Anything that has been suggested involves enormous costs and very little effect. There is as much respectable opinion against it as for it. I am referring to real climate scientists, not Al Gore and an overwhelming coterie of scribblers. It is a marvelous issue for the cheap display of virtue, a favorite pastime of lefties.

Seems to me that Sanford has a terrible way of framing the issue. Rather than stressing working together and finding solutions that will work, his policies would suggest an us and them sort of an approach.

He suggests that so called 'conservatives' go off in to one corner and come up with a solution before the 'liberals' in their corner regulate causing raised costs and lower innovation.

The policy ideas are noble, whereas the proposed implementation would only perpetuate the division.

It's not accidental that the words "conservative" and "conservation" are so similar. Conservatism involves a desire to preserve the wisdom of the past as much as possible, and to avoid sudden change. Conservation involves attempting to preserve the resources that we have rather than risking precipitous change. Surely a conservative would want to conserve resources that were handed down to us, just as a conservative wants to preserve the institutions we have.

So being an opponent of global warming legislation is not conservative. Rather, it is a form of 19th century liberalism -- the belief that everything should be trusted to the private sector.

Even economists disagree with this belief. Economists stress that sometimes markets fail. Take air pollution. Industry need not pay for using the air as a dump, and so there is more air pollution than optimal. Regulation is needed to correct this market failure.

How can one propound on the righteousness of free markets and indivudual property rights while expropriating property for political gain on the flimsy pretext of manmade global warming?

No matter what his WORDS are, Sanford does not support conservative principles with his ACTIONS.

It is a fool's errand to try to craft a "conservative" environmental agenda. The term "conservative" is simply incoherent when it comes to something like the environment because there are conflicting ideas held by self-identified conservatives and there is no magic conservative text from which to derive "true" conservative environmental principles. There is a valuable market-orieted critique of the environmental regulations that were put in place beginning in the 1970s but that critique does not come close to amounting to a self-contained environmental policy. Simply put, there is no way to avoid the fact that environmental protection requires government intervention that will impinge on how property rights, and will require more of it in the future. History is clear that the market will not force private actors to internalize the costs of climate change or any sort of pollution absent significant government intervention. Pollution markets, user fees (such as carbon taxes), and incentives for the development and adoption of cleaner technologies all require governmental intervention. The debate is not between market-based and government based solutions to environmental problems but between how government interventions in the market will be structured.

Prof. Oren is correct that conservatism and conservation share certain commonalities, but a desire to conserve natural resources or cultural institutions does not translate into a rejection of the "private sector" or an embrace of government solutions. That markets "fail" does not mean that a) government intervention is justified, b) government will succeed ("government failure" is no less pervasive than "market failure," and is less susceptible to correction), or c) the potential benefits of government intervention will exceed the costs. Government is a blunt instrument, and government intervention tends to crowd out and erode the institutions of civil society, which is one of many reasons conservatives have traditionally been suspect of government interventions to solve pressing problems.

I should also note that the dichotomy between modern conservatism and 19th century liberalism is misleading. The American political tradition is decidedly liberal (in a classical sense), so the political and social order American conservatives seek to conserve is a "liberal" one. It is also important to remember that the overlap between conservatism and classical liberalism has a long pedigree. The father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, was a Whig who accepted the teachings of Adam Smith, supported the American bid for independence, and opposed the maintenance of the British Empire. We think of him as a conservative largely for his opposition to the decidedly illiberal French Revolution, but he also shared much with the liberals of his day.

JHA

I believe Anon. Lib hit the nail on the head, and was the point I was trying to bring out. The elephant in the room for many conservatives is ths issue of what is to be done when there is an environmental issue. A Pigovian solution, perhaps?

A great example of this is a gasoline tax. The many externalites associated with our gasoline usage (from pollution to military spending) are not reflected in the price of gasoline. A conservative (would/should) argue that a tax on gasoline would be a great way to internalize those externalities. Many conservatives, however, seem locked into a mindset that there all taxes are per se bad, and refuse to accept a 'conservative' solution to the problem.

It seems that with many environmental issues, there is a dichotomy between liberals who hope to address the issue with measures that might be more economically ruinous than is necessary, and conservatives who prefer to maintain the status quo by denying the problem exists. I think Gov. Sanford's approach is at leasst a good-faith first step in attempting to craft a conservative response to the problem.

