Sorry I think you have the term dove very poorly expressed. It doesn't mean appeasement and inaction. It refers to a desired to discuss and understand an issue in the hopes of finding a constructive solution.

Being a hawk can be a destructive reactionary position to take since it assumes your view is 100% correct and your plan of attack is the only legitimate one.

When was the last time that worked on an issue as complex as how to protect the environment and keep our economies healthy?

I'd argue never.

Being passionate is great, but that's not the sole domain of hawks nor does being willing to listen and consider mutually beneficial solutions mean you don't give a $hit.

cheers,

Vik

The idea that there is even an inkling of debate on the validity of man-made climate change is just not even worthy of discussion, but I am always amazed by how this line of though has persisted. There is zero debate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is zero debate that we are drastically increasing the % of that Co2 in the atmosphere. It is therefore easy to see the direct correlation that increased Co2 equals increased warming. We are essentially digging up the carbon (in form of fossil fuels) that has been sequestered in the earth over hundreds of millions of years and are pumping it into the atmosphere at once (when I say 'at once' I mean in terms of a timescale humans can comprehend...a few generations,etc)! The earth has had a natural cycle of trapping and releasing carbon such that over geologic time (not easily grasped by most people) we have struck a balance that has made life as we know it possible. This is about as simple of an idea as, I don't know, realizing your own perception is that the world is flat, but alas, if you look at the earth from afar you see it is indeed round. In other words pretty obvious when examined from the proper perspective.

The issue is why the hostility, what is the reason there is such enthusiasm and misguided effort to ignore or deny it? I believe it's a combination of corporate machinery (in the form of companies who must deliver short term returns to their shareholders), general ignorance on the subject by the common person, and the extreme dichotomy of political thought in this country (people are either 'red' or 'blue' and they subscribe to all the doctrine under one or the other).

In general most people probably don't give it much thought (our media gives it very little attention compared to most of the rest of the world). They are often predisposed to 'tow the party line' in denying it and since clearly the only possible 'winners', albeit short termed, is the fossil fuel industry and those institutions connected to it (which unfortunately is pretty much most of the rest of the Fortune 500 and therefore everyone's 401Ks, investments, etc!), so it is easy to see where the fear of stopping our thirst for oil derives. The problem is that the leaders of companies are hemmed in by the fact that they must deliver returns to the investors (in the relative short term) or face losing their jobs. This leads to campaign funding to get the 'right' officials elected in government and putting out a propaganda machine to allow psuedo-science based denial a platform and to tell the common person this is all liberal nonsense, or some sort of 'big government' ploy.

What we need is government to act to change this culture. They must issue massive tax breaks for renewables and revoke subsidies for the fossil fuel production. They have to stop the cycle. We need a way for our large corporations to see a monetary penalty in pursuing this current path and maybe even see an opportunity (to get into some new industries). The only debate is can we undo what we have done in time. Some say no. I say we have to try!

C