Threat heats up

OVER THE LAST two years, the findings of studies on global warming have grown increasingly dire. The glaciers are melting, the polar bears are endangered. Climate change is linked to the catastrophic western wildfires, and warming oceans have been tied to Katrina-like hurricanes.

On Monday, the British government tried to translate it all into dollars and cents. A 700-page report written by former World Bank economist Nicholas Stern argued that global warming will eventually cost nations from 5% to 20% of their gross domestic product if strong action is not taken now. Flooding, crop failures, shortages of drinking water and higher rates of some diseases would bring about a depression equal to the worst the world has ever known, the report projects, while population migrations from the most affected nations would create global chaos.

The Stern report attempts to weave climate science with economics, but in truth it is at best guesstimating, down to its dubiously tidy bottom line, that if nations invested 1% of their GDP right now into reducing greenhouse gas emissions they could avoid much or all of this catastrophe. There’s no doubt that human activity contributes heavily to climate change, but at this point we still don’t know how much of the blame we deserve or the extent of the possible damage, let alone what the best spending formula is to prevent it.

Though the numbers are debatable, the essential message cannot be ignored: There will be irreversible long-term damage if emissions are not significantly reduced. The report repudiates President Bush’s line that regulating greenhouse gases would endanger jobs. Under Stern’s scenario, there would be a great loss of jobs if nothing is done.

Britain has championed the struggle against global warming, and Bush’s intransigence is isolating him from the emerging global consensus. No wonder this nation’s emissions are up almost 16% since 1990 and climbing every year, while Britain has reduced emissions during that time by 14% and Germany by 17%.

The U.S. is not only failing to be a leader on curbing one of the world’s most serious threats, it’s not even a decent follower.