Remove chill from climate debate

Two groups have frozen the debate over climate change in this country. On one side are wholehearted believers pushing for an environmental revolution to avoid impending doom. On the other are disbelievers who see any sacrifice as a job-killing waste.

Further confusing things are special interests trying to grab government subsidies or raise more money for their cause or employer. Everyone else has been mostly shut out.

To whom you listen should not depend on which political party you identify with, which church you attend or what your friends think. All of us should think for ourselves about what is true and important concerning greenhouse gas.

A good starting point is a presentation by former Sen. John Warner and retired Navy Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn. They came to Tampa recently as part of a national tour to get informed debates going on university campuses and military bases.

Backed by Pew Charitable Trusts, they invite you to look at the climate issue from military and economic perspectives. Their approach is prudent, fact-based and eye-opening.

For one thing, everyone must agree that oil directly affects the nation's defense. If the price of a barrel of oil goes up $10, the U.S. military must spend $2 billion more a year for fuel. That means learning how to use less oil and moving toward energy independence are military necessities.

Oil is sure to be a factor in future conflicts, as are shortages of water and agricultural land in many parts of the world where population is rapidly increasing. Climate problems will only make existing rivalries worse.

Scientific predictions link a warmer climate to droughts, disease, coastal floods, and crop failures. When such disasters happen, whether caused by a warmer climate or not, "people are going to move in huge numbers," McGinn says.

That does not bode well for stability, and instability is likely to increase demands on the U.S. military to keep trade routes open, protect the weak,and provide humanitarian assistance.

Warner, a longtime Republican senator from Virginia, says residents of this area "have an obligation to the young men and women leaving MacDill Air Force Base every day," to try to understand the global implications of the climate controversy.

The other day U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told a group of leaders of developing countries that "climate change could spell widespread economic disaster" for them. It is a warning backed up by respected scientists from many countries, and it creates diplomatic problems for the United States, which has done little to try to reduce its high emissions of carbon.

One excuse for inaction is that even costly reductions in one country won't make a measurable difference in the world's atmosphere. And in a world hungry for energy, significant cuts won't happen soon, if at all.

In India, for example, a third of the population still lacks access to electricity. That's more potential electric customers than the entire U.S. population.

Instead of figuring out how to best bring more energy to more people at lower costs, international diplomats have been arguing about how much to cut emissions by some distant future date.

It's easy to tune out the discussion when you hear that not even conscientious Canada is going to meet the limits it agreed to in the Kyoto Treaty; in fact, it is expected to exceed them by 30 percent.

Warner correctly urges a fresh approach. It may not be possible to definitively say whether the globe will become warmer or not, and whether a few degrees will mean disaster or not, but the bulk of peer-reviewed scientific research confirms climate change. It would be irresponsible to ignore a situation that has major ramifications for families and local governments, as well as for the military and the State Department.

As McGinn says, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense are believers.

Energy is going to be more expensive. Families and agencies that learn to consume oil more efficiently will enjoy financial rewards. Energy-saving technologies can create new, permanent jobs. A nation reducing its energy use will reap international goodwill.

Locally, the Hillsborough County Commission's working group on carbon credits and energy conservation is thinking along the same practical lines. Tapping methane at the landfill, switching to low-energy lighting and using state-of-the-art ice-making technology to cool government buildings are all paying immediate dividends. Republican Commissioner Rose Ferlita, known as a budget watchdog, is leading this effort.

Clearly, it makes sense to pay close attention to how attitudes toward energy use are changing. The price of being misinformed or uninformed is high and going higher.