Follow this blog:
RSS

EPA’s stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce

By | August 20, 2010, 4:31 AM PDT

Been stewing over this one for a few days, because it’s likely to be a protracted dispute. But did you know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has actually filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia that challenges the U.S. Environment Protection Agency’s decision not to reconsider its position on greenhouse gas emissions?

The Chamber of Commerce along with a bunch of other groups including the mysterious Coalition for Responsible Regulation had petitioned the EPA to reconsider its finding from late last year. So now, some of them are resorting to legal action.

In filing its suit, the Chamber raised the spectre that many people who favor inaction on climate change seem to favor right now: that the EPA’s finding will have a “significant negative impact” on jobs and local economies.

“The Chamber’s lawsuit challenges the wisdom of regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, which simply was never intended to regulate something as complex as global climate change. The Chamber’s lawsuit does not address the science of climate change. … The Chamber supports efforts to address climate change that allow our economy to grow, increase the nation’s energy security, and improve our environment. We continue to call on Congress to work through the legislative process, rather than having the EPA misapply environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act, which was not created to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.”

So, at this point I’m thinking about all the times — this year alone — our legislators have backed away from doing something about the environment. How thrilled has the Chamber been about that? I’m also wondering, as a matter of course, if this will prompt any other high-profile companies to ditch their Chamber memberships, as Apple and Pacific, Gas & Electric and a bunch of other companies did last year. Dell, for one, is sticking, at least according to a recent blog on its corporate social responsibility page.

But the Chamber has a bigger issue to deal with internally: the rise of a maverick group called the Chambers for Innovation and Clean Energy. The coalition is made up of local chambers who are focused on the flip side of addressing climate change — that it could be a catalyst for group. (Very small at this point so who knows what will happen.) Here’s some of its position statement:

“America can recognize up to 1.9 million new jobs, increase annual household income $1,100 and boost GDP $111 billion through comprehensive clean energy and climate policies. These are sound investments our nation cannot afford NOT to make.”

From my perspective, the other thing we can’t afford to do is sit around and do nothing. One good thing about this lawsuit, though, is that we’ll be able to judge accordingly just how committed certain big businesses are to their corporate sustainability missions. If you want to learn more about the businesses that ARE actually putting money behind their environmental promises, there’s a great list on the coalition’s site. Can you envision your own company’s logo there?

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Heather Clancy

About Heather Clancy

Heather Clancy is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Heather Clancy

Heather Clancy

Contributing Editor, Business

Heather Clancy has written for United Press International, ZDNet, Entrepreneur, Fortune Small Business, the International Herald Tribune and the New York Times. She holds a degree from McGill University. She is based in New Jersey.

Follow her on Twitter.

Heather Clancy

Heather Clancy
Writing publicly about what the high-tech industry is actually doing to help itself and the world get greener or more sustainable is one way I figure I can contribute more meaningfully to said effort. I'm also a big OMG-kind-of-fan of smart leadership, which is why the goodly folks who publish this blog let me go on about this topic and why I am always on the hunt for forward-looking business management ideas.

My daily writing is focused on looking for topics for my blogs, GreenTech Pastures and Business Brains. I also write often about emerging technology trends such as mobile computing, unified communications and cloud computing. Occasionally, I will pop up at an industry conference in some sort of speaking capacity. In cases where a speaking engagement involves a sponsor that may be covered in this blog, that fact will be disclosed in coverage as appropriate.

My corporate writing work usually consists of crafting research white papers about some aspect of technology. In the event that my commentary (in written, audio or video form) mentions a company for which I have provided consulting advice, I will disclose that fact. However, there is no connection between these projects and the topics that I'm covering in my blog.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
22
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce quit being anything but a Republican lobbying group a while back.
Posted by JimSatterfieldW
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
First of all, let's look at the lawsuit by looking at what they are saying- the process is the problem. The EPA is an agency acting at the whim of the executive branch, which, if any of you had read the US Constitution, you would know that laws and regulations of this scope, that affect business and interstate commerce, are supposed to be structures, debated, and enacted by Congress- not the President. Point one.

Point two is, what is it going to take before you all admit that Global Warming (I'm sorry? Oh, the name has changed again to "Climate Change"? I get so confused, because not 30 years ago they were calling "Global cooling") is not man-made. Yes, climate change exists, and yes, there are things we can do to be kinder to the environment, and you will find if you look around that we have already done more in America than anywhere else on earth to take care of our planet. But the Global Warming that we have been hearing about for the last ten years doesn't even exist. Weren't the leaked emails and disgraced scientists enough to show you that?