Once the problem is recognized, then the policy debate cna proceed over which 'side' has the best solutions. But if the conservative side simply refuses to accept the problem, then when the problem becomes manifest, they have ceded the ground for proposing solutions.

CAFE likely has reduced our consumption of fossil fuels. Of course, it has done this by making cars less safe. I support ending the program--it's time to stop trading blood for oil.

And of course you have the statistics to prove this. Do you really think that any production model 1970 car was safer than cars produced today?

You can easily trade horsepower for fuel efficiency. Just look at how much more fuel efficient a car with 200 plus horsepower is today (and usually with a much greater curb weight) than thirty years ago.

Sanford wrote: it's vital that conservatives change the debate before government regulation expands yet again and personal freedom is pushed closer toward extinction

global pollutants are particularly suited to cap-and-trade programs because one doesn't have to worry about local hot spots. but if the good Governor is trying to develop a moderate position he really might want to tone down the rhetoric. Does the fact that the MS4 NPDES permit program requires catch basins in storm drains really deprive me of that much personal liberty? Can the Governor name a single deprivation he suffers under the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act? (except, of course, the right to spew lead into the air -- the good libertarians here would recognize that there is no "freedom" to pollute, only an uncaptured externality due to an inadequate property rights system.)

Nice dishonest rhetorical trick, J.F. You responded to a comment claiming that CAFE has made cars less safe than they otherwise would be by asserting that because cars are safer now than they were 37 years ago, the original commenter was wrong. Of course, you have proven nothing of the sort. CAFE has imposed fuel-efficiency limitations on how much protective mass (reinforcing materials have weight and therefore reduce fuel efficiency, as does having a longer front or rear compartent to dissipate kinetic energy before it is transmitted to the passenger compartment) a covered vehicle will have.

Nick

I think the key to any approach to environmental issues is dealing with the tradeoffs inherent in solving any environmental problem. A lot of environmentalist rhetoric ignores tradeoffs completely; the remainder, as far as I can tell, treats the issue as if the only tradeoff is pollution v. money (then substitutes "lives" for pollution, concluding that there is no serious balancing to be done at all).

I mean, I joke about it, but CAFE is almost certainly killing people (here's a NHTSA study on the link between weight and safety of otherwise comparable cars), and I have never seen a supporter really grapple with that issue (I'm sure someone has, I just haven't seen it). The preferred move seems to be to ignore it or to dismiss it by bringing up an apples to oranges comparison (safety of 1970s v. today instead of today v. today without CAFE).

Similarly, with global warming the usual refrain is that we're just sacrificing some wealth in the form of GDP for untold future benefits. But the thing is, wealth tradeoffs eventually turn in to safety tradeoffs. To take the most obvious example, some percentage of the sacrificed growth would have gone into medical care and research, and lack of such care and research will lead to some number of deaths. Those deaths should be counted against the gains from preventing global warming.

To me, the problem with mainstream/left-wing environmentalism is that it ignores or minimizes these tradeoffs. I think the key to a better (or "conservative" if we have to give everything left/right labels) conservation movement is to keep these issues in mind and work to figure out policies that offer the best results when we keep both benefits and costs in mind.

Unfortunately, there is little in his article to suggest the sort of actual policies that a conservative could endorse without sacrificing conservative principle.

There is a weird political thing going on here. There seems to be an idea that, in the event loonie enviros like me happen to be right about climate change, it's important to prevent us from imposing hideous and damaging statist solutions to the problem. Hence, the need for "policies that a conservative could endorse without sacrificing conservative principle."

The weird thing is that most enviros were there about 20 years ago. First of all, market based solutions often work very well. Second, many (most) enviros are not radical leftists. Third, we have long been depressed about our political ineffectiveness and are therefore anxious to make broad coalitions to negotiate reasonable responses to problems.

Looking at potential approaches to global warming, the two most talked about are cap-and-trade and a carbon tax, both ideas that enviros find just peachy. Look at their conservative characteristics. The carbon tax is completely agnostic as to the practical or technological form of solutions; it is up to individuals, companies and the market among them. It recognizes the cost carbon emissions as an externality with the minimum interference possible beyond that recognition. Cap-and-trade by contrast is a bit cumbersome ... How enforced? By what regulatory body? What initial allocations? But it was added to the Kyoto deal not because of an Al Gore speech, but at the request of businesses. The conservative side of it as a policy is that not only is it agnostic as to the form of solutions, but the effective tax is transferred to other companies and is spent privately. We liberal loonies never get our paws on it at all.

