On climate change, let sense rule

Last week, in Durban, South Africa, The 17th conference of the parties concerned with the question of climate change began its meetings. It is considered the last hope to revive the Kyoto Protocol, which former Vice President Al Gore proclaimed as the definitive blueprint for reversing the trend of carbon emissions.

Kyoto's goals were considered extremely modest when they were proposed, but none has come close to being met. In the decade when Gore won the Nobel Prize for his efforts, coal consumption went up by 47 percent, oil by 13 percent and natural gas by 29 percent. As a consequence, global emissions increased by 28 percent.

Many say Kyoto's failure is America's fault because we were the only developed nation that refused to ratify it. The fact is, in the last decade, U.S. carbon-dioide emissions went down 1.7 percent, while emissions in Africa went up 40 percent, Asia, 44 percent and the Middle East, 57 percent. In China, they went up 123 percent, making China the world's biggest source of emissions. It leads the U.S. by more than 2 billion tons per year.

Mathematically, the world would have seen emission growth after Kyoto even if the U.S. had pushed past Kyoto's targets and reduced its emissions all the way to zero (which would have brought our economy to zero, as well.) No matter what happens at Durban, Kyoto will not be revived.

Does this mean the planet will either dry up in heat waves or drown in rising seas (or both) in the next century; that our children and grandchildren are doomed?

I have discussed that question with the best scientists I have met who are in a position to have an informed, objective view of the situation — the leaders of our national labs. In my position as the senior Republican on the Energy and Water Subcommittee of Appropriations, I had stewardship over their budgets, so all of them were willing to talk to me. I found their views to be fascinating.

All believed that human activity was having an impact on the climate — some more than others — but all acknowledged that the size of that impact could not be quantified with any certainty. All supported more research because all agreed that natural forces also were in play. All also agreed that the issue is not as clear cut, on either side, as the media would have us believe.

"That's an excellent statement of the level of scientific understanding," I said, "and I support your call for more research, but what else would you recommend we do, right now?" I loved the answer I got from the last lab director to respond:

"Do what makes sense anyway."