I just wrote a newspaper column about the Antarctica Treaty. It was the first treaty of the Cold War. It was initially signed by 12 nations, including the U.S. There are now 54 nation signatories, and counting. The treaty specifies no nation, at this point, can “own” any part of Antarctica. But the nations can set up research station to do environmentally, non-invasive research. And part of this research, at this point, is how global warming is effecting Antarctica. (Read: thawing, with an exponent.) But some, unbelievably, see this as a good thing because it makes the region more accessible to drilling for fossil fuels and the like — when nations start jockeying for ownership. I note in the column that when you put CO2 and CO2 together, you get: idiocy. Burning fossil fuels is accelerating rising sea levels, massive forest fires, super charged hurricanes and typhoons, drought and famine in more arid countries, thawing in the polar regions… The latter being ‘the canary, or rather the penguin, in the coal mine.’ We would do well, and our administration would push for this, to leave Antarctica what it currently is: the world’s largest nature preserve. And we would do well, concurrently, to start sacrificing much more when it comes to cutting back on energy use, while ramping up alternative energy sources. That is, if we’re interested in being good environmental stewards — the way God might see it.