One of the biggest problems with environmental issues, specifically global warming, is that many of the most vocal people on both sides of the issue have the wrong perspective.

Global warming is not about day to day weather changes. A record breaking heat wave in Chicago isn't necessarily a sign of global warming, and a record cold snap in Tennessee doesn't dispute global warming.

Global warming is real, but it deals with more subtle climate changes. The greenhouse effect is real; adding gases such as CO2 to the atmosphere has, on average, made the Earth warmer. But it's complicated. Overall warming changes air current patterns, and could conceivably make isolated locations slightly colder. I for one dislike the use of the term global warming. Global climate change would be a much better term, because it gives a much more realistic view. Some places will get more rain, some will receive much less. Polar ice caps will melt, and sea levels will go up. Weather patterns will likely change. Maybe this means more tornados or hurricanes, but you also can't just blame the most recent hurricane on global warming either.

If you want to ignore the evidence, and claim that global warming is some sort of liberal hoax, I can't stop you. But I am no liberal, and have never voted for a Democrat. For those of you on the other side of the political aisle, quit blaming last week's thunderstorm on global warming. You're not going to convince anyone with such shaky arguments.

High on the list. . .and always remember- ignore science? Pay the price.  Oh wait, gawd will take care of the environment!

It's hugely important and astounding that people would choose ideology, or more likely political venom over studied scientific conclusion.  So what if you think Al Gore is a pompous ass and right wing lightening rod. I'm sure that Galeleo and Einstien weren't the kindly wise elders that history has portrayed them to be either.  In fact in order to have stood against widely held beliefs to make their points they were probably right out obnoxious self righteous boors.

There is an infestation of beetles eating a swath of forest thousands of miles wide in Canada.  These beetles have always been around - but they used by contained by the freezing Canadian winters.  Now however, it's just not getting cold enough, so the beetles are continuing unabated.

These sorts of stories are becoming more and more common.  Species at the edge of extinction, and the earth changing in ways that make it impossible to predict the consequences.

Politically speaking, I believe that the Republican position on the environment (who cares) and global warming (liberal conspiracy) may prove to be one of the most epic mistakes of judgment that we've ever seen in American politics.

The scientists say the issues are real.  If the Republicans continue to mock science it may even be enough to help the blundering, inept Democrats win an election or two.

As I've said elsewhere, avoiding man made change to the environment could easily be a "conservative" issue.  The quicker the Republican leadership can swallow their distaste for Al Gore's movie and grab some aspect of this issue as their own, the better it will be for all of us.

The most pressing issue facing humanity today. With the politicians in bed with multinationals, we are doomed, doomed I tell you.

The only good reason to ignore the environment would be the demise of the human race.

I think I need to open my own used car lot- if people will buy the notion that the activites of man actually cause hurricanes and earthquakes, they will buy anything. How do we prevent earthquakes? Fewer SUV's? LOL...what "science".

Au contraire, my little pooled one. There is credible evidence that we humans are shaping the global climate. As such, it is time to examine our behaviors for what can be changed to aid our environment, rather than continue to cause harm.

Very important, it is the cause of deadly hurricanes. It causes the water levels to rise which will ruin coastal cities. I don't understand when people say its not important. The increasing strength in hurricanes should be enough to convince people that global warming is a real important issue.

I work as an environment impact assessor for a consultancy in the UK and am afraid to tell you, Cutegirl and others, that not only is human activity continuing to degrade the global environment at a faster rate than ever but that we are almost certainly past the point of no return. Over the last decade in Europe we've experienced all time record summer temperatures, massive floods on a continental scale and forest fires occurring every year. In China they've recently had widespread droughts and forest fires in the north and catastrophic floods in the south. In fact I've got data on 180 countries which suffered some major environmental disaster in 2005. There is now a complete consensus among INDEPENDENT climate, geologial and other experts that human activity is largely to blame. Deforestation on hillsides across Latin America, Europe, South and South East Asia mean that there is nothing to hold back floodwaters which result in catastrophic landslides and mudslides killing thousands of people. If you really think people are important, then look outside the comfort of your own country and see the impacts of polluting by rich nations on poor nations in Africa, Asia and South America. I'm not just talking about air pollution caused by power stations and cars but also the transportation of household waste from rich Western countries, including the US and Britain to countries such as Indonesia.

