The View From Here . . .
By Bob Morgan, Jr.

What to do about global warming?

It seems universally agreed that average temperatures on the planet have risen in the last century, from one cause or another, by a degree or two Fahrenheit. While the majority of scientific studies have indicated that human activity has something to do with the increase, even that is not certain.

The latest United Nations report, for example, says only that it was "over 90 percent" likely that such a correlation exists. In light of the inability of climate forecasters to predict even this week's weather with accuracy (remember last week's predicted but nonexistent big snowstorm), there may well be reason for humility about the accuracy of long range weather analyses.

Assuming that human activity does play a significant role in global warming, there is also the further question of how much the overall situation is likely to affect us. For example, as noted by environmental scientist Kenneth Green of the Reason Institute, the range of temperature increases predicted in the 2000 UN IPCC global warming report is between 2.7 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 and the predicted sea level increases are between 5.5 and 31.2 inches. The worst case scenarios assume continued major use of fossil fuel throughout the 21st century, perhaps not a good assumption. In any event, these vast ranges indicate that global warming could be anything from a mild problem to a quite serious one.

Even if global warming does pose a substantial risk to the planet, of course, there are still issues as to the proper response. One of the triumphs of the last 50 years has been the substantial rise of the standard of living in many countries, not just in the First World, but in many other lands such as India and China. A strategy that lowers GDP, purchasing power and quality of life of nations rich and poor in favor of a single-minded pursuit of global warming goals may not be wise. Certainly, the Kyoto Convention, which was unanimously rejected by the United States Senate during the Clinton Administration, is not the answer in that it places onerous restrictions on economic development in the United States and other developed countries, while excluding countries like China that are major producers of carbon emissions.

None of this suggests that the right policy is to do nothing in the face of what could be a significant problem in the future, although some solutions are much better than others.

For a variety of reasons, geopolitical as well as environmental, it does make sense for us to explore alternative sources of energy in the coming decades and to encourage fuel conservation. A somewhat overrated measure is the use of ethanol as a substitute for carbon fuels. As George Will points out this week, corn based ethanol is expensive to produce, uses almost as much energy in its production as it saves and encourages producers to cut down forests. Nevertheless, more promising strategies might include sugar based ethanol, and wind and solar power. And the left should abandon its reflexive aversion toward nuclear power, which has proven safe, clean and effective in France and many other countries. On the tax front, there may be some merit in a carbon-based tax, so long as the measure is revenue-neutral, offset dollar for dollar by income tax reductions.

Clearly we have to be mindful of the potential threat of global warming, the magnitude of which will become clearer with improved scientific research. We need to begin to implement some strategies now, without either underreacting or overreacting.