The EPA's web site states climate change is likely due to human activity?

Question

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

Apparently the EPA thinks global warming is being caused by man. Some of the solutions they offer on the site seem pretty lame, however.
Decades ago CO1 was the big culprit, now it's CO2. According to the EPA, 50% of the CO2 emissions come from electric generating plants. Only a third comes from transportation. Why isn't more attention focused on electric generation?
Also, why isn't reforestation being discussed? Unlike CO1, CO2 can be filtered by plants. The EPA wants us to change light bulbs in our house. Why not plant a few trees in the yard?
Why not plant trees in the thousands of miles of highway medium across the country? I mean, what's more important, a cop being able to zap you with radar in the opposite lane or climate shift?
Why not reclaim all the abandon property in the inner cities and either reforest it or redevelop it for new housing, rather than urban sprawl?
Why don't industry go to a 10 hour work day 4 days a week?

It just seems like there is more sensible things that can be done that won't cost trillions of dollars.
Reforestation isn't going to shut down the economy.

Answer 1

Absolutely, carbon monoxide is a big pollutant.

Carbon monoxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and it does not have a direct effect on the global temperature, like methane and carbon dioxide do. However, carbon monoxide plays a major role in atmospheric chemistry, and affects the ability of the atmosphere to cleanse itself of many other polluting gases. In combination with other pollutants and sunshine, it also takes part in the formation of toxic, lower-atmospheric ozone and smog.

Answer 2

Very good question. Way over the head of most Republicans.
If we were to plant pot in the medium, I would be for that.
Short plant. The 10 hour work week is good but I can't take 2 hours a day off. According to many Repubs. more nukes is the answer for electric generation plants. They have no problem with more nukes. To heck with the fact that we currently do not know where to put the waste. I would also like to see the feds. stop the production of jet fuel and high test gas. Think about that one. Jet fuel should now be rationed out.

Answer 3

Very sorry to put it crudely but climate change is being contributed to by the human race, a conclusion that has been reached a thousand times by a thousand people far more clever than you. Enjoy your swim ^^

Answer 4

If tomorrow the US were to stop all industrial activity, destroy our auto and truck fleet, move everyone into grass huts and outlaw electricity, hand out the death penalty for burning coal, and stop the use of mechanized farming, it would have no effect on climate change. So go ahead, buy some land plant some trees, change your light bulbs, move into the inner city, and make believe you are healing the earth, just don't try to force me to live your fantasy

Answer 5

I think you have some great ideas. I especially like the idea about planting trees. I kind of wonder if the reason why the EPA doesn't mention that option is because of the influence the timber industry has in the government.

Answer 6

I think there are some great recommendations on the EPA's website.
Check your local government- In my area one town is giving their residents free trees to plant.

Answer 7

Yup.. we should be focusing on reforestation and preservation of the rain forests... but we should also work on new technologies.. since there is nothing but benefit from having low pollution energy source :)

Answer 8

The EPA has had enough trouble jsut getting past Bush so they could officially recognize the scientists' findings. Don't expect any coherent policy until the Bush administration is gone.

Answer 9

Climate change is another screw on rich countries to provide for the poor when their own Gvt doesn't do it.

Answer 10

"it's hard to convince a person to believe something when their salary depends on them not believing it."