A CHANGE IN THE WEATHER

A CHANGE IN THE WEATHER
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Two new studies published in the current issue of the prestigious science journal Nature report that global warming is forcing hundreds of animal and plant species around the world to alter their habits. Flowering plants are blooming earlier. Some bird and insect species are shifting their habitat ranges toward the poles, and altering their reproductive cycles. Such changes could have serious ecological consequences if, for example, the timing of birds' egg-laying fell out of sync with the availability of required food sources. That could lead to increased competition with other species, population declines and extinction.
The disturbing findings add yet another rock to the mountain of evidence that global warming -- caused in part by human activity -- is real. And although animals and plants have always adapted to climate change, the accelerating pace of change is a serious threat. As greenhouse gas concentrations increase, climatologists anticipate major disruptions in ecosystems, sea levels, water supplies and weather.
How much humans are contributing to global warming, and what can be done to stop, reverse or cope with it, is the subject of continued debate around the world. In the United States, that debate has produced far more heat than light -- and precious little action. And the administration of President Bush is in no hurry to alter policies to address the threat of global warming.
Greenhouse gases
On the contrary, while much of the developed world has committed itself to sharply reducing emissions of greenhouse gases -- principally heat-trapping carbon dioxide -- the United States continues to take an obstructionist, dilatory and arrogant stance. The United States is the only world power that refused to sign the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty aimed at reducing carbon-dioxide emissions, arguing that the reductions would be too costly for industry to implement.
With about 4.5 percent of the world's population, the United States cranks out 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide, chiefly from vehicle tailpipes and the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants. Compared to our counterparts in Europe, who use a quarter of the energy per person that Americans do, our energy consumption habits are grossly wasteful.
Yet Congress and President Bush -- who only recently acknowledged that global warming existed -- have shown little interest in doing anything that would cramp the profitability of companies that drill, sell or use oil, coal and other fossil fuels.
Last year, Congress refused to increase significantly automobile fuel efficiency standards that not only could reduce greenhouse gases but also drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Environmental benefits aside, that seems a prudent goal given the highly flammable state of affairs in two of our main oil suppliers, Venezuela and the Middle East. Yet suggestions that we wean ourselves from foreign oil through conservation efforts and innovation has somehow been cast as unpatriotic. When, we wonder, did thrift and ingenuity cease to be American virtues?
Last month, the Bush administration held a three-day conference to set a new agenda for a 10-year study to monitor climate change. Studies are well and good; we'll need more research in the future. But scientists rightly warn that studies are no substitute for action. As we study the dimensions of global warming, we should be drafting policies to address it.
With relatively straightforward -- though politically and economically unpopular -- solutions at hand, doing nothing should not be an option. Scientists, environmentalists and even some economists argue that, in the long run, the economic and environmental costs of inaction on global warming will be far greater.
NO MORE TUMMY TURBULENCE?
San Jose Mercury News: This could be the beginning of the end of a time-honored tradition for travelers: complaining about airplane food.
America West is going to start selling meals instead of giving them away. If a trial run on some routes is a success, it'll become a practice for long flights.
At first it seems outrageous. Why should we pay for the garbage we've been getting for free all these years?
But all those rubber chicken, soggy pasta and limp lettuce dishes haven't really been free. They cost the airlines a fortune, and everybody who flies has been paying for them, even though many of us barely taste them (except for the brownies) before tossing them into a flight attendant's garbage sack. Cutting that cost could help stem the flow of red ink that afflicts all but a few carriers these days.
Chicken Kiev
Besides, if airlines start charging for food, they'll have to serve better food. Won't they? Sure it will be better. Nobody will pay $10 for a Chicken Kiev that is -- well, airplane food.
American Airlines (no relation to America West) may try a different tack: Having food for sale at the gate, where American now provides free, edible but very basic "bistro meals" in a bag. At the gate, a food service could offer more variety without the airlines having to load, store and distribute food onboard.
Great -- but why not back up a few steps? Think of all the time people are wasting in security lines. Some entrepreneur could be hawking carry-on meals to that captive clientele, with dishes prepackaged to go through screening. (Memo: Could those X-ray machines add a microwave option?)
It's hard to see much good in the storm clouds that now menace our transportation systems. But the demise of airplane food as we know it -- now that is truly a silver lining.