Just about every one of Governor Pataki’s actions these days has to be evaluated on two levels: how it affects his campaign for reelection and how it affects his campaign for a job in the Bush administration. With respect to the voters of New York, it certainly looks like the governor is hoping that a plan to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions will help position him as an environmentally friendly Republican in a state where Democrats dominate. Mr. Pataki was endorsed just the other day by the League of Conservation Voters, and he deserves credit for adding parklands to the state — though he’d get more credit in our book if he spent his energies reforming abuses of property rights through eminent domain. But if Mr. Pataki thinks a tough line on carbon dioxide is the ticket to national electoral success, he might consider what happened to Vice President Gore.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a favorite of the Tennessean, called for a reduction of carbon dioxide by only 7% below 1990 levels. That plan was laughed out of the United States Senate almost unanimously on account of the harm it would have done to America’s economy. The plan being considered by the Pataki panel — according to a report in yesterday’s New York Sun by our bureau man in Albany, William F. Hammond Jr. — calls for as much as a 40% reduction. Mr. Gore’s support for the Kyoto Protocol and his reputation for environmental stridency might have helped him in states like New York and California, where he hardly needed the boost, but it hurt him in crucial swing states like West Virginia where the production of coal is a major industry. Mr. Pataki might help himself at home in November by coming to be known as the Republican who got to Al Gore’s left on the environment, but he would hardly be enhancing his long-term national viability.

Furthermore, Mr. Pataki might find that he is not even helping his short-term viability if he pushes businesses out of New York at a time when the state is desperately trying to convince them to stay put. New Jersey’s and Connecticut’s regulatory regimes could come to look quite attractive if New York takes the plunge alone. And any plan as stringent as that under consideration would lead to significant increases in the cost of electricity in the Empire State by forcing a shift to natural gas, which is almost twice as expensive as coal. The idea that new technologies will ameliorate the problem is largely a mirage. Nuclear power already makes up about 25% of the state’s generating capacity, and isn’t likely to be expanded amid the current concerns about terrorism. So-called renewables, like solar and wind power, are still hovering around 2%. It’s always possible, one can suppose, that Mr. Pataki isn’t gunning for a spot on the national ticket. Maybe he merely wants to take over from Governor Whitman as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, a job that, in the Bush administration, seems to have a description of undermining the White House by putting the goal of regulation ahead of economic growth.