Keith Johnson WSJ- So far, the U.S. has been vilified for dragging its feet and insisting that the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, like China, take part in any scheme. The pressure is on for the G-8 to commit to big (and expensive) cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, even as political leaders everywhere are battling high energy prices that are already choking economic growth.
The counsel is to be thoughtful and patient when dealing with a problem that will last for centuries. Which is the same point Yale's William Nordhaus makes in his latest take on the economics of fighting climate change. He says that people like Al Gore and Britain's Lord Nicholas Stern who want drastic cuts right away would be throwing money away and doing no extra good for the environment.
Slow and steady with an eye to eventual technology breakthroughs, he says, cuts emissions all the same and saves money:
For example, the Gore and Stern proposals have net costs of $17 trillion to $22 trillion relative to no controls; they are more costly than doing nothing today. This conclusion does not mean that doing nothing forever is preferable to these proposals. Rather, it implies that it is not economically advantageous to undertake sharp emissions reductions (such as reducing emissions 80 or 90 percent) within the next two or three decades.
President Bush's latest climate-change plan is to throttle back growth in U.S. emissions by 2025, and then roll up the economy's sleeves when it will be presumably be easier and cheaper to make the transition to cleaner energy.
So here's the question: Is the U.S. stance on climate change simple foot-dragging, or smart economics?
