy of further reliable data to share for mutual learning.

Miles November 9, 2008 10:11 am (Pacific time)

Jamie as you can see no evidence/documentation will be coming. You proved your point and it was worth a million to those who like to see bluffs exposed. In the not too distant future the current scientific data that rejects global warming will eventually be so overwhelming that the phrase will be [only] used by late night comics.

Henry Ruark November 7, 2008 7:58 pm (Pacific time)

To all: We do ourselves and democracy a mischief when we move away from such excellent reports as this to cavil and cavort over bits and pieces amounting to more political pandering. There's no longer a question about the plundering of the planet, only what and how rapidly we must act to repair that historic fact. Thank you, Justin, for telling it like it really is, and most of us are truly appreciative. The others may come around when the symptoms turn into desperate situations and they are caught in the consequences of delay, obfuscation and denial of realities, if we are unable to act rapidly and rationally enough.

Hank Ruark November 7, 2008 1:40 pm (Pacific time)

Jamie:
Cheapskates always want delivery ahead of cash.
You following same weak retreat pattern here.
When you put up check --and if bank promises to pay-- will then supply product you sought with unwise offer and honest price.
No sense whompin' up data till pay is in picture, even though you seem to believe that it should be supplied on your (cheapskate) demand.
SO let's have no more whimpy whining, just put up dollars or shutup...ID to Editor for direct, and we'll arrange check delivery time with Tim so he can report in depth right here...my story might be a bit less than "objective" !
SO WHERE'S THOSE DOLLARS ! Or were you only bigmouthing for p/pander/purpose/primarily ??
NO check-date proves ppurpose.

Jamie T November 7, 2008 12:28 pm (Pacific time)

Still waiting for a factual source for the "scientists agree" assertion. Apparently nobody can supply one. No surprise there...

Henry Ruark November 7, 2008 8:05 am (Pacific time)

Jamie et al: WHEN can I count on your promised check, kid ? Documentation ready-to-go on eMac, reluctant to hold forever since still starving and must process salable stuff for approaching deadline. IF you such bigmouth, then openhands with check should surely follow, Right ?? IF you see what I mean... Irrelevant personal biased feeling here deserves whatever obloquoy we can pile on it, don't you agree ? Tim, Bon work hard to provide open, honest, democratic dialog, and those who appreciate honest sharing/learning opportunity for civil dialog should protect channel with scorn for those who abuse it. Still await check: "Put up or Shut Up !"-still comparatively civil to outright abuse.

Jamie T November 7, 2008 7:43 am (Pacific time)

Name the source of "scientific agreement," Henry. Why are you so unable to do so?

Henry Ruark November 6, 2008 12:54 pm (Pacific time)

Jamie: Fair is fair, right ? (Forgive that term !) SO you put up the check and I'll put up the documentation. Until check arrives, you only big blowhard without even any freelance publication to show. I'll get check back from bank after cashing and frame on wall next to whole series of article pages, other memorabilia from going-on-7 million words published and paid for...where's yours ? More to point, WHERE IS YOUR CHECK, bigmouthlittleaction.? ID to Editor will bring you direct contact for delivery anytime.

Jamie T November 6, 2008 11:21 am (Pacific time)

Gee, no response from the author of the article, and one "starving freelancer" who can't back up what he is claiming. Where is proof of this "scientific agreement"? I am still waiting....

Henry Ruark November 5, 2008 5:45 pm (Pacific time)

Jamie: OH, so you 'just making this up" re the $1,000 check ??!! IF NOT, await your ID; IF SO, await your shamefaced response here if you can face up to it honestly and openly. SO "put up or shut up".

Henry Ruark November 5, 2008 5:42 pm (Pacific time)

Jamie T: Is that offer general or only for writer ? If general, ID self to Editor for direct contact and I'll tell you where to send the check --and document those numbers neatly, too. Please to hurry, rent's coming due and I'm still starving freelancer...

Jamie T November 5, 2008 2:39 pm (Pacific time)

"Scientists agree that the US needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990s level by 2050 and set an intermediate goal of 25% emission reduction by 2020." - Really? When and where did "scientists agree" to those numbers? Or did you just make this up? I'll give you $1,000 if you can show that statement to be true. But, of course, you can't, because people like you just make this stuff up.

[Return to Top]

Opinion: New Leadership Must Address Global Warming

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News