It is a money-making scheme. Always has been. Look at Al Gore's net worth just after he left office compared to last year- huge jumps in income because of his positions on Global Warming. Yet it hasn't stopped him from using an inordinant amount of electricity in his mansion, or using private air transportation when travelling- one of the most egregious carbon emmissive modes of transport that exists.

Just be sure when you are writing about this stuff, at least you are writing the truth. We've all had enough hype, thank you.
Posted by morgansm1
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The same agency that now sees fit to regulate hot air...
...also thinks that it's okay to use heavy-metal-laden coal ash in
agriculture.

It's difficult to take seriously an agency that chooses to sign off on
well known sources of contamination while "getting tough" on
scientifically dubious ones.

JimSatterfieldW might be a bit correct in stating that The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce quit being anything but a Republican
lobbying group a while back. But then again, the EPA has
long been the comfortable home to the eco-fascists of the far left.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
Gotta agree with the Chamber on this one. While congress may be ineffective at anything other than spending money, we can't have a government agency, or a single branch of government circumventing the process. The slope is too slippery...
Posted by milonfz
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
morgansm1,

Humanity's impact on Global Warming has not been sufficiently disproven. The evidence you list has been debunked, to the best of my knowledge. At the very least, there is not consensus on this.

But you have a good point. It doesn't matter if we've caused it or not, poluting is a dumb thing to do.

Now, I've got a question to address your first point, the answer to which will either mullify it or support it: How was the EPA created? (I honestly don't know this, yet)
Posted by grassdogstudio
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
The EPA was created by a Republican President (Nixon) who saw the need for one organization to oversee all the regulatory agencies that dealt with environmental issues. The EPA enforces the Clean air act that congress passed. Because of the nature of Congressional members to be in favor of or against environmental issues (depending upon which corporations lobbiest is padding their PAC fund) some other entity other than them should be able to call companies to account for the pollution that they put into the air, the land and the water. I for one don't want to be breath toxic fumes from plants or cars, drink polluted water or worry that my family might end up with cancer because of where we live (remember Love Canal).

Look at history, business have polluted with impunity for centuries. Everyone cries about how bad these regulations are for business but they don't give a hoot about how not enforcing them will affect peoples health. I live in an area that the air quality is one of the worst in the country. Asthma and other breathing problems abound but countys, city's and state governments don't care about us, just the money they get from taxes from these companies.
Posted by BarrKin
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
BarrKin
"Look at history, business have polluted with impunity for centuries. "
So have individuals... including you, your parents, grandparents friends and enemies. In fact since CO2 is now a pollutant, every breath you take is adding to pollution.

Add to that ever drop of treated water you use is adding to pollution, every time you flush the toilet you are personally adding to pollution.

Every bit of food you eat contributes to pollution.
Where does it end?

Stop blaming businesses.

That being said, I don't want to breathe dirty air, or drink, swim in, or bathe in polluted water, nor do I want to eat food from polluted areas.

Yes, some rules must be set up, but what the EPA is doing is clearly over-stepping.

Since the demorat controlled congress can not get their job killing, standard of living reducing, price raising Cap and Trade and other such nonsense passed, they are wanting the EPA to do it.

They need to get a backbone. In fact ALL politicians need to get a backbone.

Regarding the "Chambers for Innovation and Clean Energy." IF they can produce something efficient that can compete without handouts (government interference) then I am all for it. When something is PROFITABLE to implement businesses will flock to it.

But if it takes government stealing from taxpayers to pay for it... then it's just theft. Plain and simple.
Posted by Albee_Freeoneday
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
After working as an engineer in various projects from communications to power plants I wonder where e Chambers for Innovation and Clean Energy gets its facts to support the argument that "?America can recognize up to 1.9 million new jobs, increase annual household income $1,100 and boost GDP $111 billion through comprehensive clean energy and climate policies." ..... who are you joking? Do you honestly believe that such a large number of jobs and income is really going to be generated by this? Where are these stats coming from?
Posted by krustykanuck
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
"Do you honestly believe that such a large number of jobs and
income is really going to be generated by this? Where are these
stats coming from?"

Easy to start creating those stats by calculating only half the
equation. Calculate jobs created and businesses making profits.
Ignore the jobs lost and profits lost from other businesses. I think
the more complete story on another country doing this green
initiative is an average of over two jobs lost for every green job
created, and a number of those green jobs require constant
infusions of government money to stay around.... In other words,
on the whole green energy isn't cost effective and truly ready to
supply our energy needs. The future might be better, but right
now it isn't really the brightest idea.

