LETTERS: WARNING LIGHT ON FOR GLOBAL WARMING

To the editor:

While it would be nice if we all had oil-pressure gauges in our vehicles telling us exactly what the oil pressure is, most of us have to make do with the red warning light. As we know, this is usually set at a very low level of sensitivity. It doesn't go on until we are very low on oil, and continued driving would seriously damage or destroy our engine. If the light were to come on too soon, we would have a false alarm and would be worrying about engine damage when none were threatened. On the other hand, if the light were not to come on until the last drop of oil has been burned, we could be living with a false sense of security while our engine is being destroyed. Wherever we set the level of sensitivity of the oil warning light, we are in danger of making an error in our decision as to what to do. We could go on driving and pay the price of a destroyed engine, or we could stop and buy more oil when we don't need it. Either way there are economic costs of being wrong. And each of us has to make a decision about which error we would rather make. I think most folks would prefer to stop and buy oil a little more often than necessary, rather than risk destroying the engine. Given the costs of the alternatives, this seems the more prudent approach. We are in exactly the same position with the Kyoto Protocol and global-warming issues. With reports of record temperatures at the earth's surface coming to us almost weekly, the warning light is illuminated for all to see. Some folks would rather ignore the warning light and press on as though nothing were the matter. They want to avoid the cost of a quart of oil now to save the engine later. Others, however, argue that the potential cost of a burned-out engine is worth the preventive investment in a quart of oil. Whether predictions that reducing greenhouse gas production would be economically damaging or economically beneficial are correct (and we have reports going both ways), of one outcome we can be certain: Should global warming occur as has been predicted, the disruption to all those natural systems on the planet which are the source of our food, fiber, health and wealth would be of catastrophic dimensions the likes of which we have yet to witness on the planet. It is unfortunate that the evidence argues so convincingly that we are facing a problem, but no amount of denial will prevent the engine from burning up if we are genuinely low on oil. And no amount of rejection of the evidence will prevent dire consequences if our actions are really heating up the planet. Rather than fretting at the costs of buying a quart of oil and arguing that the U.S. should do nothing until lesser culprits contribute more, our representatives should be biting the bullet and leading the nation and the world in a commitment to prudent action in defense of a planet at risk. On a global scale, we need to buy that quart of oil, not continue to deny the warning light and ignore its implications. When U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson argues against prudent action, she is not arguing for the best interests of current and future residents of the planet, no matter what the species. Rather, she is arguing for the short-term economic interests of a few companies and enterprises (many of them multinationals) that are committed to a disinformation campaign designed to lull Americans into a false sense of security.

ALAN R.P. JOURNET

Cape Girardeau