The reason that Bush recommends adapting to inevitable changes is that
he and his industrial buddies figure they can make a buck on it.  What
they don't yet grock is that the catastrophic changes we all will
experience may result in a non-economic future:  meaning that the very
concept of marketplace and international or even national commerce will
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.
>
>"It 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. "
>
>A shortened version of this article, by Andrew Revkin of the New York Times,
>appeared in the Des Moines Register yesterday, page 3A.  Here is the
>paragraph as it read in the Register:
>
>"It instead recommends adating 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."
>
>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]