Personally, I am behind the Chamber of Commerce on this. I do
believe that we should pollute less (I don't believe in man-caused
"climate change"). I do believe we need to stop wasting so much
energy. But I don't think government should be doing this. This
should be left to the people. However, if government is going to
be playing this game, then the rules MUST apply or we lose that
which keeps our government from becoming tyrannical. In other
words, the EPA does not MAKE law. Congress makes law. The
whole idea of checks and balances was to keep too much power
from being in one place. Congress makes laws. The president
executes the law (executive branch, eh?). And the judicial branch
are the judges. That way no one branch of government is judge,
jury and executioner--in a sense.

I just wish it was Congress slapping the hands of the EPA instead
of our businesses doing what government should have done in
reigning each other in.
Posted by dedrizen
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
dedrizen, it isn't just a matter of creating one job after losing two... which I happen to agree with you on that particular statement anyways. But rather if there are jobs, they would involve mainly production and maintenance as there is little required development of these already existing products (and the research into future energies does not require millions of engineers, managers, technicians, sales staff) as would say development among competing companies in other industries.... I could see an increase in maybe a 100,000 jobs created in this... but millions? Who are they kidding?
Posted by krustykanuck
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Well stated morgansm1
There are plenty of wrongs on both sides what, and how, the EPA is
trying to do is wrong.
Posted by Keeping Current
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
The EPA is not acting on the whim of the Executive Branch. It is required to act on CO2 by the Clean Air Act as a result of the SCOTUS decision in Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency in 2007.

Also, regarding jobs, the studies I'm aware of indicate there are more jobs per unit of energy produced in alternative energy technologies than there are in traditional fossil fuel energy production.
Posted by riverat1
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
Well, from the sound of some of the comments here, it appears the Chamber has done another admirable job of mobilizing its army of naysayers to try to drown out common sense. The real argument over whether global warming exists died along with half of New Orleans, but some people just don't want the rest of us to get to work fixing it.

Reminds me of another era, 1938-41. Roosevelt and others saw the storm clouds clearly gathering over Europe and Asia, and they tried to bolster America's military might in any way they could. Unfortunately, a bunch of naysaying "patriots" (and their Republican congressional lackeys) blocked every reasonable attempt, claiming the threats didn't exist or could be contained by other nations.

Only the tragedy of Pearl Harbor and the deaths of 2350 Americans overcame the self-serving propaganda campaign of the obstructionists. Without the "sneaky" military programs put in place by Roosevelt behind the backs of the paralyzed Congress, replacement battleships and aircraft carriers would not have been available to stem the tide of Japanese aggression in 1942. Of course, without the interference of Congress, or better yet with it's help, Pearl Harbor probably would never have happened in the first place.

And now, more than half a century later, we again have to face the entrenched non-believers, who refuse to see the truth despite the overwhelming evidence, and worse yet, mount a campaign of deception and rancor so that they might not lose a few dollars of their precious investments in the likes of BP and Exxon.

We forget there's a reason their called conservatives. I would go a bit further and call them criminally negligent.
Posted by quintasTiberius
20th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
This lawsuit is about the EPA classifying CO2 as a pollutant. I guess one of the things I can do to reduce CO2 is to kill animals. I could kill about 30 cows to offset my CO2 footprint. - Do you you not see the fallacy of the EPA's position here?

As for New Orleans... My memory says that the cat3 hurricane that hit New Orleans was blamed on Global Warming. But the year following Katrina we had an abnormally inactive hurricane season - which was also blamed on Global Warming. You can't have it both ways. You lose credibility when you blame everything on Global Warming.

Can anyone even quantify how much man-made global warming has occurred? The only I could find was that oceans have warmed a few hundredths of one degree in the last 40 years - but not how many of those few hundredths are man-made.

From the NASA website I found that tropical ocean temperatures have cycled over the last 500+ million years between +6 and -2.5 degrees Celsius, from the overall long term average. Right now we are at -2. It's been on an upswing for a couple of million years from near the coldest that it has ever been. The last time it peaked was about 59 million years ago at about +2.5 degrees. I wonder if the dinosaurs knew about this.
Posted by donnert
21st Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
"The only I (sic) could find was that oceans have warmed a few hundredths of one degree in the last 40 years . . ."

Obviously, you couldn't find any real data because you weren't even trying. A simple Google search turns up that the average temp of the oceans have increased almost half a degree in the past 40 years. Using your own statement, if we have been in an upswing from the coldest point (-2.5 degrees) for the past couple of million years and we are now at -2 degrees, that must mean we have gained the vast majority of that increase in just the past 40 years. I suppose that's your idea of natural change.

