Anyone who knows me probably knows my incessant need to contact my senator/congresswoman/world leaders on any issue ranging from Saving the Wolves, Ending Human Rights Abuses, Protecting Refugees, or Stopping Global Warming. On occassion I receive letters back from those I contact, typically Eddie Bernice Johnson, my Congresswoman and BFF, whom I usually see eye to eye with on issues. However, I recently received a response from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison which I thought I would share as she represents the "best interest" of Texas voters.

KBH’s comments in response to a petition asking that she consider legislation to limit the effects of global warming: "I believe any legislation regarding climate should be based on sound scientific evidence, and a careful consideration of the economic and social costs involved. Proposals such as the Kyoto treaty would place U.S. industries at a great competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. We must act responsibly to achieve cleaner air and address the issue of global climate change while maintaining a level playing field for commerce."

A quick background on the Kyoto Treay: The revised Kyoto treaty, scheduled to take effect in 2008, commits industrialized nations to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (primarily Carbon Dioxide) by approximately 2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. The U.S. produces 36% of emission in 1990 making us the world’s biggest polluter. However, President George Bush declared that the U.S. will never sign the treaty despite the compromises offered by the revised agreement, such as allowing countries to offset their targets with carbon sinks (areas of forest and farmland which absorb carbon through photosynthesis) and reducing the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from the original treaty’s 5.2% to 2%. Despite these changes President Bush is still unwilling to sign the treaty.

Apparently KBH is touting Bush’s ideas that global warming should take a backseat to the American economy. Now ask yourself, what will all that money accomplish in the pockets of the rich when the world begins to experience severe floods and droughts, rising sea levels, an increase in malaria, and respiratory disease?

Additionally, KBH can’t get her definitions correct, "climate change" is the change in average weather over time and over a region whereas "global warming" is a gradual warming of the Earth’s atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels and industrial pollutants. Of course, climate change does make the entire phenomenon appear benign, but how benign will it be when the entire world is suffering from the death and destruction brought on by hurricanes, mudslides, and disease?

Not to mention, the economy will inevitably be effected by global warming, though paper pushers like KBH might not see the daily effects of global warming in their workplace, I can assure you when pinot noir and chardonnay cease to exist, those paper pushers will become a little irate. Global warming has the capacity to destroy California’s $15 billion wine industry, eradicate lobsters thus limiting food supply and jobs for fisherman, and melt the snow and profits of the $4.5 billion ski industry. I can’t believe that these issues don’t hit close to home for many policymakers in Washington.

Perhaps we can take the money that the U.S. economy will supposedly save in economic and social costs from not participating in the Kyoto Treaty and use it to build a spaceship for all of us to escape Earth before it implodes. Then we can populate another planet and sap it of it’s natural resources. By that time, KBH will either cryonically freeze herself in order to continue her regime or another policymaker will have to choose between the economy and inevitable planetary death.

Should you choose planetary life you can make a difference by going to Fight Global Warming or by signing a petition to making global warming a presidential priority in 2008.