I was reading the Economist's special issue, "The World in 2007." One thing I will say about the Economist, which I used to think was just a stodgy British publication--It faces head-on, the issues of global warming and climate change. I can always find at least one, if not several, articles about environmental issues, which I think is very telling about our society today. If more mainstream business publications, especially quite conservative ones, challenge the global policy on handling climate change, perhaps our world leaders will start to wake up before we are past the point of no return. The issue starts with an article by John Micklethwait entitled, "It's still down to George Bush." The article focuses on how George Bush can save his legacy. As we all know, our President has an abysmal approach to environmental policy, global warming in particular. He refused to sign the Kyoto protocol because he claimed it would be too burdensome on our businesses. Mr. Micklethwait dubs Mr. Bush the "Toxic Texan," and notes that many would probably bristle at the thought of the President suddenly confronting global warming. Yet, as the article indicates, Mr. Bush may have no choice but to do just that if he wants to be remembered as something other than a friend of greenhouse gas-emitting industries. According to the article, the American public has become more accepting in the past five years since Kyoto was rejected by the U.S., that global warming is real and that climate change will happen absent some drastic measures. As Mr. Micklethwait states, Mr. Bush has a hope (perhaps tenuous at this time) of preserving his image by finding something to replace Kyoto and setting an example for India, China, and other quickly developing (and energy hungry) nations. Given his low approval and the fact that he can not run for another re-election, Mr. Bush, as the article insists, has nothing to lose by switching gears in this manner.