As for what constitutes a pollutant, a simple search for a definition would have told you that it is any substance added to the atmosphere that is detrimental to mankind or the environment, and since even the most cynical naysayers would admit that CO2 in excessive amounts adds to the greenhouse effect (whether man-made or not), then it is clearly a pollutant and clearly under the purview of the EPA.

Only someone who wants to be able to pump more of it into the atmosphere without any fear of regulation would argue against that.
Posted by quintasTiberius
21st Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
The global mean temp is not even that ... graphs you see almost never show temperature - they show deviation from global mean temp (avg) ... except that the global mean is based on an infintessimally tiny poirtion of the global temp record - most often something like 1961-2000 ... ... so we only know that we are hotter or cooler than the avg temp from 1961-2000 ... which is entirely meaningless - since the temperature record shows a plus or minus 2.5 degree C deviation throughout a single temperature cycle - which is appx 125,000 years long

What the temps were from 1961-200 are meaningless and worthless ... especially considering that temps were so cool in early 1970's they were predicting an ice age.

Sea ice - especially Antarctic ice - is well above 2009 and well above the 1973-2008 mean.


- Physicists G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. Khilyuk and M. V. Gorfunkel, authors of the paper Cooling of the Atmosphere due to CO2, also published the peer-reviewed study Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect in Environmental Geology, International Journal of Geosciences, providing physical evidence that rising CO2 should result in slight cooling of climate, and is benefitial to agricultural productivity and reforestation. The authors also find that methane accumulation has no significant effect on the climate.

- The international news media hailed the archaeological find of a British naval ship the HMS Investigator on July 25 in an area far north (600 km) of the Arctic Circle that was previously unreachable due to sea ice. The HMS Investigator was abandoned in 1853, but not before sailing the last leg of the elusive Northwest Passage. Now, thanks to "climate change," archaeologists working for Parks Canada were finally able to plot a small window of time this summer to allow passage to the ship's location:

Parks Canada had been plotting the discovery of the three ships for more than a year, trying to figure out how to get the crews so far north. ?For a long time the area wasn?t open, but now it is because of climate change,? said Marc-Andr? Bernier, chief of the Underwater Archaeology Service at Parks Canada.

Interesting that the ship was lost in 1853, right at the end of the Little Ice Age, and coincidentally just 3 years after the start of the HADCRU global temperature record, from which we are led to believe the earth has warmed about 0.7C. If we are seeing "unprecedented" global temperatures and changes in Arctic sea ice, how did the HMS Investigator get this far north at the end of the Little Ice Age?
Posted by bb_apptix
23rd Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Read a history book alex.
The failures of President Woodrow Wilson?s internationalism and liberal opposition to war as an instrument of policy were among the many reasons for Americans' reluctance to concern themselves with the growth of fascism in Europe.

Wilson was a progressive democrat and the political left turned on him when he went to war in WWI. Republicans opposed the US joining Wilsons League of Nations, but other wise were very concerned about Germany, Japan and Russia.

The height of the isolationism movement in the United States was the Ludlow Amendment. Democrat Representative Louis Ludlow from Indiana introduced a Constitutional amendment calling for a national referendum vote for any declaration of war several times between 1935 and 1940. It went no where.

By mid 1941 the isolationist movement in the US was effectively over.
Posted by Hates Idiots
26th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
bb,
Well, I haven't seen such a distortion of facts in quite a while, and pondered ignoring it for that reason. But such half-truths have a way of sprouting in places where folks are unquestioned, so I will very briefly address some of your distortions.

Regarding cherry picking, you seem to be a fantastic example of projection, don't you think? Initially, you accuse the increases in global temperatures as being an example of short sampling periods, and then in the very next topic--sea ice, you talk about how 2009 sea ice cover is well above the 1973-2008 mean! It's not fair to compare global temps since 1961 because it should be placed in a 125,000 year context, but when it comes to sea ice cover, 35 years is enough???

By the way, would a 1000 year median be good enough for you? Here is a link to the graph that includes all of the peer reviewed records out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The Chiligar, Sorotkin, Gorfunkel paper has been one of the most completely debunked papers out there and I'm surprised anyone out there is still referring to it for that reason. But since you have, anyone interested in reading about the degree of inaccuracies ought to check out the following link:
http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/checking-links.html

Your HMS ship story is so ludicrous that it hardly merits a response, except that it provides me with an opportunity to share another link to a very cool website that shows arctic ice movement in a time lapse video--super cool! Just click on the image and you'll see how much the ice moves in a year. The location of that ship, needless to say, is no indication whatsoever of its location when it got locked in the ice...
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml
Posted by klassman6
26th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Myth busted...
Just looked it up. The Investigator story appears to have just happened in the last month or so.

