It doesn’t matter if you believe in man-made climate change or not; Congress believes in it.  Al Gore is on firm footing when he proclaims that climate change is settled and there is no need for debate,  at least not in Washington. The issue is what will Congress do about it.

Sun and Earth in scale

Joseph White writes a clear-headed piece in the Wall St. Journal about the realities in Washington and some critical views of cap & trade.

Europe has employed a cap and trade system for several years similar to the section in the Waxman-Markey bill.  Some experts argue that the cap and trade effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is minimal and that money would be better spent on developing  ”clean” energy technology or reducing overall energy use.

Bjorn Lomborg, the now famous or infamous Danish business professor and author, has been arguing since 2001 that we should prioritize the worldwide problems we are trying to fix and use a scarce resource like money in a cost-effective way.

That doesn’t sound like an earth-shattering proposition, but it is.  Lomborg concludes that spending vast sums of money on reducing GHG and other climate-friendly policies will result in very few tangible results.  In other words, you get very little bang for you precious buck.   If, however, you put that money toward preventing malaria or HIV/AIDS, the payoff would be far greater.  

Lomborg is not without critics, simply peak at his Wikipedia entry.

Nonetheless, with the ambitious White House agenda for spending, which is running the gamut from healthcare reform to the stimulus package and the remains of TARP more legislators — albeit mostly Republicans — are looking at the economics of spending on climate change.

With everyone’s favorite green becoming a scarce resource, prioritizing may be the prudent way to watch our dollars and while evaluating our needs.

— KJC

Photo:  Nasa images