LETTERS: OPPORTUNITY OF KYOTO WAS MISSED

To the editor:

It is regrettable that the Southeast Missourian has contrived to miss another opportunity. Instead of using the Kyoto Conference as a vehicle for producing an article that outlines the evidence and concerns regarding global warming, the newspaper turned a brief and hastily produced news story into a commercial for the Jo Ann Emerson re-election campaign. It is curious that we heard nothing of the views of the other Missouri delegate to Japan, Karen McCarthy. It is not surprising to see Emerson toeing the party line yet again, as she pretends that there is no scientific consensus when she must know, by now, that she is wrong. The list of scientific doubters that her compatriot Peter Kinder identifies as growing is composed of the same three individuals who have long been paid by the energy lobby to mount its disinformation campaign. Of course, in contrast to the long list of the world's leading physicists and chemists who have expressed deep concern about global warming, Emerson has no expertise or credentials in this area, save the political dogma that dictates her blind assumption of an unreasonable position. Would that our politicians had the courage to think and explore the evidence for themselves. It is surprising, however, to see that Charles Kruse and his Farm Bureau are selling out the farmers of Missouri and toeing the same party line. If we fail to counter the problem of global warming, of all businesses in the nation that will suffer, it's the farmers who will lose most. Mr. Kruse needs to explore what would be the consequences for Missouri farmers should global warming occur. If he were to do that, he would find that bankruptcy is a serious possibility. Farmers, of all folks, must know how important to their livelihood is an appropriate climate. Crops grow in areas where both soils and climate meet their needs. If climate, indeed, continues to change, current crops may no longer provide a profitable harvest. Soybean yields, for example, could easily be reduced between 20 percent and 70 percent. The current crops of Missouri may find appropriate climates exist only hundreds of miles to the north where soils may be quite different and inappropriate. This could be disastrous for our national ability to remain self-sufficient in essential crops.

The result of this would be devastating to farmers whose lives and businesses have been built around specializing in the crops they currently grow. The Farm Bureau would better serve the farmers of Missouri if it rejected the right-wing party line, explored the issue for itself, and developed a position that reflected better the long term interests of both the farming community and Americans as a whole. If farmers and the Farm Bureau thinks the cost of addressing global warming appears high, it should reflect upon the cost of not doing so.

For small businesses, many of whom rely on agricultural production, the same questions need to be asked.

If neither you nor your business relies on the current productivity of natural resources, you might find it better to ignore global warming, However, there are few of us who don't eat, and few businesses, indeed, for whom natural resources (agricultural or forestry) are irrelevant.

The Southeast Missourian has successfully identified for us further illustrations of the failure of too many individuals, institutions and politicians to think beyond short term economic analyses. It has long been said, as the laws of thermodynamics teach us, that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Though the dire economic consequences of action that are suggested by some right-wing analyses are certainly not accepted by all economic studies, maybe now, we are seeing that it is time to pay for what we have long thought was a free lunch. Some can see. Others simply refuse even to open their eyes. ALAN JOURNET

Cape Girardeau