Uh Oh

I get really, really nervous when I find myself agreeing with Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson about anything, but I'm afraid he hit the mark with Global Warming and Hot Air. His point is that despite the talk, prospects for meaningful action against global warming are slight.

Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.

It's no secret that the worst offender of today, the US, and the worst offenders to come (China and India) are exactly those not really offering even lip service to emissions control. Samuelson is pretty much saying: "Hey, if we don't cut down that last giant palm to erect more stone statues, the next tribe will."

He does suggest a meaningful half-measure:

What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Only new technologies would enable countries -- rich and poor -- to reconcile the immediate imperative of economic growth with the potential hazards of climate change.

Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports, but it would also check CO2emissions. Similarly, we might be better off shifting some of the tax burden from wages and profits to a broader tax on energy or carbon. That would favor more fuel-efficient light bulbs, appliances and industrial processes.

It's a debate we ought to have -- but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit.

I would add that we should pursue other measures that will make it easier to adapt to the coming events: habitat preservation, especially in the rain forests, promotion of population control, preparation for the consequences.