The New York Times (pg. A20)  [Printer-friendly version]
May 28, 2008

EDITORIAL: THE SENATE'S CHANCE ON WARMING

For seven long years, President Bush Enhanced Coverage
LinkingPresident Bush has refused to confront the challenge of climate
change and provide the leadership that this country and the world
needs to reduce greenhouse gases and avoid the destructive
consequences of global warming.

The Senate, and all three presidential candidates, have a chance to
provide that leadership. Next week, the Senate is scheduled to take up
a bill sponsored by John Warner, the Virginia Republican, and Joseph
Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, that seeks aggressively to
reduce emissions from all sectors of the economy.

Mr. Bush, predictably, opposes the bill. Add that to the slim
Democratic majority and the complexity of the bill itself, and the
chances of getting 60 filibuster-proof votes are modest at best. Even
so, a majority vote would create positive momentum for the next
Congress and send a strong signal to the country and the world that
help on this issue is on the way.

For that reason, it is crucial for John McCain, Barack Obama and
Hillary Rodham Clinton to show up and vote for this bill. All are on
record as supporting mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases. A pressing
campaign schedule is no excuse for not being counted on an issue this
important to the nation's future.

The Senate last addressed climate change in 2003 when it cast 43 votes
in favor of a bill sponsored by Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman. This
bill is even more ambitious. It calls for a 70 percent reduction in
emissions by 2050 -- requiring, in turn, a huge change in the way the
country creates, delivers and uses energy. It imposes a price on
carbon to make sure that happens. It also creates a compelling array
of incentives for new and cleaner technologies and offers ways to
combat long-neglected problems like deforestation.

Since that 2003 vote, the arguments for action have only gotten
stronger. Mr. Bush has left a deep-seated impression that mandatory
cuts in carbon dioxide would bankrupt the country or at the very least
severely damage it by driving energy prices through the roof.

Every serious study shows that this is simply not true and that a
well-designed, market-based program could yield positive economic
gains -- greater energy efficiency, technological innovation and
reduced reliance on foreign oil. The same studies also make clear that
the costs of inaction will dwarf the costs of acting now. The bill's
proponents must make sure that the economics of this debate are framed
in a positive way.

The scientific case for action, strong five years ago, is even more
persuasive now. Authoritative assessments from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, among other studies, have left little doubt
that the world is heating up, that man-made emissions are largely
responsible and that swift action is necessary to avoid widespread
environmental damage.

Mr. Bush can no longer plausibly deny the science. What he continues
to resist is the need for a full-throated response. The Senate can
usher in a new era of American leadership when it convenes next week.