Here is a letter I have just emailed to the Register regarding the
"Global Warming adaptation" article of last week.
______________________________
Dear Editor,
Last week you published an excerpt from a N.Y.Times article by Andrew
Revkin concerning the Bush administrations recent policy statements
about Global Warming.  In the original article Revkin states that the
Bush position is out of step with many environmental groups and most
countries that have accepted the Kyoto Protocol.  Bush & his advisors
are now recommending adapting to inevitable changes in the environment
rather than cleaning up our collective human act in order to try to save
the environment.
Your version of the article was considerably garbled and instead gave
the impression that Bush's view is accepted in the environmental
community. (I've included the two versons below for your reference)
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The policy that Bush is now advocating is nothing short of environmental
suicide.  My suspicion is that Bush and his Multi-National Corporate
buddies actually believe that they can figure out how to make a profit
off of Global Warming and hence this policy shift. What they obviously
don't understand is that the global catastrophic changes we all will
probably experience may result in a non-economic future.  By this I mean
that the very concept of marketplace and international or even national
commerce will probably disappear along with a viable ecosystem.  What we
will most likely face, if we survive as a species, will be a
hand-to-mouth existence of isolated human communities struggling to
survive in a hostile environment.  (Picture for example an Iowa summer
with average temperatures in the 130 degree range. How much corn could
we grow there?)
The only sane course of action for us as individuals, and as a society,
is to do everything we can to reverse global warming, even if it causes
some economic difficulties in the short term.
Thank you,
Philip Scott - Leopold Group of the Iowa Sierra Club

P.S.--The original N.Y. Times article paragraph four:
   "It (Bush) recommends adapting to inevitable changes. It does not
recommend making rapid reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming,
the approach favored by many environmental groups and countries that
have accepted the Kyoto Protocol, a climate treaty written in the
Clinton administration that was rejected by Mr. Bush."

The same paragraph as it appeared in the Register:
   "It instead recommends adapting to inevitable changes.  That is the
approach favored by many environmental groups and countries and have
accepted the Kyoto Protocol, a Clinon-era climate treaty that the Bush
Administration rejected."

calogics wrote:

>why don't you express these concerns to the d.m. register...
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Philip W. Scott" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>>The reason that Bush recommends . . . disappear along with a viable ecosystem.
>>
>>Jane Clark wrote:
>>
>>>Global Warming, New York Times articleThanks for sending this, Jack.  The
>>>fourth paragraph was especially interesting . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>What a very strange editing change.
>>>
>>>Jane Clark
>>>
>>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
>>[log in to unmask]
>>
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
>[log in to unmask]
>
>