White House should address climate problem

If last year a left-wing politician had called for hundreds of millions to fight AIDS, most conservatives would have balked. And yet, recently, when Washington's top Republicans endorsed a $500 million program to combat the African AIDS epidemic, free-marketeers and deficit hawks quickly sang the praises of a new government bureaucracy.

I suspect something similar would happen if, tomorrow, Bush and EPA head Christie Whitman announced an ambitious new effort to ward off the potentially devastating consequences of global climate change. This underscores two things. First, especially with vexing political issues, presidential leadership is a must. More than that, if conservatives are going to jump on the environmental bandwagon tomorrow, it's a bit disingenuous not to push for it today. On the issue of climate change, specifically, it is time for Bush to lead.

We can start with the problem. There is a fairly overwhelming consensus among the world's scientists that humans are causing the Earth to warm rapidly. This conclusion is rooted in two basic observations: that increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "trap" heat on the planet's surface, and that a substantial portion of this can be traced to industry. In the past 100 years, for instance, the average global surface temperature has increased by 1 degree Celsius; modest predictions for the next century suggest that this trend, if continued, will warm the Earth by 2 to 5 degrees Celsius. Recall, the last Ice Age was only 5 degrees cooler than present-day temperatures.

It is not only the magnitude of this climate change, but the rapid rate at which it is likely to occur, that scientists believe will endanger various ecosystems important to humans. Every few years, agricultural experts make a big deal when unexpected weather patterns cause seasonal crop failures. Swift and erratic global warming — even if the overall temperature increase is relatively small — would dwarf these concerns. Some optimists suggest this might even be beneficial for humans — we can wear sandals more often, or something — but an unpredictable global ecosystem is the last thing that farmers, business executives, and policymakers want to see, no matter their political affiliations.

A small band of global warming skeptics persists, but their points are generally weak for several reasons. First, early signs of warming are already upon us. Monsoons in Bangladesh, airborne diseases appearing farther north of the equator, and measurable increases in sea levels are all indicators of an unusual climatic transformation. Second, the number of skeptics has declined significantly in the past decade, including the about-face from oil giant British Petroleum. Third, by accepting funds from oil producers, most skeptics cannot plausibly claim to be impartial observers. I'm no Marxist conspiracy theorist, but it's tough not to doubt researchers who take money almost exclusively from parties directly affected by their findings.

There are two things that can be done about climate change: adapt to it or prevent it. Given the unpredictability of warming rates, adaptation seems too costly and logistically nightmarish to be our first recourse.

But prevention is no easy matter, either. We can start by forgetting about the Kyoto agreement as it currently stands. There's a reason that, for the past five years, Bush, Clinton, and virtually every member of the Senate has balked at this weak international effort.

An appropriate solution would begin by changing domestic policies, both as a model and first step for international efforts. It would be market-centered, but government-initiated. A mandatory cap-and-trade system advocated by economists would allocate pollution "permits" or "licenses" to businesses, corresponding to a level of greenhouse gas emissions that will at least slow the rate of warming. Cleaner companies, those relying on natural gas or renewable energy sources, would require fewer pollution permits; coal and oil producers would need more. A for-profit trading system for these permits would ensue, creating the most economically efficient system for reducing greenhouse contaminants.

Claims that this type of effort will harm the economy in the short-term are not unreasonable, but often exaggerated. The same arguments were made against similar cap-and-trade systems for sulfur dioxide emissions, which have now been in effect for nearly a decade. Furthermore, though draped in the language of "free markets," these claims falsely presume that a genuine market exists now. Even staunch libertarians know this is misleading: not only is the environment a legitimate area for government regulation to prevent freeriding, but large federal subsidies to fossil fuel producers suggest that markets have very little to do with current policy.

In the end, fears of economic collapse miss the big picture. If scientists are right about future climate change, then economic harm is unavoidable. And, if forced to choose our poison, the shortand medium-term harms from an aggressive market-based system seem preferable.

The problem is more complex than I'm making it out to be, to be sure. Scientists have made catastrophic predictions before, developing countries may waver in their participation, and so on. But this is ultimately a question of leadership. The Bush administration has proven its capacity to withstand pressures domestic and international for the sake of closely-held principles. No matter the response, whether additional research or an aggressive push for transformed energy markets over the next three decades, an effort with one-tenth the intensity of the recent Iraq war could do much good.

Brad Simmons is a politics major from San Jose, Calif.