So, the way to resolve this most challenging of all global environmental issues, is through the implementation of a very comprehensible and pragmatic four-fold plan of attack: a) begin a massive phase-in of an energy conservation program (insulating houses, teaching people to use less energy); b) launch a major federally-mandated private/public partnership push towards the installation of solar-powered technologies in homes and businesses; c) as new and renewable energy sources come online, and energy conservation reduced the need for additional energy sources, begin the inevitable phase out of existing centralized fossil-fuel energy generating plants; d) stop building new fossil-fuel plants, and re-train coal-and-oil-fired energy workers as

What will happen if leadership in Washington D.C. does not implement my plan?

The peatlands (wetlands) in the Arctic contain as much as 30% "of all terrestrial carbon," the article asserts, and is "often locked in permafrost." But should that permafrost thaw as a result of climate change, "the decomposing peat could release its carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and methane" - which is a far more intense, concentrated greenhouse gas, the article explains, than the basic carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel plants and automobile exhaust.

After all, there is more work to be done in cleaning up the American environment than just reducing greenhouse gases: a new report called the "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment" indicates that "over the last 50 years, human actions have depleted the Earth's natural resources at an unprecedented scale and rate... [and] more than 20 percent of the world's coral reefs and 35% of the mangroves have been lost..." In fact, the report (published in the NRDC Web site) states that "as much as 30% of all bird, mammal and amphibian species now are threatened with extinction." Further, "more than half of the critical services provided by ecosystems are being degraded... [and] we face the potential for the rapid emergence of new diseases...more frequent and damaging floods and fires and regional climate changes."

In the next fifty years, the EPA believes, the average global surface temperature could rise between 1 - 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit and between 2.2 - 10 degrees in the next 100 years. Sea level "is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast" over the next century, the EPA contends.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%," the concentrations of methane have "more than doubled," and concentrations of nitrous oxide have gone up 15%. Today, fossil fuels that are burned to heat homes and businesses, to power cars, trucks and factories, are responsible for "about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions," the EPA estimates.

The significance of changing America from an oil-dependent culture to a renewable, sun-based nation cannot be overstated. Although there are progressive communities where renewable energy is the norm - especially in the Sun Belt and in California - for the most part, the average U.S. voter/citizen still believes that "solar energy" is some futuristic concept that is light years away from taking hold or making economic sense. In America, it's all about oil, and coal.

What will this program solve? In the first place, the program will put people to work making homes warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer; secondly, it will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as fossil fuel plants will be phased out while PVs are phased in; thirdly, it will help the renewable energy market grow, offering tremendous opportunities for entrepreneurs and small businesses to grow and profit; lastly, since "the renewable industry is largely the creation of government policies," according to Business Week (Carey, 2005), when consumers feel confident in solar and wind, it's "a good bet that the boom in renewables will continue," Carey writes.

"Installations of new renewable energy facilities in the U.S. slowed significantly last year," Wicker writes. Compared with the European Union, "the U.S. has much less progressive renewable energy policies," the Power article points out. In the UK, for example, a "Renewables Obligation Policy" (ROP) is in effect, which "requires all licensed electricity suppliers in England and Wales to supply a specific and growing proportion of their sales" from wind, hydro or geothermal sources. That kind of policy would be extremely helpful, albeit not very likely to be approved in the U.S., given the pro-oi

Some common words found in the essay are:
Institute Journal, , NRDC Web, Agency EPA, Earth Brown, Magazine Vogel, Belt California, Joe Provey, Middle Eastern, Western Europe, renewable energy, climate change, greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, according article, wind farms, business week, global warming, fossil fuel, energy conservation, carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuel plants, consensus scientists governments, nrdc web site, 2005 wind power,
Approximate Word count = 2600
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)