Harry, you need to add another choice on your survey.
"If the climate IS warming, it is part of a natural cycle and has very little to do with mankind's actions, and there is very little that we can do to affect it."
Most American government entities–from township to feds–aren’t in a big hurry to confront global warming. That’s the conclusion of a new report from the Government Accounting Office (GAO). You can read the full report here.
The GAO did find action being taken in Maryland, New York City and Seattle. In general the problem seems to be muddled thinking, or “Is that part of my job?” Also, financial problems at local and state levels make it very attractive to postpone any global warming action for now.
Finally the GAO goes into the horrible closet that hides centralized planning. They actually call for some rational, planned, fact-based approach to global warming. Here is their exact plea,
“Congress and federal agencies could encourage adaptation by clarifying roles and responsibilities. About 71 percent (129 of 181) of the respondents rated the development of a national adaptation strategy as very or extremely useful. Climate change is a complex, interdisciplinary issue with the potential to affect every sector and level of government operations. Our past work on crosscutting issues suggests that governmentwide strategic planning–with the commitment of top leaders–can integrate activities that span a wide array of federal, state, and local entities…
“The appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President, such as the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with relevant federal agencies, state and local governments, and key congressional committees of jurisdiction, should develop a national strategic plan that will guide the nation’s efforts to adapt to a changing climate. The plan should, among other things, (1) define federal priorities related to adaptation; (2) clarify roles, responsibilities, and working relationships among federal, state, and local governments; (3) identify mechanisms to increase the capacity of federal, state, and local agencies to incorporate information about current and potential climate change impacts into government decision making; (4) address how resources will be made available to implement the plan; and (5) build on and integrate ongoing federal planning efforts related to adaptation.”
Well, that pretty well ruins the day of any anti-government conservative, not to mention corporate lobbyist or global warming denier. Central planning? Isn’t that what brought down the Soviet Union? Heavens. My local schools should have the right to spend money on the football team and not replace that antique boiler in the basement.
