Everywhere we went we found people who spoke powerfully of the need to focus more attention on more immediate problems. In the Bauleni slum compound in Lusaka, Zambia, 27-year-old Samson Banda asked, "If I die from malaria tomorrow, why should I care about global warming?" In a camp for stateless Biharis in Bangladesh, 45-year-old Momota Begum said, "When my kids haven't got enough to eat, I don't think global warming will be an issue I will be thinking about." On the southeast slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, 45-year-old widow and HIV/AIDS sufferer Mary Thomas said she had noticed changes in the mountain's glaciers, but declared: "There is no need for ice on the mountain if there is no people around because of HIV/AIDS...

Instead of making far-fetched promises about greenhouse gases, how about a concrete commitment to green energy research and development? Specifically, we should radically increase spending on R&D for green energy—to 0.2% of global GDP, or $100 billion. That's 50 times more than the world spends now—but still twice as cheap as Kyoto. Not only would this be both affordable and politically achievable, but it would also have a real chance of working."

Again, this is a simple, clarion call for action to confront global warming, but is also a call for prudence, not utopianism.  When will global leaders understand how to not ignore problems and also how to not react rashly, harmfully, and precipitously?

It seems we are destined to always have leadership that oscillates between these poles, each representing opposite, but equally damaging extremes.  Its amazing to consider that that being pragmatic has now become radical, while the truly radical is so commonplace, its almost worth nothing with anything more than a passive shrug.