Stem-selling Democrats

the chance to control temperature rises.” The British government is sending Stern on a tour of China, India, the US and Australia to set out British thinking and press home the central thesis of his review — that it will cost the world far more later if it does not spend money now to avert climate change. World emissions of greenhouse gases were the equivalent of 42 bn tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2000, the report says. The biggest source (24%) is the use of fossil fuels to generate energy, such as power stations that burn coal, oil or gas to produce electricity. Energy as a fuel for transport (14%), industry (14%) and to supply building materials (8%) is also a big emitter. So are changes in land use which mainly means cutting down forests. Harvesting timber from tropical rain forests and using the land for oil palm and soya can boost income per hectare from $2 to $2,000. Stern says: “The loss of natural forests around the world contributes more to global emissions each year than the transport sector.” Stern highlights the likelihood of changes in the water cycle as one of the earliest outcomes of climate change. Droughts and floods will become more severe in many areas, he argues. Rain will increase at higher latitudes and decrease in the dry subtropics. Hotter land drives more powerful evaporation, which brings more intense rainfall and flash floods, he says. “Warming may introduce sudden shifts in regional weather patterns such as the monsoon rains in South Asia or the El Niño phenomenon”, he says. Warming over the past 40 years has driven species an average of four miles towards the poles per decade, while seasonal events such as flowering have come forward several days, he says. Stern spent more than a year examining this problem. His report has a simple message: climate change is fundamentally altering the planet; the risks of inaction are high and time is running out. American elections rarely turn on issues of science. Climate change flies far below the popular political radar. Americans don’t care that much about the space program (unless they happen to live in Houston or near Cape Canaveral, Florida). So it was a bit of a surprise that the issue of using embryonic stem cells ended up providing an important nudge in some of the tightest political races this fall. Candidates in close races usually tend to shy away from divisive issues, such as abortion and stem cell research. And as of mid-October, it seemed that would be the case with stem cells. Missouri had a ballot proposition that would bolster the use of embryonic stem cells for research. But, as the New York Times noted, Senate candidates Jim Talent (the Republican incumbent) and Claire McCaskill (the Democratic challenger) were doing their best to dodge the issue. “Just a few months ago, the Missouri stem cell research Mediawatch: Richard F. Harris reports on one scientific issue that surfaced in the US mid-term elections. Stem-selling Democrats initiative on the November ballot was a defining issue of the campaign, as both candidates tried to firm up support among the party faithful in one of the tightest Senate races in the country,” The Times noted on 15 October. “But now, as Mr. Talent and Ms. McCaskill reach beyond their traditional bases, the emotionally charged ballot measure — which would allow the research and possibly provide state financing for it — is almost too hot to touch.” That observation turned out to be off the mark. Less than two weeks later, McCaskill’s campaign made a huge splash by airing a commercial by actor Michael J. Fox, 45, who has Parkinson’s disease. “What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans — Americans like me,’’ the actor, best known for his role in the Back To The Future movies, said in a commercial that aired during the World Series baseball championship. As the Daily Telegraph noted, “The issue of stem cell research is deeply divisive in America. Conservative politicians face a delicate balancing act when considering the demands of voters, particularly older citizens, and the concerns of religious groups over stem cell research.” Response to this ad was swift — and blundered. Conservative talk-show host Rush