On one sense, the argument as to whether global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism in the coming century is a sterile one. Both are huge problems, and the steps we should be taking to resolve them are orthogonal.

Or, rather, they should be orthogonal. And here's the rub. The UK government seems to believe that in order to fight terrorism, it needs to stand foursquare behind the American government. Criticism of the US's environmental policies would, according to this viewpoint, dilute the vital anti-terrorist alliance, and must be suppressed.

This would be dangerous even if the US was actually succeeding in damping down terrorism. Given that Guantanamo Bay, the Iraqi invasion, blind support for Israel's illegal activities and so on seem to be exacerbating terrorism, this is doubly mad. So far as my children are concerned, I'm far more concerned that they won't have a working ecosystem to keep them alive than I am that they'll suffer at the hands of terrorosts.

By the way, an excellent summary of the American government's current environmental policies can be found in Crimes Against Nature (via Rebecca Blood).