To those who question the potential effectiveness of the Waxman-Markey bill (also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act), I have two questions: 1) Do you believe that humans have caused the climate to change? and, 2) Do you think we have the capacity to fix it? I just want to make sure you’re starting with the same assumptions as the rest of us, because if not then your comments are, well, largely irrelevant to all of us who are trying to ensure the future health of the planet.

If you said “yes” to the two questions above, then I assume you WANT us to take action to reduce our impact on the climate. And if that’s the case, then what would YOU like to see done if you don’t think this bill is the answer (I’m not an expert on it)? It’s one thing to critique, it’s another to offer alternatives. Right now, I’d rather we air on the side of action than that of the status quo; seems like eight years of ignoring the problem hasn’t done much good.

Some question whether this bill will actually reduce the cost of energy. To that I say, yours is a trivial concern compared to the issue of whether we will even HAVE energy in the future when all the oil reserves dry up (whether you think that’s in 50 years, 100 years, or longer; at some point, it will be gone). Without a serious commitment to becoming fully dependent on renewable energy sources, we are doing nothing but putting a few more years on that big countdown timer to total planetary chaos.

I don’t think I’m being melodramatic and I hate to sound apocalyptic, but I am frustrated and tired of arguing the merits of environmental legislation with people who don’t think there’s an environmental problem in the first place. There’s something wrong when people, like Al Gore, who are trying to protect the environment are accused of political posturing or something other than sincere concern, while those who say that human-caused climate change is a myth are not vilified for only thinking of their own (deep) pockets.