The Silence on Global Warming

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

If four hurricanes had blown through the Southeast in rapid succession at any other time in recent years, the phenomenon almost certainly would have been blamed on that all-purpose explainer for nearly every unexplainable natural phenomenon, global warming.


But there has been nary a peep about global warming. For one thing, this has been one of the cooler years on record, a huge disappointment to the climate change enthusiasts. For another, the presidential candidates find it an uncomfortable subject.


Senator Kerry referred to the issue in Thursday night’s debate, but only briefly and indirectly. At one point, he asserted that President Bush had “turned away” from a treaty on global warming. But he did so only to cite it as an instance of when the administration had failed to pass the “global test” of approval by other countries, not to argue in favor of the merits of the Kyoto Protocol negotiated by a fellow Democrat, Vice President Gore, in 1996. And understandably so.


In the late 1990s, Mr. Kerry was one of 95 senators who voted not to even consider the treaty. And the Democratic Party platform this year doesn’t even mention Kyoto. Post-Gore Democrats understand that energy controls are not a terribly popular idea among working-class people who depend on internal combustion for their livelihoods. And as Mr. Bush might have noted, Europe’s harsh criticism of American inaction reflects vested economic interests more than enlightened concern for the environment.


Any rollback in emissions necessarily would throw some very large grains of sand in the American economic gears, the biggest energy user in the world. In a single bound, Mr. Kerry’s friends in France and Germany would regain some of their competitiveness vis-a-vis America – without having to endure the political pain of rolling back the vastly inefficient welfare states.


Additionally, though Europe pays lip service to the Kyoto accords, it already is falling behind the voluntary emissions goals it has set for itself. Rather than admit failure, Europe is trying to bribe Russia into ratifying the Kyoto Protocol with the promise of cash and admission to the World Trade Organization. Because of Russia’s economic collapse, it far exceeds the emissions caps proposed in Kyoto. Under the Kyoto rules, it is allowed to sell its “credits” to other countries, who can then claim the overall emissions target is being met.


Maybe the issue will come up again in the debate on domestic policy. Seven attorneys general in the Northeast are suing major utilities for abatement of carbon dioxide “pollution,” which is bound to add huge amounts to already soaring energy bills, even though carbon dioxide has never been defined as a pollutant. And California, in its never-ending war on the automobile, several weeks ago issued a legally dubious order requiring auto makers to sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions.


But don’t count on the candidates themselves pursuing the matter. In addition to Mr. Kerry’s usual rubberiness, Mr. Bush appears disinclined to make much of an issue of it. In response to Mr. Kerry’s other reference to global warming the other night – that the White House has been ignoring “the truth of the science behind global warming” – Mr. Bush might have pointed out that the science is anything but certain. Instead, he let the remark pass unchallenged.


That could reflect the fact that one of Mr. Bush’s strategic goals in the current campaign was to gain the support of Senator McCain, the Arizona Republican, who is pushing a “Climate Stewardship Act” of his own. Mr. Bush may be ducking the issue partly out of gratitude for the very public bear hug that the popular McCain bestowed on him a month ago.


Maybe those of us who suspect the global warming hysteria is mostly humbug should be glad it isn’t getting much attention. It may be dying a natural death anyway, and Iraq and the economy are clearly the major issues in this election.


But just to make sure the country doesn’t get blind-sided by a post-election flip-flop, it would be nice if the future debate moderators would press a little harder for answers from both men. Hurricanes shouldn’t be the only source of questions about an issue of substantial concern in the industrial heartland, where jobs are hard enough to come by without government adding to the burden in pursuit of gauzy theories about the weather in the year 2050.



Mr. Bray is a Detroit News columnist.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use