The carbon tax is completely agnostic as to the practical or technological form of solutions; it is up to individuals, companies and the market among them. It recognizes the cost carbon emissions as an externality with the minimum interference possible beyond that recognition.

Okay: but what is the appropriate price of carbon per kg? This is not an easy question to answer; the very fact that no natural market for this exists means that any determination of the price must be centralized and directly computed in some manner, but we know from experience that such calculations often fail.

It isn't enough to abstractly agree to a carbon tax. You then have to reach agreement on the cost-benefit analysis.

Some tax -> some reduction in CO2, some adjoining consts -> some future savings

So can we back track to "some tax"? No, because we don't agree on the second two terms of the dicussion.

Certain people want to use general support for an abstract carbon tax to impose an arbitrary tax. Luckily people still see this what it would be: a revenue grab not an effective public policy carefully tailored to improve general welfare.

Certain people want to use general support for an abstract carbon tax to impose an arbitrary tax. Luckily people still see this what it would be: a revenue grab not an effective public policy carefully tailored to improve general welfare.

Umm..... no. The point of a system like this is that it is the best alternative for allowing industries to make optimum market choices to internalize externalizites that are not currently factored into their prices, instead of having gummint force a 'one-size-fits-all' system on everyone.

This is the problem I alluded to before. Assume, a priori, that carbon emissions are a problem. Do you prefer the following:
1. A carbon tax that seeks to capture the price of these externalities and causes businesses to make rational decisions about their carbon use, knowing the costs invovled?

OR

2. Gummint imposing a regulatory scheme and enforcing a cap on carbon use that companies cannot violate, even if they are using the carbon in economically productive ways taking into account the externalities?

Unfortunately, too many people prefer option 3, which is that the problem is hard, so we'll just ignore it until gummint steps in and imposes 2.

I wouldn’t argue for a 1% doctrine for global warming, but it is a little frustrating to see some of the numbers going past 90% and other past 50% and components of the most dire scenarios happening faster than expected (melting tundra; albedo feedback) and still be arguing with people that there is _no_ policy we can rationally impose because we can’t calculate the dollar value in 2150.

IF you believe those projections. The conservative position is that people seeking to introduce new policies have the burden of proof.

That's the essence of it. Conceding that carbon emissions cause some warming does not then mean conceding the scope of connection to which you allude. The work is shoddy; it may turn out to be right, but the work is shoddy, and therefore fails to persuade under the conservative test.

This has nothing to do with preferring a market solution over a more direct regulatory one. I'm quite free market but I'd take a regulatory system over a tax incentive one in many situations so as to make the action more manifest.

Francis:

Can the Governor name a single deprivation he suffers under the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act? (except, of course, the right to spew lead into the air -- the good libertarians here would recognize that there is no "freedom" to pollute, only an uncaptured externality due to an inadequate property rights system.)

Wait until someone declares that a puddle on your property makes it "wetlands" right before you try to build that deck, then ask us again.

The conservative position is that people seeking to introduce new policies have the burden of proof.

A burden that has been accepted by climatologists and environmentalists alike. But as in the law, the question is what is the burden and, as much as I might shy away from recommending a level of carbon tax, skeptics decline to set a burden. The criminal law’s “beyond any reasonable doubt” is too high. And even though climate change threatens to cost more money and lives than terrorism, the Cheney doctrine’s “barely colorable hint” is perhaps too low (and anyway was met a long time ago.) So what is it? What set of data or calculations should suffice to cause someone to support a significant government interference?

That's the essence of it. Conceding that carbon emissions cause some warming does not then mean conceding the scope of connection to which you allude.

An odd choice of words, conceding. It is not a matter of conceding anything. It is a matter of what the data and calculations show. They show that the scope of connection to which I alluded is likely.

The work is shoddy; it may turn out to be right, but the work is shoddy, and therefore fails to persuade under the conservative test.

No, it’s not shoddy. Progress in an inherently difficult field has been rapid and remarkable. “It may turn out to be right” is the essence of the question. “It may be right” can mean a lot of things. If it is just a worst case scenario, “but the plane could crash,” that is highly unlikely but can’t be excluded, then that is one thing. If it is a reasonably calculated significant probability of a bad outcome, it is another. From my reading, it is the latter.

