Hot enough for ya?

I'm not sure what to believe about global warming. The theory has been around for awhile and seems to have sound scientific backing. Global warming is entrenched in the popular consciousness, so much so that it is routinely included in comments about the weather: "Hot enough for ya? That global warming is really something," or "Boy, it's cold out. I thought global warming was supposed to warm things up!"

While some reputable scientists have their doubts about the global warming theory and its implications, many others are convinced that immediate action is needed. In response, 178 nations have signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for industrialized nations to cut their emissions of "greenhouse" gases by 5.2% from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. President George W. Bush has been castigated by environmental groups and the worldwide media for withdrawing the United States from the protocol, and sternly lectured by other world leaders. He has been called an ignorant, heartless polluter, caving in to the demands of evil, money-grubbing utilities. And those are the nice things people have said!

Since I've never been accused of being a tree-hugger, I tend to cast a skeptical eye on apocalyptic predictions of environmental doom, and global warming is the mother of all doomsday scenarios. With the constant drum pounding in the press and the weight of world opinion on the side of the Kyoto Protocol, however, I've wondered if President Bush made a mistake.

Then I read some other interesting tidbits of information that prompt me to swing back to the other side. One of my favorite syndicated columnists, Robert Samuelson, recently wrote that President Bush's decision to exit the agreement may have come across as a public relations blunder, but that he had good reasons for doing so. Samuelson said that the Kyoto Protocol, while stringent, would not significantly alter the effects of global warming. It would, however, cause economic havoc. He concluded there is not much we can do about global warming using current technology unless we are willing to give up our standard of living.

Several environmental economists who should know what they are talking about--have also weighed in on the side of President Bush. The basic premise of these economists, reported in the Wall Street Journal on August 7, is that the Kyoto agreement is unworkable since it would three the phase-out of a vast amount of capital equipment well before the end of its useful life, causing--you guessed it--economic havoc. Specifically, coal-fired power plants and inefficient vehicles would have to be eliminated before the end of their useful lives. Instead, these economists argue that new, yet to be developed technologies will do a much better job of combating global warming They say we should allow capital depreciation to proceed and phase in new technology as it becomes available.

This makes sense to me. While support for the Kyoto Protocol remains high, I wonder how popular it will be when power rationing, economic recession, and other "side benefits" come into play. When President Bush said "sayonara" to Kyoto, it was a very unpopular decision--but it may have been the right one. Let's hope that, once again, new technology will soon come to our rescue.

We mourn and unite

As we were working on this issue, the Solutions/staff, like most of the world, was horrified by the unspeakable violence that befell our fellow citizens in New York City and Washington, D.C. We wish to add our voices to those of millions of others by offering our prayers for those who were lost, condolences to the families riven by this tragedy, and our hope that the evil represented by these deeds will someday be ended.