Congress is set to begin a debate on regulation designed to halt global warming.  The question is whether and how we might limit greenhouse gases.  Costs and benefits will be the central issue.  So, despite what many would wish, this is primarily an economic debate.  Here are the issues in a nutshell.  

There is strong scientific evidence the earth’s temperature is warming, though there are a significant number of serious climate scientists who doubt this.  However, there is significant doubt among serious researchers as to the role human activity plays in warming the environment.  But one undisputed fact is that at least a Ph.D. in these fields as well as years of research is necessary to really understand the evidence. 

But, you could be a global warming skeptic and still support policies to reduce greenhouse gases or a true believer and oppose these same policies.  It comes down to a simple equation.  Simply knowing the probability that global warming is occurring through human action, the costs of action and the cost of inaction is enough to make the right decision.  This is harder than the climate science. 

The cost of inaction might be profound.  Averting global warming could save tens of millions of lives that would be otherwise lost to starvation, disease and displacement. It could crush economies and liberty in places where it is weak.  Or, we as humans might effortlessly adapt over the next century.  Similarly, the cost of reducing greenhouse gases could be huge.  The shrinking of national and world economies could lead to pestilence, hunger and war.  It could crush economies, slow the spread of democracy and double the price of gas.  Or, it could be a benign and gradual adjustment.  The only thing we know is that there is no free lunch to be had.  Big changes will require big sacrifices, and small changes small sacrifices (and bad policy could give us big sacrifices and small changes).   

The problem is further exacerbated by two other considerations.  First, the impacts will have huge regional variations.  The U.S. could dramatically reduce emissions, but see those reductions more than offset by increased emissions from the third world.  We Americans have the luxury of caring about climate change.  An Indian worker whose family is living on five dollars a day does not.  The impact within the U.S. will also be uneven across regions.  Second, the costs of fixing global warming will be borne by today’s generations, while the benefits accrue to future generations.  These future generations will be richer, healthier and have better technology than we do.  In both cases costs and benefits are borne by different folks.  

In the end, over the next several decades, we are forced to make big decisions about the appropriate public policy that affects the lives of hundreds of millions of people.  All of this is based on a scientific matter that not one in a 100,000 citizens can really understand. 

Whatever else the global warming debate may be it isn’t an easy one.