Letter to the Editor

LETTERS: LOOKING AT PROFITS, NOT PRUDENCE

This article comes from our electronic archive and has not been reviewed. It may contain glitches.

To the editor:

Sometimes, folks become overly committed to an idea. When this happens, the more dogmatic and closed-minded they are, the less are they able to acknowledge any evidence or argument that might challenge their belief. They may also lose the ability to recognize the consequences of their opinions. This seems to be the case with our radical right-wing U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (April 28 letter to the editor) and climate change.

Emerson has attended conferences and received information regarding this issue and so should know better, but she remains resolutely committed to the party line presented by the petroleum and automobile lobbies and the Farm Bureau. The focus of these opponents of evidence and reason seems to be short-term profits rather than long-term prudence.

In her attack on the United Nations protocol (apparently our representative sees shadowy conspiracies behind every door) and commitment to right-wing scare tactics regarding the economic consequences of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, Emerson ignores two issues:* Economic studies have been conducted that suggest an absence of the dire economic consequences of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions that she blindly accepts.* If she thinks the consequence of responding is economically problematic, she should consider the economic calamity that would befall farmers and forest managers should global warming occur. It is clear that the right-wing lobbies that our representative is endorsing are concerned only about the short-term profits to be gained by denying the evidence. They are not concerned about the long-term economic and health consequences for all on the planet should global warming occur. This is the essence of her criticism that developing nations are not asked to do enough, while developed nations (which largely have become fat by causing the problem) are expected to do more.

The unsound science which Emerson criticizes is not in evidence from those concerned about global warming. Unsound science is evident in abundance, however, in the opinions and reports released by dogmatic skeptics. But, of course, combining her lack of expertise in meteorology, atmospheric chemistry and science generally with her committed and dogmatic, politically motivated denials, it is little wonder that our congressional representative is unable to see what the evidence suggests.

By adopting and promoting a dangerously short-term view from her lofty perch as our congresswoman, Emerson is legitimizing blind and imprudent positions that most Americans would reject given an understanding of the issues and the normal concern that folks have for our future and the future of succeeding generations. If Emerson were really to represent rural Americans, she would not be placing farming and forestry at risk by touting the petroleum and auto lobby line of denial.

ALAN JOURNET

Cape Girardeau