July 6, 2007
Editorial
Global Warming and Your Wallet

At long last, Congress is showing a willingness to confront global warming. The Senate's recent approval of higher fuel economy standards is a constructive step and key lawmakers are promising comprehensive legislation this year that will, for the first time, limit the emission of greenhouse gases.

But for all the talk about warming, leading politicians have yet to educate their constituents (and their colleagues) about an unpleasant and inescapable truth: any serious effort to fight warming will require everyone to pay more for energy. According to most scientists, the long-term costs of doing nothing - flooding, famine, drought - would be even higher than the costs of acting now. But unless Americans understand and accept the trade-off - higher prices today to avoid calamity later - the requisite public support for real change is unlikely to build.

Energy is currently underpriced in part because its cost does not reflect the damage inflicted by fossil fuels. Underpricing leads to overconsumption. Worse, it leads to underinvestment in alternatives. As long as today's energy is relatively cheap, there is little incentive for private firms to develop new fuels and technologies.

From the New Yorker's online archives, an incredibly important 3-part piece with online only Q&A Elizabeth Kolbert did on global warming last April. She outlines the basic scientific process, discusses different theories of how global warming cycles will play out, why we're less aware of the warming effected changes we're already seeing, and places like Alaska where the changes are already profoundly visible. Learn about global warming, in my opinion, a literalization of the idea of a 21st century political climate.

Global warming continues: ice melts, polar bears can't find food, wander into villages, and raise conflict with humans. They're smart.

Comedians raise awareness about global warming.