I saw an article in the Evansville Courier & Press this morning entitled, "'Big dry' worst on record.' The article, by Rod McGuirk of the Associated Press, discusses the latest droughts in Australia, which some blame on global warming. According to the article, several areas from the east to the west coast of Australia are experiencing their driest year on record. The country's grain earnings, a result of the huge impact the drought has had on farming, are expected to be cut by 35%. Although Australia is the world's third largest exporter of wheat, only 10.5 million tons of wheat can be harvested currently, which is less than half the previous harvest. Many ranchers have resorted to selling livestock because they can't afford to feed them. The Australian government has had to increase welfare and subsidies substantially to its farmers--up to 72,000 farmers--given the grave conditions.

Although it is unclear from the article how established the link is between this drought and global warming, it certainly makes you reflect on how if global warming is a possible culprit, countries like Australia can no longer afford to ignore it. It seems like the resounding reason that the U.S. and Australia refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was that it would be too restrictive on their countries' economies. Yet, as the article notes, droughts which are possibly due to climate change can have an enormous economic significance. Is the economic gain from ignoring greenhouse gas emissions so much greater than the losses to be had from climate change? If countries like the U.S. and Australia force their industry, including the coal industry, to limit carbon dioxide emissions, are they going to be so much worse off than if they need to pay subsidies and aid to those businesses harmed by climate change, particularly farmers? I have never seen a cost-benefit analysis like this. One thing that comes to mind that might help these farmers is for them to use their farmland for alternative energy. If their land is suitable for wind power, perhaps they can lease their land for wind turbines and generate income in that manner. Another idea is for solar towers to be placed on this arid farmland, given that the company building the first large-scale solar tower is in Australia (as discussed in the "Tower of Power" article in Fortune).

It seems to me that the leaders in Australia and the U.S. need to remember that the economy means more than industry in the conventional sense. Farmers have businesses as well and ignoring global warming may present a real threat to something as fundamental as our food sources.