Ironcially, it has only been global dimming in the Northern Hemisphere - caused by aerosol pollution -reflecting the sun's rays back into space -that has so far spared us the worst. But now with less aerosol polution, there'll be nothing to stop the planet getting far hotter.

Sorry folks, but the outlook is grim and the best thing we can do is adapt

The term "environment" is too general to rate. Of itself, it's not important but it sure is divisive.

Left-wingers love this term in its most general sense because they win on the generalized issue:democrats are environmentalists, republicans are . . . well, they just don't care about the environment. Right?

Actually, republicans care very much about clean air, clean water, re-generation of forests, the melting ice-caps and the slight rise in average ambient world-wide temerature. The difference is that people like me require something commonly known as truth (unequivocal, non-agenda-drive, unemotional) in order to obstruct the free flow of commerce and land use by individual American citizens.

Two examples: 1). DDT was a miracle pesticide developed in the 1940's, greatly reducing insect penetration of fruit and vegetable crops, throughout the world. In the 1960's Rachel Carlson wrote "Silent Spring" in which she made a convincing but unscientific (meaning lacking proof) argument that DDT caused cancer in humans when used on plants. Due to a shrill, emotional (and wrong-headed) public outcry, DDT was banned in the US causing many in the agricultural industry to lose millions. It turns out that no (must I repeat, NO) credible study exists, even today, which links DDT to ANY adverse health effect to humans. 2). ALAR. In 1963, Uniroyal had developed a chemical which made apples plumper, juicier and of consistent size. It was used on other crops as well (grapes, cherries, peanuts) with similar results. In 1989, "60 Minutes" aired an attack-piece on ALAR, linking it to cancer. It was removed from production by Uniroyal soon after, then banned by the EPA, even though the amounts of ALAR required to have even the slightest impact on human health was impossible for a human to consume, including the workers in the chemical plants manufacturing it. But, the damage was done, Uniroyal lost millions on a product which was doing exactly what it had been designed to do with no (need I repeat, NO) distiguishable negative health effect anywhere in the world.

So, when we ask for proof, we're probably thinking about this track record.

Now, global warming. Are we going down the same route, listening to crackpot, agenda-driven "scientists" (like Mike Wallace and Rachel Carlson) throwing thousands of Americans out of work, penalizing responsible companies for the sake of someone's self-aggrandizement and political agenda? How sure do you have to be of your agenda? Have you read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" ? Keep thinking.

One of the most important issues today! 5 Stars.

I don't belive that people should own cars with a 4 cylinder engine. I think v6 and v8 hybrids are acceptable. I think toxic waste regulations should be tightend. The Bush administration has supported big industries over the enviornment which is not good. Global Warming may or may not be an issue, though is likely true and should be researched.

Want to make both Republican privatizers and Democrat tree-huggers happy? Give control of the National Parks and Monuments back to the people who own them- in most cases American Indian tribes.

Don't disturb me with you ecological nonsense. I'm too worried about Bill and Nick getting married. After all those homosexuals are going to destroy the earth, not the emission of fossil fuels. Does anyone think the government might have brought up gay rights as a red herring to destract from the culpable issues? Just a thought. You're probably right. The government wouldn't be so underhanded. I'm just being a Republican attacker.

I don't know why the political right thinks that even mentioning the environment is so taboo and unamerican. But yes, it is a very important issue, if we don't have the environment, we don't have a country, or a planet for that matter.

The environment is not an important issue for one reason, there is no issue. Evironmental trends have been positive for the past four decades. There are more trees in the United States then there was when Lewis and Clark went on the Lousiana Expedition, appliences use less power and water than ever before and cars emmit less pollutants. Modern environmentalists cause more harm now than good. People are not allowed to build on certain land because it is a protected home of some endangered rodent or insect. (Yes, it's happened in Florida and Texas.) Perhaps the world has problems with the environmental issues but the topic is U.S. issues and the environment is not an issue for the U.S.

the rediculous ideas of global warming as a threat to humanity. Perhaps human ignorance is the greatest threat to humanity. All credible scientists accept global warming as a fact. This shouldn't be a political issue, but greed knows no boundries, even if it includes the destruction of our planet.

by far the most important issue I think, and one that gets precious little attention from the current exectuive and legislative branches. If our air is too dirty to breath, our water too polluted to drink and our food too contaminated to eat, nothing else really matters, now does it?

Most people agree that the environment is important, but it is the tree-hugging environmentalist radicals that I can't stand.

