Climate Change and Food Supply

Within limits. Should we try to limit pollution? Sure. Should we prevent third world countries from developing because that would mean an increase in their pollution? No, their right to have electricity and running water out weighs the environmental concerns. Should we bind ourselves under an international treaty? No, even if we adopt all the measures of the treaty under national laws, our national sovereignty is threatened by too many treaties overriding our national laws.

Global treaties are just attempts to come together as a world community and attack a problem. Probably no issue more needs that approach than global warming. I am saddened to see you rule it out.

So much of what is asked for by global treaties can be (isn't always) good for the whole. I think that the Geneva Conventions are an example of global rules that were good for everyone and America used to see the sense of that.

You rule out global warming controls for the third world in the name of progress but China is a fine example of why infrastructure development and access to clean water ARE NOT mutually exclusive goals. In fact, China's ability to grow and create opportunity is being hindered by it's lack of clean air and clean water. Check out these two links:

http://www.enn.com/globe.html?id=1486 This is a Chinese environmental official saying that they just have to do better by the environment or it will limit their potential.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7391/congressional_testimony.html This is 2004 testimony before congress on how China's progress has directly created environmental disaster that sooner or later must be reckoned with.

I would say a finer point is that the controls for the developing world need to be different than those for the developed world.

My husband visited China about 9 years ago now. He was appalled to see that much of the steel industry had been exported to China. We exported the industry to a country that essentially had no environmental controls. In the immediate sense, the costs to China have been immense. ANd while America can export the pollution, you cannot export the global impact. We all still suffer that.

You can cherry pick your stats and your experts but the real disagreements among scientists are not about whether there is a problem, it is more about the gravity and immediacy and how different causalities rank. Since the eco-system is a complex system, more than likely one causality is impacting but it is incredibly short sighted to discount man as a causality and not try to modify your own behavior. I like this quote from a NY Times article released at the time of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from the article "World Scientists Near a Consensus on Warming" (January 30, 2007)
“We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering,� said John Holdren, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and an energy and climate expert at Harvard. “We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.�

Sadly, it is a safe bet that a disproportionate share of the suffering will land on the poorest among us.

He's not the only one circulating a petition, and unlike his "do as i say, not as I do" approach, these people aren't just trying to create a scare: here is a scientific study that has gained the support of some 17,000 scientists.