<Begin Bad Rod Serling Impression>

Imagine, if you will, a world devoid of all sea life; a world with no polar ice caps, no winter and very little rain; a world inhabited by little more than a lone remaining species. That species is Man, and it is he who is now endangered.

<Fade To Grainy Black-And-White Scene Distorted By Overbearing Sun Glare.>

The location is central Iowa, but it could be almost anywhere on the planet, for conditions are much the same worldwide. Where once cornfields flourished as far as the eye could see, the ground now lies bare, whipped by a never-ending parade of giant dust devils that suck the very life out of the earth. No rain has fallen for over ten years. Nowhere to be seen is any plant life of any significance; the animals left, or died, before the last plant disappeared.

Oil and gold have been replaced by fresh water as the local currency. As the planet’s temperature rose, the ice caps melted and provided the inhabitants with more liquid H₂O than they could handle - all of it salty. Were it not for the technology to harness the energy from the sun, a sun rarely hidden by any type of cloud cover, mankind’s ability to continue even a meager existence would have long since vanished. Solar energy alone makes it possible to produce both fresh water and a portable energy source – hydrogen.

This is not a Soylent Green planet. For, as fresh water became more and more scarce, as the land lost its plant cover and turned arid, as the food chain broke down with the loss of virtually all sea life, the population of the human race also went into steep decline. Now, the ones left eke out a meager, primitive existence, trying to keep their species alive in hopes the planet will rejuvenate itself and a second wave of evolution will begin to replace that lost to the follies of previous generations.

<Fade to Black>

<End Serling Impression>

Overly dramatic? Possibly. Out of the question? Absolutely not!

Three occurrences of the past week point to this as the future for our planet if we “stay the course.” If our leaders do not take drastic action soon, this is what awaits our children and grandchildren.

On Monday, 30 October, Juliet Eilperin, writing for the Washington Post, published Bush Appointee Said to Reject Advice on Endangered Species, an indictment of the actions of a senior Bush political appointee at the Interior Department, Julie MacDonald. MacDonald has waged a long-running battle with Fish and Wildlife Service employees over decisions concerning the safeguarding of plants and animals from oil and gas drilling, power lines and real estate development. In case after case, MacDonald has arbitrarily disregarded ecologically sound evidence gathered using the scientific method and sided with the special interests of Big Business.

This dispute is another in the long-running series of controversies between the Bush administration and the scientific community. With his narcissistic, “me, me, me” approach to governing, Bush and his underlings continue to set aside legitimate scientific evidence wherever that evidence does not mesh with Bush’s political agenda.

For some reason, it has become acceptable in Washington to manipulate science for ideological purposes. Republicans in Congress have gone so far, as in the debate on stem cell research, to cast the argument in a “good versus evil” venue, portraying scientists as the ones behaving unethically.

On the heels of Eilperin’s article came The Stern Review, a 700-page report compiled by a top British government economist and former chief economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern. In his report, Stern speaks of catastrophic economic impact unless we take bold measures to curb harmful emissions.

In his report, Stern warns, “If we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5 percent of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20 percent of GDP or more.”

Stern reports stabilization of greenhouse gases, “at whatever level – requires that annual emissions be brought down to more than 80% below current levels.”

Stern’s projection of the impact on the GDP is especially interesting since Bush has not wanted to take action on curbing greenhouse gas emissions because of the negative economic impact, especially on his friends in Big Business. The 5 percent minimum cited by Stern is far more severe than any impact envisioned by the Frick and Frack administration. Thus, by refusing to act, they are simply delaying, and at the same time exacerbating, the impact on their buddies.

Finally, in Friday’s issue of the journal Science, a team of ecologists and economists warned that our supply of seafood has already experienced a 29 percent collapse and the supply of seafood faces total collapse by 2048. The report concludes it is not yet too late to turn this collapse around, but doing so will require massive government-directed intervention in fishing policies and regulation of ocean pollution.

Since he first assumed office, President Bush has continuously disavowed any belief in the science that supports the idea of major climatological changes in the next few decades. Instead, he has chosen to pander to the interests of Big Business, refusing to take any action that might be considered economically detrimental to his base of overly rich supporters. He and his minions have continued to plunder the planet in a feeding frenzy of greed aimed at further fattening their already-bulging wallets.

Every President is concerned about his legacy and how he will be remembered by History. At the current pace, George W. Bush will be remembered as the one President that had the best opportunity to save the planet, but chose not to; he is on pace to leave a legacy of environmental destruction. Those who follow will have to try, as best they can, to pick up the pieces of a planet trashed by the Bush regime.