Facing climate change
A Times EditorialDespite the White House's failure to take global warming seriously, the Senate will hear proposals this week addressing the "clear and increasing" threat.
Published June 22, 2005
Some people, including more than a few in high office, believe the threat of global warming is just a lot of hot air from the environmental and political left. But what if the skeptics are wrong, as many scientists say they are? During the coming decades, according to one worst case scenario, significant climate changes could threaten Florida's economy and lifestyle. Rising sea water could flood coastal cities and wash away beaches, destroying the state's tourism industry and ecosystem. Temperatures might be too hot to grow Florida's trademark oranges and other crops.
Significant global warming is occuring, most likely because of human behavior, and its threat is "clear and increasing," say 11 prominent international science organizations, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Although the United States is the major polluter of greenhouse gases, the Bush administration has failed to take the matter seriously, even editing scientific reports to discredit connections between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Despite the White House's indifference to the problem, lawmakers and corporations are starting to accept the science and call for action.
The debate in Congress - and even within companies such as General Electric and Duke Energy - now is focused on how to prevent an environmental crisis. Three initiatives aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are vying for approval as the Senate considers its controversial energy bill this week.
Most promising is the Climate Stewardship Act, a bipartisan proposal from Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz, and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. It has garnered support from industry, farmers and environmentalists. The proposal would give power plants, oil companies and factories until 2010 to reduce the amount of pollution they release to no more than the levels emitted in 2000. It also would use market forces to promote the development of pollution-reducing technologies.
Two other Senate proposals fall short of what is needed. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M, is proposing to limit emissions, but would permit companies to buy their way out of the requirement. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., would provide tax and loan incentives to companies that limit greenhouse gas emissions. While Hagel's proposal fails to cap emissions, it does deal with climate change as a shared international responsibility.
A comprehensive plan for reducing pollution isn't going to be easy, or cheap. Some proposals before Congress are estimated to cost at least $4-billion, and paying such a bill will be difficult given the ballooning federal deficit. But lawmakers have the chance to set national standards that could protect our planet for future generations.