I recently took a trip to Alaska, to learn about how climate change is affecting the people that live on the front lines of a warming world. The following was originally posted on the website Care2.com. In a small restaurant a stone’s throw from the Arctic Ocean last week I heard a familiar argument against investing in climate adaptation: focusing on adaptation takes attention away from the critical work of reducing dangerous carbon pollution.

Bill McKibben is one of the most renowned environmentalists in the world right now. McKibben has been singlehandedly raising the profile of the danger that carbon pollution poses to people, lands and our planet. His organization – 350.org – has a nerve center for information on reducing our carbon footprint before it is too late.

If pop culture has taught us anything – and these days, it has probably taught us all too much – it is that as a person enters their fourth or fifth decade they experience something called a mid-life crisis. Sports cars, trophy spouses, and comically bad wardrobe and hairstyle choices have been known to follow.

Now the Environmental Protection Agency is entering its fourth decade, turning 40 years old this week, and is joined by a landmark piece of environmental legislation, the Clean Air Act.

This week the landmark environmental law the Clean Air Act turns 40 years old, and is still going strong.  However, some Members of Congress are trying to weaken the Clean Air Act, and limit the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to use it to keep our skies free of pollution.  Read more at the National Journal...

I’m going to stand out on a fairly strong limb and make a declaration just about everyone (from treehugger to tea partier) can agree with: restoring degraded natural areas is a good thing. Luckily this thinking is gaining ground in some pretty important circles.