The environment is one of the most important issues because if we mess up the Earth, what else do we have?! I am against drilling for oil in Alaska. It is incorrect to assume that drilling in Alaska will decrease our dependence on foreign oil, because the oil we could get drilling in Alaska would only make up about 1% or 2% of our oil supply. Is 1 or 2% really worth the destruction of the habitats of hundreds of plants and animals, and the pollution of a beautiful location?

The present administration is gutting the laws that are meant to protect our health and to preserve the last of our countrys' natural beauty.If terrorists were leaking mercury,arsenic and other dangerous toxins into our air and water people would be in an uproar,but since our own Government is doing it to cut costs for Corporations,everyone seems to think it's hunky-dory.

The environment is one of the most important issues we have to take on. A true conservative would advocate preserving our natural heritage for generations to come. Some would have us believe that we have a choice to make between economic growth and environmentalism. I believe that the question being posed in this cost-benefit analysis is a false one. A true free market would provide both economic growth and a cleaner, more sustainable environment. Why? Clean up costs are usually a major expense for large industrial corporations. Today the government provides large subsidies to these polluters to increase their profit margins by reducing these environmental costs while also eroding our environmental laws. In the short term such policies benefit those corporations that are subject to the subsidies, but in the long haul, it is going to create huge costs for future generations to bear. Weakening our environmental policies benefits no one economically. Of course, having a good environment is also very important in maintaining sustainable living standards. After all, we all need clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. We all want to make sure that the fish that we take out of our waters are free from industrial toxins and that the food we eat isn't pumped full of harmful chemicals. A true free market conservative would be mindful of the general health of our natural resources.

There should be no shortsightedness in this issue in pretending it will go away and eventually we'll do something about it. The planet is a living organism with its own orchestration of cleansing patterns and we are simply messing the system up. We have to be careful of it under our stewardship...any normal person would want to look after such a beautiful place. When nature is disturbed in any way it will come back at us, whether you believe that or not.We can and should do something now, all of us, to put forward projects that will prevent further destruction and depletion of resources and by implementing considerate plans that can be managed on a global scale. If current treaties are considered unfair, then they must be renegotiated - and adhered to. There are rivers worldwide that can no longer sustain life because of industrial spillage....we were not meant to menace the environment; indeed we and the planet's ecology must be in mutual support. As for not helping future generations, that is selfishness of the highest rank and goes against the natural order of things. Humanity needs to get its head out of its collective butt.

Well, some of you here may not think the environment's important but in the last 2 summers in Europe we've had massive floods followed by droughts and forest fires that have killed many people and ruined livelihoods of thousands, including my own. It's been much worse in Africa and Asia where floods and droughts are now more frequent than at any time in human history.

The environment tends to polarize politics. Like education and health care, no one is against the environment; however, the question is how much environment can we afford and when does the law of declining marginal rates of return dictate that resources be directed elsewhere. First, clearly some of the liability laws related to property ownership and environmental clean-up are both inequitable and inefficient. Everyone enjoyed the cost savings gained in the past for ignoring the environment in commerce, so everyone should now pay for that decision today. Second, in the area of preservation versus conservation, according to a recent National Geographic, nearly one-third of all land in the U.S. is owned or effectively owned by the government... one-third. This is obviously too much wealth concentrated in the hands of the state which is not only a threat to a free society, but also economically wasteful and an erosion of the tax base. Third, we need to acknowledge the successes that have already been made. As some other comments have noted, the U.S. now has more forestland than we did 100 years ago. Lastly, while the validity of global warming is a matter of reasonable debate, the risks of the theory being true are extreme enough to merit at least some attention. The bottom line is that reason and moderation should be the operative philosophies when it comes to environmental policy.

We will develop technology to clean the environment and decrease the amount of toxins spread into the air long before it ever becomes a serious issue.

Waste of time.

The most important long-term issue, by far. Underlying all the major environmental pressures is this single deadly fact: there are too many PEOPLE. Uncontrolled growth is the ideology of the cancer cell, and unless we get a handle on global population growth, over the long term, we will ruin our chances for survival on earth.

