New Thinking, Please

A Washington Post analysis last month on the politics of global warming focused on what the newspaper saw as a striking change in how the issue was being debated. Previously, the focus was on the validity of scientific studies that held global warming was occurring and that mankind was partly or largely responsible. Now, per the Post, the focus instead was on how to best combat global warming without damaging the economy.

Apparently, this shift never registered with Sen. Barbara Boxer. The California Democrat moves into the national spotlight today with a committee hearing at which an initial vote is expected on ill-conceived climate-change legislation she co-authored with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

The measure would force a 20 percent cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, more than the 17 percent reduction required under a bill approved by the House in June. This would be achieved through a complex "cap-and-trade" process limiting the emissions of businesses through a permitting process.

To her great discredit, Boxer has adopted the same tack as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, pretending that there is little economic downside to the forced switch to cleaner but costlier energy. She touts a confusing, disputed Environmental Protection Agency analysis that suggests the cost would be about $110 per American per year.

A much more credible report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the House bill — which, remember, is less onerous than the Boxer-Kerry measure — would be a drag on the U.S.

economy for decades. Also more credible than the EPA's analysis: The European Union's disastrous experience with cap-and-trade since its partial adoption by the EU in 2005.

A "carbon tax" has always been a far more efficient way to limit the most dangerous emissions. But whether it's such a tax or cap-and-trade, there is a fundamental problem with this type of approach: It isn't likely to do anything to curb global warming unless all the major economies of the world act in concert. India and China will offer lip service. But they are not going to hobble their growing economies to deal with a problem that even Western nations blame almost entirely on Western nations.

The sole good news on the climate change front is that former Vice President Al Gore and the environmental movement in general are increasingly unable to marginalize those who argue there are much better, less drastic ways to slow the planet's warming. The latest idea to gain interest — thanks to a chapter in the current best-seller "Superfreakonomics" — is pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to mimic the global-cooling effects that occur after particularly violent volcanic eruptions create sulfuric clouds in the upper atmosphere. These clouds ultimately dissipate harmlessly.

Taking a hard look at such proposals and trusting human innovation to come up with a solution to global warming makes far more sense than the messianic, unworkable and hugely expensive approach touted by the Gores and Boxers of the world. We are increasingly hopeful the public will figure this out. We are less optimistic, alas, about Congress.

REPRINTED FROM THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM