Has Global Warming Policy, Like Warming Itself, Peaked?

Yes, the Administration's cap-and-trade proposal shows a continued commitment to climate change. But realism still may seep through, as Marlo Lewis observes on Planet Gore:

Global warming used to be such fun for eco-activists and their political allies when it was a stick they could use to beat George W. Bush. For years, the Left milked global warming as a political-theater platform for partisan attack, direct-mail fundraising, and endless moral posturing. But now that they’re running the show in Washington, D.C., climate doomsters know they’ll be blamed if their policies de-stimulate our ailing economy.

One early indication that the White House could "get real" is that President Obama’s lead climate negotiator, Todd Stern, last week warned that international climate policymakers were unrealistic:

Mr. Stern said in his speech that it was "not possible" for the U.S. to cut its emissions as quickly as suggested under the Bali road map. Mr. Stern reiterated Mr. Obama's goal of returning U.S. emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020, adding that the U.S. could compensate with swifter reductions in the years beyond 2020. Mr. Obama's recent budget proposal calls for reducing U.S. emissions roughly 80% by 2050 over 2005 levels.

"We need to be very mindful of what the dictates of science are, and of the art of the possible," Mr. Stern said. Referring to the targets called for in the Bali plan, Mr. Stern added "it's not possible to get that kind of number. It's not going to happen."

Some things, however, never change. Such warming-zealot-in-chief Al Gore's hostility to evidence:

Mr. Gore stuck to his prepared script about the urgency of taking action to curb global greenhouse-gas emissions, down to well-worn phrases he trots out at conferences across the country: America is at "a political tipping point" on climate change, and even if Washington has failed to address the energy challenge in the last 35 years, "political will is a renewable resource."

But he was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.

"I don’t mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?" asked the polo-shirt wearing Dane.

"I want to be polite to you," Mr. Gore responded. But, no. "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue," he said. "It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake," he added.

Which, in a perverse way, makes sense. The only way one can conclude that significant warming, CO₂ causation, the accuracy of the data, or the economics and feasibility of carbon cuts are "settled" is by jamming fingers in your ears.

(via Planet Gore)