How many of you idiots bashing Bush about oil drilling and spoiling Alaska know this: Saddam Hussein, during the first Gulf War, burned oil fields and let loose oil spills in the Middle East which were approximately TEN TIMES THE MAGNITUDE OF THE EXXON VALDEZ SPILL. It is amazing to me how these things are not reported properly in the news. Where are the envionmentalists when it comes to issues like this? Oh, wait, Saddam is one of BUSH's priorities. Certainly if REPUBLICANS find an issue important, the leftist, POLITICALLY MOTIVATED organizations like the environmentalists CARE NOTHING unless their political bedmates are on the same page. Hypocrites. Take a good look at those organizations that you ignorant people support so blindly; ask them WHY they say NOTHING about Saddam's envionmental crimes. Ask them why, if the environment is SO important to them, that the biggest environmental CRIMINAL of recent memory is a non-issue for them. To those of you who are big on environmental issues: You can support that cause all day long, and it IS important to protect property from environmental hazards. But you'd better GET CONSISTENT if you want any support from me. If the hypocrisy continues, then I (and all other rational individuals) will continue to have nothing but contempt for the "leading environmentalists" and their sheep.

I consider myself a environmentalist. I love nature and all it's beauty. I will not believe however, the rediculous ideas of global warming as a threat to humanity. The forests of America larger than they where 200 years ago. The animals in many areas continue to thrive even with humans around them. I'm not saying there are things to work on, such as trash and oil spills, but the enviro-wackos have totally overblown the whole issue.

I hate oil. The Alaskan oil drilling, smog, pollution, the Gulf war, the Iraq war, World War II, oil barrons running and ruining the country. I am for the enviroment 200%. I guess that makes me a tree huggin' lefty. Good. Too whiney? Better waaaaa than baaaaa.

It certainly has its place in socirty, but groups like ELF, etc... are causing people to ignore anything they hear about the enviorment, out of irritation.

It can really be a good debate whether this is even a political issue, but one thing is for sure. In this day and age, with terrorism and disease, the enviorment is really not the most important issue at the present time. I am for drilling in Alaska becuase I think it will decrease dependance on Arab oil, and possibly save American lives. I think that humans are more important than wild animals and landscape, no matter how beautiful Alaska might be.

very important ,but not as nuts a Nader and his crowd of nuts make it ,be smart and prudent

Bush: I'm gonna drill in Alaska whether you like it or not. Don't worry about spills, we'll send a bunch of Handi-Wipes to make it all better.

The best protector of the "Environment" is Private Property.

definitely more important than gay rights, for example......

All the good or ill we do in the political and social realm with be meaningless, in the end, if we do not preserve the Earth for our posterity to live in. The decisions we make and policies we set today will have consequences that far outlive us, and the harm we do today (and the Bush administration appears poised to do a great deal of harm) will in many cases be irreparable tomorrow.

My God, I really hate this subject. It is really overblown, and Global Warming is a lot less serious than everybody says. The hole in the ozone layer has always been there, and is actually getting smaller as we speak. I really hate when the tree nazi's are out sticking spikes in trees. When they do that, not only do they kill the guy who cuts the tree down, they kill the tree!!! Whats the point. All environmentalist whackos(kudos to Rush Limbaugh) drive gas powered cars, use styrofoam cups, and do everything a normal American does. Doesnt that contradict themselves.

I am completely mystified that anyone can make such an unintelligent remark like "lets not put wildlife in front of people". Who is trying to do that? First of all, most issues of environmental concern are those that put profit in front of people. Remeber its not just about saving pretty flowers its about regulating the amount of deadly toxins corporations can release into our food, water, and air just to make a buck. What people are being neglected by trying to regulate the amounts of these toxins entering our bodies? The industry heads? It is also important to preserve our national forests because they are not only important for humans directly, but its necessary to preserve these monuments. And as far as those who believe global warming doesn't exist I have a piece of advice: Though Rush Limbaugh speaks on matters like this, he doesn't know anyhting about them. Listem to scientists; the overwhelming majority of them believe quite firmly in global warming. What exactly do environmentalists have to gain by fighting global warming? Nothing. What do industries have to gain from attemptng to discredit global warming? Millions and Billions of dollars. Bush's plan for voluntary restrictions is the biggest sacrifice of public safety for campaign contributions that I have ever seen!!!!

Let's use common sense and not put spotted owls and rarified sequoias ahead of people. There's room for all; however, people come first and foremost.