This thread started with a post about what a conservative response should be to a climate crisis, but you and I have drifted back to whether or not there is a climate crisis. Happy to go on about it all day, but we have wandered…

How do you cap and trade a cow?
Veal?

I should think by reducing farting elsewhere in the economy. Perhaps the makers of Beano and Flat-D should be allowed to sell methane offsets. Or else put feedlots next to "natural gas"-fired power plants. Not sure I'd want to see how that'd work.

In regards to "loki13"'s question "What is the suitable conservative position in this case?"

The suitable libertarian/conservative position for a situation where government intervention is required would be "Find the governmental solution which is minimally intrusive, minimally market-distorting, minimally prone to growing in the future." (There are some who are of the opinion that government intervention is never required, but as loki13 asked, I'm going to assume agreement on the existence of a problem, and the requirement of government intervention to solve it).

For example:
Recently, California and Austrailia have tried to address the problem of electricity usage (and thus indirectly global warming) through restrictions on the use of incandesant lightbulbs. It is well established that incandesants are less energy efficient than compact flourescents, and also that there is a market failure (renters, for example, may not want to pay the up-front cost of replacing lightbulbs for the long-term energy savings, due to not being in the same place long enough for it to matter) (well, some might argue about this market failure, but please accept it as a given for this discussion).

California took the approach of banning incandescant bulbs.
Australia took the approach of mandating a minimum efficiency standard on bulbs.

I would describe the Australian approach as more appropriate from a libertarian/conservative view: it directly addresses the specific market failure (efficiency), without creating a law designed to grow. It is not very prone to getting more complicated in the future -- if they want more efficiency, they can change a single number. It is technology-neutral, specifying what needs to be achieved rather than how, leaving the door open for, say, LED-lightbulbs to come onto the market later and solve the problem in a different way.

The California approach, by singling out a particular technology rather than the acutal goal, is prone to getting messier and more government centric over time. Researchers are working on highly efficient incandesants -- they'll need a change to the law to sell them, even though they also address the acutal problem at hand. What if someone invents a really cheap but inefficient flourescent -- we'll need another exception to ban those. And the led-based-lights, we need to figure out if those are good or not... As we add that pile of exceptions and side-cases, the law becomes increasingly intrusive, and will be prone to becoming increasingly market-distorting.

Even when you have a problem that you've agreed requires government intervention, there is typically a wide spectrum of possible responses, which will vary in direct cost ($ spent by government), indirect cost ($ that have to be spent by others), whether (or how much) they increase the power of government to do other things, whether (or how much) they increase the complexity of laws &regulations, whether (or how much) they infringe on various other rights... It is quite reasonable for someone to say "I think that many of the people who care most about X are going to pick a solution that I don't like due to the side-effects; as a result I should advocate for solving X via a method that has the side effects I approve of".

The First requirement for any Conservative solution is that the Solution actually be a Solution. There must be some possibility that the action might effect GW.

There has not been any Solution from anyone that has come CLOSE to effecting GW. Until there is such a solution, one that does more then reduce the INCREASE by 1 or 2 percent, there is nothing to talk about.

Propose something that will have an effect or STFU. After there is a POSSIBLE Solution people can talk about how to implement it.

Has ANYONE proposed a Solution that MIGHT effect GW???? And I don't mean decrease the increase in tempature by 1% over 20 years starting 30 years from now. I mean DECREASE the tempature over some time frame.

I don't think so. Until there is one everyone is talking about rearanging the deck chairs.

Respectfully, you wandered. I dissented against the notion that the conservative position is free-market per-se. The meaning I ascribe to the word is as I said, a matter of burden of proof. In at least so much as this burden fails to be met, the resulting world is 'free-market' … The principle to defend is not taxes over regulation but solid proof over circumstantial evidence

Ok, I get it now … and disagree. (Not about me wandering; I often wander)

First of all, while you may be right that conservatives _should_ apply a burden of proof as a matter of core conservative principle when judging policy, conservatism in current practice seems to use the concept of a burden of proof as a tactic, a way to block liberal stuff, not a thing to be applied to conservative stuff. Not your fault, but that’s what I see when I read the papers.

