Whatever the consequences of climate change, we do expect to have: a green climate! for scientists will keep searching for the best, and many areas in the world of which they are not producing food, but it will be so good in producing many crops for food or feed !! Regards.

The Economist was launched in September 1843 to take part in "a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress". Notwithstanding The Economist's palpable self-importance, the point is that all fields of human endeavor stand to benefit from different framings. On the subject of climate change, it may seem that the discourse of mitigation has priority over, say, that of adaptation. But, other discourses about climate change exist on the periphery, such as the logical action discourse, the complexity discourse, and the culture of consumption discourse, all of which could (or rather should) enrich one another as well as the discourses of mitigation and adaptation. The prevalence of one discourse or another will vary depending on the audience too: very understandably, small island nations will have unique perspectives on climate change.

We must adjust the effects of climate change while preventing global warming, and this requires sound and timely policymaking to provide appropriate credit and action in the North and South of the world. Scientists and researchers have a critical role to play in determining priorities in this process, and our question is whether the direction of this research is influenced by dominant thinking. If the answer is yes, does this thinking take into account the interests of all countries? If not, we will not reach the global goal because we are all sitting on one ship!