|
Courage against the 'consensus'THE WASHINGTON
TIMES
Published October 29, 2003
Today and tomorrow,
the Senate is expected to spend six hours of floor time debating the Climate
Stewardship Act, co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and
Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat. Considering its doubtful mitigation
effects and certain economic costs, Congress would do well to spend nothing
more than time on the legislation.
The bill is a
light version of the Kyoto Protocol. While Kyoto would require emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to be cut to 1990 levels by 2012,
McCain-Lieberman would require that such emissions be cut to 2000 levels by
2010. Earlier this month, Messrs. McCain and Lieberman agreed to eliminate the
second phase of the cuts, which would reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2015.
(They promised to push for this phase later.)
Doing
that could have a cumulative cost of over $1.3 trillion by 2025, according to
an analysis of the legislation done by the Energy Information Administration
(EIA). (The analysis included a few optimistic estimates on the economy's
ability to compensate for the imposed costs.) The EIA report also predicted
that by 2025, the price of gasoline would rise by about one-third and the price
of electricity by about 50 percent.
Those are
startling numbers, regardless of the considerable uncertainties involved.
Similar economic likelihoods led Russian President Vladimir Putin to step back
from ratification of Kyoto. Australia has also refused to go along.
In contrast to the near-consensus among economists
about high costs of emissions caps on carbon dioxide, there is still no
agreement among scientists on how those emissions may be contributing to
climate change. The systems are too complex, and there are too many variables
involved for a clear-cut answer.
However, it is
widely acknowledged that Kyoto-style caps would have little effect on climate
change. An article on technologies that might be useful in reaching such
targets published in the journal Science about a year ago pointed out that
"Kyoto is too weak . . . because much greater emission reductions will be
needed and we lack the technology to make them."
Emissions reductions and economic growth will have
to go hand-in-hand — as the Science piece noted, "Energy is critical to
global prosperity and equity." In an op-ed opposite this page, Margo Thorning
points out that encouraging the development of new energy production
technologies with reduced greenhouse gas emissions is a wise goal for
policy-makers.
The administration has already been
doing so, with initiatives on clean coal and hydrogen fuel cells. Although
critics have castigated the administration for faintheartedness in refusing to
act on either McCain-Lieberman or Kyoto, it takes courage to go against the
clamor of the chattering class.
The vote on
McCain-Lieberman may give the administration's opponents a new set of talking
points. However, it should not sway the administration in its determination to
avoid costly, ineffective strictures like McCain-Lieberman or Kyoto. Time and
technology may yet provide the best solutions to climate change.
Copyright © 2003 News World
Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|