GLOBAL WARMING AND HOT HOUSE POLITICS.(Brief Article)

In the July 23 issue of The New Republic, Gregg Easterbrook notes that many global warming alarmists are motivated by something other than an interest in saving the planet. An excerpt:

As concerns about global warming have mounted, nearly all the attention has centered on carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced by the burning of fossil fuels. The Kyoto plan was drafted mainly as an anti-carbon-dioxide agreement. Environmentalists, especially, preach against carbon dioxide because they regard it as the monstrous consequence of human hubris in burning fossil fuels. But focusing on carbon dioxide makes anti-greenhouse plans costly and impractical--that's why no developed nation, including no member of the greener-than-thou European Union, has ratified Kyoto. Meanwhile, under our noses is an anti-greenhouse strategy that could be practical and affordable: one based on dealing first with methane.

As warming agents, methane molecules are about 30 times stronger than carbon dioxide. More importantly, methane emissions are not economically necessary. For the next few decades, it is impossible to imagine running the world without fossil fuels: Until clean energy forms become practical, any harsh program of carbon reduction would cause recession in the West and suffering in developing nations. Methane, on the other hand, could be strictly regulated without any detriment to the global economy. Artificial methane emissions arise from natural-gas pipeline leaks and errors during gas and petroleum drilling; from rice cultivation; from decomposing landfills; and, yes, from cattle. Pipeline leaks can be plugged, and drilling leaks can be stopped via improved techniques; simple changes in rice cultivation can lessen methane; technology already ...