George W. Bush doesn't completely dismiss the possibility that auto and industrial emissions contribute to the now well-documented increase in global surface temperatures. But he claims that isn't "proven" yet, and frets at the prospect of asking Americans to sacrifice for the good of the planet.

It's become curiously fashionable among conservatives to suspect scientists of being a bunch of Communists hell-bent on suppressing capitalism. Well, we have many kilos of atmospheric scientists here in Boulder, and we happen to believe them when they say human activity is dangerously overheating the planet.

After all, the 1990s were the warmest decade in the last thousand years, and 1998 the single warmest year on record. Winters in our hemisphere are 18 days shorter than they were around the time of the Civil War.

According to the latest studies, "greenhouse gases" such as carbon dioxide — which trap the sun's energy when they accumulate in the atmosphere — could raise average surface temperatures as much as 11 degrees by 2100, which would melt glaciers, raise seas, flood crop lands, kill off species — the list of potential consequences is long and scary.

True, the earth undergoes natural climatic cycles over thousands of years. But the current warming is simply too spectacular, say reputable scientists, to put the blame on Mother Nature.

We have met the global warming enemy — and it is us.

In 1997, world leaders met in Kyoto, Japan and agreed to reduce the amount of human-produced greenhouse gases to more than 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. European Union nations agreed to cut emissions by 8 percent, the U.S. by 7 percent and Japan by 6 percent.

But we've been losing ground. Since 1990, emissions have actually climbed by 20 percent, making the 2012 target harder to meet. While 84 countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol, few have ratified it and none is obligated to act until producers of 55 percent of the emissions sign on; the U.S., by far the largest producer of greenhouse pollutants, has not ratified it, and very well may not.

This week and next, world leaders are meeting in The Hague, Netherlands to try and implement the agreement, but prospects look fairly dim, in large part because of U.S. strategy.

The Clinton Administration has verbally supported the agreement, but also vowed not to send it to the Senate for ratification unless developing countries — currently exempt — also are required to reduce emissions. Republicans in Congress have all but declared that they'll torpedo Kyoto, claiming it would hurt the economy. And the U.S. negotiating team is battling its European allies over whether the U.S. should be allowed to continue polluting at current or higher levels as long as it could "trade" pollution credits with countries that are doing better.

We recognize that there would be economic tradeoffs in reducing U.S. emissions. But let's face it: This problem won't go away if we ignore it. As the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, it's obvious that our nation, more than any other, should agree to reduce output. Let's do it, then rely on ingenuity to make up the difference, economically.

It's long past time for Congress to stop whining about "government interference" and leverage higher emission standards and fuel efficiency from auto makers. Congress also should encourage "clean" energy sources such as wind power and solar power.

Not that we expect any of this to happen. It remains distressingly possible that Kyoto will collapse entirely because of U.S. intransigence. That might make George W. Bush happy, but it wouldn't bode well for the future of the planet.

Copyright 2000 The Daily Camera

###