Brad DeLong picks up on our most recent reprint of Stavins' The Environmental Forum column (Rob Stavins Makes a Little Joke). Rob said:
[T]he United States can place itself where it ought to be — in a position of international leadership — on this global issue...
Brad said:
Rob is, of course, making a joke. The chances are infinitesimal that the clown show headed by George W. Bush will assume an international leadership role on global warming.
Burn. There are some great comments as well.
Here is one of the comments:
"Of course, Bush had complete freedom to propose a sensible alternative to Kyoto, and rally the world community behind it. Did he do so? No, he made no such effort at all."
Are we sure there is a sensible alternative to Kyoto which:
A) actually deals with global warming in a significant way (unlike Kyoto);
B) does so without crippling the major economies of the world;
and C) is something the world community could rally behind.
So far I haven't seen any proposal which has even two of those things. I haven't seen any proposal which has either of the first two (the substantive portions).
So, like AIDS or cancer, we have a worldwide problem. Thus far I'm not at all sure what a worldwide solution would look like. As such, I doubt Bush can be blamed for not finding the a good solution.
The answer to this, I think, is Rob's suggestions. Quoting meself:
The three required elements are:
