WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 (UPI) -- The Weekly Standard, journal of neo-conservative or, if you prefer, big government conservatism, urges President George W. Bush to capitulate on the issue of so-called climate change.
The magazine that was a principal force behind Arizona Sen. John McCain's primary campaign against Bush is now, in a two-thousand word essay, urging the administration to "do something" regulatory in the name of arresting climate chance.
Washington attorney William F. Pederson offers a soft syllogism premised upon the idea that such efforts will not benefit the climate but will assuage some of Bush's less severe environmental critics.
Using broad strokes, Pederson prescribes an approach remarkably similar to S. 139, the Lieberman-McCain legislation to unilaterally implement a modified version of the Kyoto Protocol. There are some small distinctions between the approaches but both are mandatory rather than voluntary -- is the only way, say environmental alarmists, that they can be credible and show the world we will ultimately be on board.
Pederson's piece appears, helpfully, a fortnight before the Lieberman-McCain bill is scheduled for a vote.
The essay opens on the prospect of Republicans obtaining "[c]redit for environmental achievements" and concludes by saying a Lieberman-McCain style regime shows the GOP cares about the planet and gets the ball rolling on additional reforms.
History demonstrates that this is delusional.
From Nixon creating the EPA by executive fiat to George H. W. Bush's 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and beyond, it is well-established that green pressure groups, Democrats and liberal Republican politicians as well as other counties, are not in the business of handing out bon mots to conservative Republicans.
In the view of the groups it is so important for this president to mollify, as the Standard sees it, whatever a Republican Administration does, it is a cynical move calculated to gain praise. More importantly, it is never, never enough.
As Bush's "New Source Review" proposal demonstrates, these constituencies attack the proposals originated by Democrats without objection.
This is magnified in the area of greenhouse-gas-suppression, where Kyoto proponents have admitted that it is "1/30th of what we need" and universally describe it as a "first step."
McCain-Lieberman modifies the Kyoto targets and timetables. Enacting a percentage of 1/30th, Pederson implies, will garner credit and cause climate advocates to back off. It is the political equivalent of offering up one leg to satisfy the alligator's taste for flesh.
It is little better on substantive grounds. Yes the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments employed a market mechanism for regulating the pollutant sulfur dioxide, allowing a more efficient distribution of emissions. Economists are enamored of market mechanisms. In the debate over carbon dioxide, which principally occurs naturally, their ardor for markets has clouded their judgment. Doing something stupid efficiently does not make it less stupid.
The record is also clear that, even assuming the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, the financial costs of climate policies far outweigh the benefits.
As noted by Oxford Economist Wilfred Beckerman in 1997, it is illogical to burden people today to enhance the welfare of people living 100 years from now who will be significantly wealthier and far less likely to be affected by the mutability of climate.
It is immoral to ask today's poor to distribute wealth, through higher energy prices, to people of the future who will be, all the trend lines indicate, much better off.
There is little reason to alter the Bush Administration's policy of encouraging but -- so far at least -- not coercing voluntary greenhouse gas reductions in the pursuit of a reasonable understanding of the complex climate system.
Yes, they regrettably make politically expedient nods to alarmism in all public pronunciations and their issue management is a bit schizophrenic. That does not, however, constitute evidence. Nor do others saying mean things justify the administration further tilting at -- if I may -- the windmill of their opponent's approval.
-- C. Christopher Horner is an attorney and leader of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which advocates the use of sound science in the study of climate change.
-- United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues.
