If you find it demoralizing that we are incinerating the planet and dooming future generations simply because too many of us like to eat cheeseburgers, here's that good news I promised: In their report, Goodland and Anhang found that most of what we need to do to mitigate the climate crisis can be achieved "by replacing just one quarter of today's least eco-friendly food products" -- read: animal products -- "with better alternatives." That's right; essentially, if every fourth time someone craved, say, beef, chicken or cow milk they instead opted for a veggie burger, a bean burrito or water, we have a chance to halt the emergency.

The trouble, of course, is that environmentalism and conservation -- like everything else -- have been unduly politicized. Consequently, opposing those once-universal values now seems to be viewed by many on the right as a constructive expression of patriotic defiance. Indeed, according to one recent study, many self-described conservatives will refuse to buy a green product once they see it marketed as being environmentally responsible. Similarly, another study shows that conservatives are prone to consume more energy when warned that they are already using a lot.

In light of that, I'm sure some conservatives will read this column and send me email smugly pledging to eat even more meat than they already do, just to make some incoherent point about freedom. What they will really be proving, though, is that no matter how straightforward a climate change solution may be, we will never be able to combat the crisis until everyone is willing to sacrifice just a little bit, and nobody pretends ecological survival is anything other than what is: an apolitical, transpartisan priority.

Note: Even the most alarmist of global warming alarmists believe the temperature will rise about 5-8 degrees in the next 100 years. This is incineration of the planet? Taking conservatives to task for their climate apostasy might ring a little truer if Mr. Sirota wasn't such an hysteric.

And whose fault is the "politicization" of climate change? Scientists themselves have politicized the global warming issue by making spectacularly wild claims that later prove to be scientifically unprovable or simply wrong. They are in service to a political agenda being promoted by the usual one worlder suspects and anti-capitalist freaks who see a puff of smoke from a factory and claim that greedy capitalists are destroying the planet.

An exaggeration? No more so than anything Sirota claims in his ridiculous article. The frightening thing is that what Sirota proposes as voluntary is likely to become mandatory given the authoritarian mindset of the Nanny Bloombergs of the movement and their penchant to demonize anyone who disagrees with them.

Now, please don't load up on cheeseburgers just to spite Mr. Sirota. His delicate sensibilities will be disturbed and besides, do you know how much fat is in a McDonald's cheeseburger?