Second, what burden of proof? The concept of a burden of proof doesn’t mean much without the burden being delineated some. In particular, “solid proof” and “circumstantial evidence” are not opposites; you can have a slam dunk case made of circumstantial evidence and a crappy case made of direct evidence. In science, the distinction is not there. In the case of climate change, what are the standards you want met, applied to which question, that would be sufficient to justify action in your eyes? Is the standard the same when judging both nuclear terrorism and food labeling?

Third, I bridle at the idea of a burden of proof being a conservative principle because of the implication that non-conservatives are not interested in proof. We all do this “we’re for the family” or “we’re against racism” stuff, but it is politics. Environmentalists and liberals are as interested in proof as anyone else.

The First requirement for any Conservative solution is that the Solution actually be a Solution.

Please could you get the government to apply this very sound principle – which is not exclusively conservative – to other areas like the war on terror.

In the meantime…

There has not been any Solution from anyone that has come CLOSE to effecting GW. Until there is such a solution, one that does more then reduce the INCREASE by 1 or 2 percent, there is nothing to talk about …Has ANYONE proposed a Solution that MIGHT effect GW???? And I don't mean decrease the increase in temperature by 1% over 20 years starting 30 years from now. I mean DECREASE the temperature over some time frame.

Sure there has. We could end the problem this week-end by just globally stopping all fossil fuel use, ending certain cultivation practices and shooting all the livestock. According to the models, the effect on GW would be significant. And I’m sure if I poked around a bookstore in Berkeley I could find someone who proposed it at some point. The problem with that solution is political, not scientific; the social and economic catastrophe unleashed would be just a wee bit unpopular. Other, lesser but still significant proposals have been made all along, ones that would have a serious effect.

When I say the effect would be serious, by way of example, the policy summary just released by the IPCC ahead of the Fourth Assessment Report says that based on current emissions, we will have temperature increasing by .2 degrees centigrade per decade for the next two decades, whereas had we stabilized emissions at year 2000 levels, we could expected increases of .1 degrees centigrade per decade. So, answering your question, stabilizing at year 2000 levels, a policy proposed in the 90s though not adopted, could have resulted in a 50% decrease in the increase in temperature, not just a 1% or 2% decrease in the increase. Given the scope of the increase and the effects predicted to result from it, that is a difference that exceeds your standard of “MIGHT effect GW.”

That said, it is true that the policies being argued about today will do less than that. That is not a matter of policy or science. That’s what can be achieved in the near term as a matter of practical politics. If I and my green friends were made Queen of Earth tomorrow, we probably would do something drastic that _would_ affect GW significantly. Y’all can discuss if that would be a good thing, but the fact that we are not Queen of Earth is a matter of politics, not available solutions. Meanwhile, the current proposed solutions, Kyoto Protocol by way of example, while not great, are more significant than critics give them credit for.

I guess the real question is whether there is a global warming problem. There isn't. In 2008, to defeat Presidente ClintonII, the 'conservatives' had better ditch the birkenstocks and adopt the policies and tone reflected in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)by Christopher C. Horner.

Anti-communism served conservatives well up until the 1980's. Anti-"terrorism" had a good run until the Iraq disaster (for which Cheney and Rummy should join Sunnunu in outcast hell). Now anti-globalwarming fearmongering (or anti-radicalenvironmentalism) should be front and center. 80% of populace will respond to this slogan: These evil hijackers of the environmental movement are not pro-nature, they are anti-human. They won't rest until gas is $40 a gallon and we are all consequently reduced to living in squalor. They don't embrace real solutions to providing abundant and cheap energy (eg, nuclear or natural gas, etc). They want to enact population control by other means -- your slow death.

Run the above in an ad with pics during winter in Taxachusetts, and even the pinkos will come around.

But, I fear the corporate republicans will sell-out, yet again. C'est la vie.

I really don't see the conservative/libertarian policy objection to a carbon tax as compared to an income tax. Sure, both cause distortions in the economy and therefore lower economic efficiency. But in the end wouldn't we rather be discouraging CO2 emissions than discouraging income? And, a carbon tax would work better than a cap-and-trade system, which would set up a whole system of property rights which, once entrenched, would be hard to dismantle when/if the the need for it passed due to changes in technology or whatever. Think of taxi medallions, rent control and grazing rights.

