LETTERS: HISTORY OFFERS DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS

To the editor:

Alan Journet's letter to the editor regarding global warming is valid only if you assume that his premise is true. He presciently predicts that global warming will disrupt "all those natural systems on the planet which are the source of our food, fiber, health and wealth" to "catastrophic dimensions the likes of which we have yet to witness on the planet." He states this as if it is a foregone conclusion. If Mr. Journet were familiar with the history of our planet, he would know that from 9000 B.C. until 2000 B.C., which followed an Ice Age (global warming), agriculture came into being, writing was invented, cities began to be built and other important advances occurred. However, during the Little Ice Age (global cooling), which lasted from 1300 to 1800, Black Death and the general stagnation of human progress marked that era. Yet during periods that were marked with global warming, we see unprecedented human progress marked by the construction of some of Europe's most famous buildings, including St. Mark's in Venice, the Leaning Tower of Pisa and the cathedrals at Santiago de Compostela, Notre Dame, Canterbury and Chartres. History is definitely not on Mr. Journet's side. According to my crystal ball, global warming will increase agricultural production, reduce heating costs, improve transportation and cut fatalities. The imposition of regulations to curb greenhouse gases would be far more damaging to human prosperity than would the minor negative effects of global warming. There are several leading scientists who support this position.

I urge Mr. Journet to consider the consequences of the United States' voting for the Kyoto protocol. According to Dennis T. Avery with the Hudson Institute, consumers would see the cost of heating fuel, electricity and transportation dramatically increase. Indirectly, proposals would raise the costs of all consumer goods, including food and consumer products, which would hurt the poor disproportionately. Incomes would drop. Some firms would be forced out of business. Others would move their operations to developing countries, thereby increasing the ranks of the unemployed. Locally, the impact to area farmers would be devastating. Terry Franck, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, estimates that the higher cash costs for an acre of corn would cut net profit by 25 percent to 50 percent. Wheat and dairy profits would also fall by about 25 percent to 50 percent, and hog profit by 40 percent to 80 percent. Soybeans might end up being the only crop U.S. farmers could profitably grow. Because soybeans do not take as many off-farm inputs, soybean profit would fall only about 20 percent. Farm income would fall even as its food prices rose. Feed costs would increase, and bids for feeder pigs and cattle would drop. Farmland rents and land values would plummet all over the country. Countries not bound by the treaty, would expand their farm output and see their farmland prices rise.

I think it is increasingly important for us to consider the consequences of the Kyoto protocol before we jump in head first as Mr. Journet is proposing. I think U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson has a good understanding of how the Kyoto protocol will affect area farmers, and she is fulfilling her promise to put people before "environmentalist" politics.

JIM KREWSON

Shawneetown