Marshall, you're referring to this piece by Adam Sacks, a freelance writer we invite to post on Grist: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-10-we-have-met-the-deniers-and-they-are-us/

We at Grist like to present a diversity of views on the environmental issues of the day (call it a conversation!), which is why you may find authors who may contradict or disagree with each other.

Not the end of the world. No.

But it's like having a tumor, most probably cancerous, and probably deadly... While it's all well to argue about who's responsible, maybe something should be done about the tumor and its cause, no?

Hmm, maybe it's too inconvenient. Yeah, it's probably not feasible... the unruly patient will just not take it! “There was an assessment by the doctors that it is unrealistic to expect the patient to fully accept any legally binding agreement. We can't do Nothin'!”... See More

Wait, I've got an idea! OK, let's just wait until he's got cancer! If he dies, well, duhh, it's a cancer. And if he doesn't, we're heroes!

Case solved!

Soilent Green is PEOPLE!!

Obvious, and predictable, but it had to be said...

We need to buy local and support the building of local food and energy infrastructure. It's time to stop supporting mass produced low quality food...it's killing us!

this lady is fantastic! I first saw her a few years ago on a TED.com presentation! a wonderful environmental justice advocate.

most people who stand to lose--who have already lost--from global climate change are people of color. most people who create the large number of emissions are white.

It's an issue for everyone, of course, but statistics, economics and inequity "make it" a skin color issue, as well. As with most bad things, global warming disproportionately impacts some folks more than others: http://ejcc.org/cj/.

Oh, for god's sake, it's a people issue. People of poverty (regardless of color) are likely to be most impacted.

wow. this is crazy. i'm glad the EPA is actually trying to enforce laws they are supposed to enforce, but they should not be doing this.

they should have the freedom to be wrong -- their criticism of cap and trade and acid rain program, that redux were achieved by fuel switching, misses the point. C&T works because it doesn't say how to achieve reductions, only that reductions must be achieved. close the loopholes, like get rid of the turd-polishing CCS 'clean coal' -- don't subsidize dirty energy to the disadvantage of clean energy.