This article at the Wall Street Journal (subscriber link) caught my eye:
The informal coalition plans a news conference Monday to publicize its recommendations, ahead of Tuesday’s State of the Union address, according to a person familiar with the situation. It will suggest that Congress and the administration move quickly to address global warming through steps such as capping greenhouse-gas emissions and discouraging construction of conventional coal-burning power plants, which are a big source of carbon-dioxide emissions.
While the U.S. rejected the Kyoto accord that created greenhouse-gas caps and an emissions-credit trading system for developed countries in Europe and elsewhere, some U.S. executives believe such regulation is inevitable here. They want more certainty about the future, as they plan for capital investments.
I like the approach — avoiding the politically touchy question of whether or not human-influenced global warming is real, and taking the pragmatic approach of believing that regulation will eventually come (and perhaps come and go) so why not get something reasonable in place and add some stability to forecasts of the future.
That’s close to another pragmatic stance I wish more politicians, bureaucrats, and business leaders would take — looking at the relatively small cost of “what are the costs if the scientific community is being paranoid” and comparing that to “what are the enormous costs if the scientists are right but we do nothing”.
Preserving the economy and protecting the strength of industry is important. But surely even critics of global warming could find it in themselves to go through the exercise of “what if they’re right; what is the most efficient / least destructive way to respond” to move ahead on some middle path.