Greenhouse hypocrisy, anyone?

Washington Post syndicated columnist Robert Samuelson today:

It seems impossible to have an honest conversation about global warming. I say this after diligently perusing the British government's huge report released last week by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and now a high-ranking civil servant.

The report is a masterpiece of misleading public relations.

It foresees dire consequences if global warming isn't curbed: a worldwide depression (with a drop in output up to 20 percent) and flooding of many coastal cities. Meanwhile, the costs of minimizing these awful outcomes are small: only 1 percent of world economic output in 2050.

No one could fail to conclude that we should conquer global warming instantly, if not sooner. Who could disagree? Well, me.

Stern's headlined conclusions are intellectual fictions. They're essentially fabrications to justify an aggressive anti-global-warming agenda. The danger of that is we'd end up with the worst of both worlds: a program that harms the economy without much cutting of greenhouse gases.[…]

Samuelson goes on to explain how easy it will be for us to end up with the worst of both worlds. If fact, he may convince you we already have the worst of both worlds. Look what you find further on in his column :

Just last week, the United Nations reported that of the 41 countries it monitors (not including most developing nations), 34 had increased greenhouse emissions from 2000 to 2004. These include most countries committed to reducing emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. [...]

Is anyone surprised greenhouse emissions are rising in many “countries committed to reducing emissions under the Kyoto Protocol?”

Samuelson gets into the “whys and wherefores” of emissions' politics and technology. He’s written an awfully good column. I hope you take a look.