It should be clarified that the sunken ship was found in about 30 feet of water in the bay where the crew was recovered from the wreck site in 1853 after the ship was trapped by ice, damaged and sank in 1850.

The ship never found the Northwest Passage, but naval records do show the ship did sail into the bay on open water and the ship recovering the crew 3 years later also sailed into the bay on open water.

So the myth that the artic ice never has melted this much has been debunked again.
Posted by Hates Idiots
26th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
Strange that no discussion of the acidification of the oceans by increased levels of CO2 has been mentioned. Because the oceans "absorb" atmospheric CO2 by turning it into carbonic acid, the pH of the major oceans has fallen so rapidly since 1960 that marine life unable to adapt quickly to this acidification has experienced major decreases of viability.

While this lawsuit is over the Clean Air Act, it would seem natural for the EPA to also include rapid increases of CO2 density as a pollutant under the Clean Water Act.

After all, much of the historical climate data shows changes that occur over hundreds to thousands of years, which give lifeforms time to adapt. Sudden changes like those that killed off the dinasaurs are the real enemy since they produce environmental changes that occur too rapidly for evolutionary processes to adapt.

I often wonder if the people who join these "growth at any price" groups like the Chamber of Commerce give any thought to what life will be like for their children and grandchildren? They can't be so greedy for money that they would sacrifice their own progeny, can they?
Posted by zdnet@...
27th Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Question.
If the EPA is allowed to treat CO2 as a pollutant, what is to stop them from requiring all people to wear CO2 scrubbing masks?

Many people here have said that over population is one of the major contributors to the sudden rise in CO2.

Since genocide is not an option in a civilized society than CO2 filters on all people are the next best option.
Posted by Hates Idiots
31st Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: EPA's stance on greenhouse gas draws legal fire from Chamber of Commerce
Having just finished reading "The Climate Wars" by Pooley, I
prefer not to engage in any further fruitless debate over climate
vs jobs. My stomach is still too churned up and mind still too
numb over the magnitude and longevity of the conflict and chaos
that has occurred throughout the world (but particularly here in
the US) when it comes to collectively arriving at a shared solution
to the dilemma. However, I am curious about why the role of
nuclear energy - potentially as a major part of the solution in
dramatically reducing greenhouse gases - is not being more
aggressively leveraged by all interested parties/stakeholders?
After all, a nuclear renaissance would likely provide a substantial
boost to the economy in terms of jobs and related support
businesses. [Note: Pooley's coverage of the climate wars made
scarce mention of the solution options on the other end of the
"legislative (cap & trade or carbon tax) lever." Could it be that the
nuclear power industry is still carrying legacy baggage from the
TMI and Chernobyl events? If so, then reading Gwyneth
Craven's book "Power to Save the World: The Truth About
Nuclear Energy" might provide any interested party with a new
level of understanding (and hopefully comfort) regarding the risks
vs benefits of today's nuclear power generation capabilities;
particularly those that exist in the global marketplace.]

That said, what if America were to buy into a nuclear renaissance
- simultaneously with renewable energy sources such as wind,
solar, and tidal - such that the overall process for bringing new
nuclear power plants online could be accelerated? Instead of the
projected 40-50 new nuclear power plants by 2035, what if the
number was raised to 100? [Note: I know, you might be
wondering what I think of low-carbon coal as part the solution?
Well, for starters, I don't believe that there will ever truly be such
a thing as clean coal, even with the best CSS technology
available? whatever and whenever that might be. Consequently,
instead of investing in CSS-related R&D, I believe those
resources might best be applied to retraining folks in the coal
mining/transport industries for new jobs/careers it the nuclear,
solar, wind, tidal arenas. Knowing what Kondratiev and
Schumpeter have demonstrated about industrial and economic
trends over time ? in developing economies, we might want to get
out in front of the pending destructive wave, for once this time.
Otherwise, as Pooley concluded at the end of Climate Wars, at
the rate things are going, and in the fretful manner in which
they're being pursued, it'll likely take some type of megadisaster
event to spur the human race into some kind of
concerted/collaborative action. If that's what it takes, we'll all be
in the same boat together - confronting the mother of all
terrorists.... called MOTHER NATURE! It ain't pretty now, and it
ain't gonna git any prettier in the future if we don't turn off the
GHGs ASAP.
Posted by jjbsack@...
9th Sep 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!