I can see the argument that "painless" taxes are bad because they "feed the beast" of government, but in the end this can't be a guide to tax policy because the logical conclusion would be that the most politically painful taxes are the best. What if one set up one of those smoke-and-mirrors "trust fund" programs, like Social Security? Only here, the proceeds of the carbon tax would be a non-refundable credit on income tax. The effect would be to increase the threshhold at which income tax begins, which surely makes sense from almost every perspective.

I've thought for a long time that a stiff carbon excise tax would be a good substitute (in part) for the income tax, even if global warming was a myth. To the extent CO2 emission is economically valuable, people will suck it up and pay the tax, thereby lowering income tax and improving overall economic performance. A straightforward carbon tax would certainly be less subject to political rent seeking than the hodge-podge of "green" programs we have now. CAFE standards (which exclude "light trucks" thereby *encouraging* heavier, less efficient vehiclse) and the idiotic idea of making fuel from corn would (hopefully) be abandoned if we encouraged fuel conservation and/or alternative fuels by the simple expedient of making fossil carbon fuels hideously expensive. A political problem with this is that the effect is indirect - it isn't the government "doing something" about global warming, but rather making it more expensive for *me* to drive *my* car, even though we all know that global warming is really caused by *them* in Big Oil in conspiracy with Dick Cheney. I don't know whether political education can overcome this problem in perceptions.

One would have to be sure of not going over the top of the Laffer Curve on a carbon tax, because if one did so, the economic distortion would increase although the tax revenue (and lessing of economic distortion due to lowering income taxes) would drop off My gut instinct is that in the medium (10-20 year) term the top of the Laffer curve on a carbon tax will be pretty high - not high enough to replace income tax altogether at the current level of governmental operations/redistribution, but enough to make a good healthy cut.

I, like Jonathan, was disappointed by Gov. Sanford's reference to dying pine forests caused (he implies) by sea level rise. Sea level rise in the last 100 years has been trivial (about 4 inches). Coastal erosion most everywhere in the US is a combination of: (1) building on areas that would be unstable even absent human activity; and (2) navigation, flood control, irrigation and (amusingly) erosion control projects that change sedimentation patterns or ground water salinity in ways that the builders (or at least Congressional authorizers) never considered. The true conservative/libertarian lesson here is to be very, very careful before you accept government "help" in the form of gigantic projects that fiddle with imperfectly understood natural processes.

Alright, Jonathan, can you come straight out with it and tell us what you meant by this mumbo-jumbo?

Create international institutions that can facilitate technology proliferation to encourage less carbon-intensive economic development in poorer nations.

Are you saying we need to soup up the CDM/JI mechanisms under Kyoto, and the technology transfer subsidies under the Asia Pacific Partnership? Is your position that this is justified on equity grounds - given that the developed world is responsible for presently committed AGW - or is it a pragmatic argument, that the only way to get buy in from developing countries on shifts to carbon-lite technologies is through subsidies?

I notice you make no note of the problem of adaptation in the developing world - it is because you don't care about that problem, or the underlying problem of poor governance, corruption and lack of rule of law that keeps these nations poor, or is it because you envision that the technology transfer programs will also fund efforts to help developing countries meet so-called "Millenium Development Goals"?

Just curious.

Jonathan, thanks for the response. I am aware of your prior writings, but was hoping you'd flesh them out a bit more, so you don't come off sounding like Gov. Sanford.

I share your view that traditional foreign aid and direct government-to-government transfers have not done much to actually promote development - they have instead helped corrupt elites abroad and statist corporations at home. If any direct compensation were paid to developing nations for climate damage (as you argue may be theoretically justified), it would certainly line the pockets of the elites and do little to actually aid either development or adaptation. (BTW, I see your equity argument and raise you several pragmatic ones: if we want effective climate policy, we need mitigation in developing economies too, and we need development abroad to make sure we don't swamp the world with refugees.)

I agree that no single developed nation can tackle the problems of poor governance, corruption and lack of rule of law abroad - just like no nation can singlehandedly mitigate AGW factors. This is hard work that will require cooperation - cooperation that is undercut by competition for resources in these nations (see China's Africa tour) and by the direct results and blowback from our own sprawling military empire. We need a serious focus on the hard tasks of development, otherwise the "adaptation" that is now becoming necessary, and that conservatives now trumpet over mitigation, will occur only in the developed economies.

It is nice to see you calling for NEW "international institutions", but don't we have the beginnings of some of them in the Kyoto mechanisms?