Is your SUV warming the planet?

By driving your SUV, are you sentencing the planet to environmental
devastation? Recently, the Clinton administration released its National
Assessment on Climate Change and America, a catalogue of potential
disasters resulting from global warming. With admirable understatement,
a headline in the news section of the Wall Street Journal noted that the
study, "May Overplay Dire Side." Yeah, just maybe. Floods, droughts,
disappearing coasts and killer microbes all run wild in the study, which
somehow manages to preview possible harm resulting from both too much
rain and too little.

The report has not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, but it's sure to help shame Americans into accepting limits on
our economic growth. Well, before you abandon your Jeep Cherokee, you
might want to learn about another study which did appear in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal. And its message is a little
different.

Perhaps the most important -- yet most politically inconvenient --
study in the history of the global warming debate is the one generated
by Princeton University's Carbon Modeling Consortium and published in
Science magazine in 1998. A team of researchers led by
Princeton's Jorge Sarmiento identified a "carbon sink" in North
America. In other words, the land in North America was absorbing a
surprisingly large amount of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise
become greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The technical term is
"terrestrial uptake" but the message is clear: Increases in greenhouse
gases are coming from outside North America.

Dr. Sarmiento told us this week, "According to our results, for the
1988 to 1992 period we analyzed, North America was a net emitter of
about 0." That's right, zero. As close as these scientists from
Princeton, Columbia and the government's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) can guess, the grass and trees on our
continent are consuming all the CO2 emitted by our cars and factories.
So the North American continent on its own is not increasing the amount
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. All of us industrialized,
SUV-driving, big house-heating, spoiled Americans add up to a wash, in
terms of carbon emissions.

TRENDING: State's 'Equitable Math' claims focus on 'right' answer is 'white supremacy'

How is this possible? In 1998, the Princeton team offered this
explanation: "... there are a number of possible mechanisms that could
be responsible for the sink. Forest regrowth in areas where generations
of pioneers leveled trees to create farmland almost certainly plays an
important role. Millions of acres east of the Mississippi have returned
to forest.

"Forest regrowth, and carbon absorption, in North America may be
enhanced by some side effects of industrialization. Nitrogen deposition
(a dilute form of acid rain) caused by combustion processes in
automobiles and power plants can act as a fertilizer, as can the higher
concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the air. Global warming
can contribute to longer growing seasons, which have been observed in
studies of satellite measurements cited by the team."

So, thanks to robust forest growth, all our CO2-munching trees can
absorb the greenhouse gases from our energy use. Does this mean there
isn't a potential problem due to global warming? No. But it does mean
that the current political solution embodied in the Kyoto agreement, in
which the United States accepts strict limits on its energy use, while
most of the world is free to continue emitting increasing amounts of
CO2, has no justification in science. The scientific threat has been
used as a pretext to cut a political deal, and it's a bad one for
America -- a redistribution of wealth from the United States to the rest
of the world. I understand why this sounds like a great idea in less
developed countries, but why anyone in the U.S. would endorse it is
beyond me.

Instead of putting the brakes on our growth, and punishing the one
region of the planet that's not making a net contribution to greenhouse
gases, perhaps other countries should follow our lead in creating a
high-tech economy. With all our industry, we manage to live in a carbon
sink because we have abundant, growing forests. In other words, we are
very efficient in our use of land, so there are plenty of plants and
trees to absorb our CO2. We favor energy sources that leave a tiny
footprint on the land -- oil and gas -- as opposed to low-tech energy
sources that require us to clear more land -- wood burning, solar
panels, windmills and coal. Of course, the most land-efficient,
non-polluting energy source of all is nuclear power. Nuclear plants
don't emit greenhouse gases and they leave a tiny footprint on the
land. Until politicians are ready to go nuclear, it's hard to take
their predictions of doom seriously -- or to buy into their alleged
solutions.