I changed my rating on this from 1 to 3 stars. No, I'm not suddenly sympathetic toward earth muffins and enviro-freaks. (They will destroy us as fast as anything. They're anti-capitalist. They have never gave one flying flip if anyone lost their employment.) I think too many people are irresponsible. People who pour their used motor oil into the ground are asses and should be treated as such (beaten with a stick, kicked around.) How do you fix this problem? I don't know. Maybe charge a deposit when new oil is sold and refunded when the used oil is brought back. If your car leaks or burns oil well then this would give you an incentive to fix your oil leaks and worn engines. Leaking oil still pollutes the ground and burning motor oil still pollutes the air. Anyway, about our enviornment, I think we have a lot of strict laws that need to be enforced. Making new laws won't do any good if laws aren't enforced. So, how was earth day? Did anyone have to sweep off half dead hippie offspring moaning "earth first" out of their yards and streets?

I think it is a very important issue that we reduce polution. I didn't rate it as high because there have already been several improvements, and it is possible to err on the side of being too concerned and lose track of other things. But most environmentalists don't do that.

Yes we must protect the world or we wil die out

who cares?

No, i don't believe in paving over the world nor do i believe in technological regression. Yes i'm for recycling, responsibility and development of alternate forms of energy. but come on, you gotta stop and think for a minute. what if the mid-east cut-off our oil again and suddenly gas prices shot up through the roof? then suddenly the idealist college kids who so dearly love their cars wouldn't be able to drive out to their favorite scenic spots without their parents coughing up more hard-earned money for them. alaska is over twice the size of texas (that's like, 1/4 the size of the entire country) and probably around 70% of it is preserved land. their off-shore drilling pumps tons of revenue into the pockets of every unnoticed citizen up there. but some even go so far as to shoot bullets at the big pipeline in their protest. what the hell good is that gonna do? all it does is force the state to spend tax money that could've been directed elsewhere to fix it. and all that ozone mumbo-jumbo. CFC molecules are too heavy to float up to the upper atmosphere. there are two big holes over each pole, each of which appears in the winter and disappears in the summer. i don't see how you could prove we had anything to do with it if it's a polar thing as well as a seasonal thing. and if it's our fault, then how come the bigger hole is over the south pole if all the pollution comes from the northern hemisphere? and the whole kyoto accords deal. everyone in the senate as well as president clinton agreed that the treaty was too flawed to even try an deal with, plus america has more enforced emissions laws than most of the countries who need that treaty do.

Dubya really screwed up the air in Texas during his stint as governor. Proudly for him (but disgraceful for all people who care anything about the environment over business), Houston is now the smog capital of the country.

Strong environmental policies and Government standards/controls are important to protect our natural resources from people who if left unattended will destroy what we have for pure profit. I also strongly believe in utilization of our own natural resources for the common wealth, safety and productivity of our nation. Turing our lands over to the Government to manage is not the answer though. They have not proven to be frugal land managers themselves. I do not believe the liberal left hype of global warming and I don’t believe that we will destroy our lands and environment by drilling for oil or any other resource. We have learned a lot over the past few years in terms of co-existing with our environment and have developed technology and techniques that allow us to harvest for our benefit without destruction. What amazes me is we find it perfectly acceptable to limit oil drilling in the U.S. for the sake of the environment. This leaves the U.S. vulnerable to overseas oil pricing and putting more pressure on the overseas environment. If drilling for oil and other resource gathering activities destroys our environment, what makes it acceptable to destroy an environment in another country to enjoy the benefit of the resource. Seems hypocritical or like a dual set of standards to me. Another amazement is how many have criticized Bush for his actions, including those relating to the environment, yet the item where one would expect to see a lot of pro-environment discussion is virtually void of information. Simply an observation.

I am optimistic that Gail Norton (Interior) and Christie Whitman (EPA) will bring a sensible set of priorities to the eenvironmental arena. Certainly we want to preserve the nation's beauty and make sure that polluters are held responsible for the costs they impose on others, but the radical groups that typically get to lable people as "pro-environment" or "anti-environment" have really skewed priorities. There's a whole host of environmental scare stories that the Left is unwilling to subject to reasoned analysis, instead believing with religious tenacity in a global warming apocalypse despite strong evidence to the contrary. It's also mystifying the confidence they place in gov't central planning, when private stewardship of land has such a better history of success. The way much of New Mexico was engulfed in flames thanks to Bruce Babbitt's Interior Department should be remembered forever as an example of how "public lands" wind up as ill-kept as public bathrooms.