If only we could go back in time

If we could turn back the hands of time, what would we change to make our lives better and safer?

Perhaps the economic tragedies of today wouldn't have jeopardized the financial well-being of citizens around the world if, on Nov. 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton hadn't signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB), or the Financial Services Modernization Act. The Republican Party-sponsored legislation repealed major parts of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that many economists today attribute to the subprime financial crisis.

Democrats bought into the Act, too - 75 percent House Democrats voted in favor as compared to 98 percent Republicans, 84 percent Senate Democrats and 98 percent Republicans. The result allowed the merger of banks, security firms and insurance companies.

As a matter of fact, in 1998, the merger of Citicorp with Travelers Group in 1998 to form Citigroup was the precursor to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB), made possible by legislation passed in 1994 that temporarily waived the provisions of Glass-Steagall. In essence, Clinton set up the way for the following seven years of economic growth in leaps and bounds.

Although there were many regretful policies under the Bush administration, in this instance much of the federal deficit that President Barack Obama inherited is due to that one piece of legislation that, instead of securing a fair market of economic distribution, the web of manipulators among greedy banking interests has jeopardized the financial security of all peoples around the world.

In essence, the budget "surpluses" that Clinton left behind were a farce.

The result was an economic boom that started in America that came crashing down on the weight of the world because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Today, we are being lead to believe that Congress will be taking corrective action to make financial markets more respectful of the economic health of the nation.

What with the power that big banks still weld over many members of Congress, cross your fingers that we don't get double-crossed. If Congress puts the interest of taxpayers above that of the denizens of corporate and executive greed, consequential actions of the past will be resolved. Corrective measures are attainable. But this isn't always the case.

So, let's go back further in time. Way back - long before the 1960s when conservative spending gave way to the seduction of the greening of American consumerism.

Three hundred years prior, the Industrial Revolution transformed the metallurgy industry by shifting from wood burning to coal burning technology, the first major use of fossil fuels. The commercial use of natural gas began in the 1820s. Modern day petroleum use began in the late 1850s with the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania.

No, I'm not about to tackle the uncompromising positions on climate change. But just as ominous are the centuries of air pollution and acid rain, a term that was coined in 1972 but first realized in 1852 by Robert Angus Smith, general inspector of Alkali Works of England, when he analyzed rainwater in Manchester, England, and subsequently wrote a book titled, "Air and rain. The beginnings of a chemical climatology."

Human activities of burning fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase by about 35 times the level since the Industrial Revolution.

Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, gaseous oxide, sulfur dioxide and methane - all of which are floating in the air we breathe - cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. And cancer.

Lo and behold! Two weeks ago the EPA released findings that gave the definitive conclusion that greenhouse gases are threatening to life. Believe it or not, motor vehicles are a large contributor, a full 23 percent of the emissions in the U.S.

Although these findings are repetitive of other scientific data gathered, the report was made in response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases fit in with the Clean Air Act of air pollutants. Of course, the data will add fuel to the flames of legislation that will to some degree regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Not surprisingly, industry groups are fuming at the implications of the costs incurred from regulating carbon dioxide, leading to the loss of jobs and higher energy bills for American consumers and businesses, including all levels of government operations paid by taxpayers.

In conclusion, knowing what we know now about the death knell of air pollutants, if we could go back in time would we as a nation, or the world as a whole, have taken steps along the way of becoming an advanced civilization, addressed and inhibited the use of greenhouse gases?

Not likely.

Instead, some 10 to 20 years from now someone else may pose the question, What if we could go back in time, say 2009, would we have taken immediate steps to curb further deterioration of the air quality we breathe?