Let's do nothing, and write about it later.

Coeruleus assaults Robert J. Samuelson's column in which he tosses his hands in the air and declares any attempt to tackle global warming as a waste of time while slamming his own magazine for dissing global warming deniers.

The global-warming debate's great un-mentionable is this: we lack the technology to get from here to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 doesn't mean it can happen. At best, we might curb emissions growth.

But, but, if Schwarzenegger does implement legislation and a strategy to get there, there's more chance of it happening than if he were to, you know, do nothing. Samuelson is suggesting that we might as well do the latter because he, I don't know, has a crystal ball?

Even the fantasy would be a stretch. In the United States, it would take massive regulations, higher energy taxes or both. Democracies don't easily adopt painful measures in the present to avert possible future problems. Examples abound. Since the 1973 Arab oil embargo, we've been on notice to limit dependence on insecure foreign oil. We've done little. In 1973, imports were 35 percent of U.S. oil use; in 2006, they were 60 percent.

Waitaminute, waitaminute, waitaminute! Let's look at the effort put in. The National Maximum Speed Limit was established in 1974 pegging the speed limit on US highways at 55 mph. Federal highway funding was tied to state compliance. Samuelson is right in one respect: The highly unpopular speed limit was fought against from every quarter until finally, in 1994, it was removed. Texas immediately increased its highway speed limit to 70 mph. Several other states followed suit with many increasing to 75 mph. Texas then raised some speed limits to 80 mph. The problem was, North American auto manufacturers were still making vehicles that could produce enough power to handle 100 mph. By 1994, when the federal limit was repealed, North American made vehicles had larger, more powerful engines which consumed as much fuel as those made before 1974.

The US gas guzzler tax applies to vehicles which consume fuel with an EPA combined highway/city rating of less than 22.5 MPG. That, if you look around the USA, should include a wide variety of vehicles. There are a lot of gas-hogs out there. But noooo.... sport utility vehicles, some of the worst gas guzzlers on the road, are not subject to the tax. Why? Because North American auto makers are making them by the mile and selling them by the foot. However, once the price of gasoline started to rise appreciably the sales of SUVs dropped off significantly.

Carrot... stick... who cares? The truth is, there was an effort but there was just as large a counter-effort by the auto makers. The auto makers won. It wouldn't be a fantasy if the auto makers had applied some innovation to their product.

In any event, Samuelson then goes on to list all the things that can be done:

What to do about global warming is a quandary. Certainly, more research and development. Advances in underground storage of carbon dioxide, battery technology (for plug-in hybrid cars), biomass or nuclear power could alter energy economics. To cut oil imports, I support a higher gasoline tax—$1 to $2 a gallon, introduced gradually—and higher fuel-economy standards for vehicles. These steps would also temper greenhouse-gas emissions. Drilling for more domestic natural gas (a low-emission fuel) would make sense. One test of greenhouse proposals: are they worth doing on other grounds?

How about economic grounds?

Earlier in Samuelson's column he harkened to the global warming "unable to produce a winning formula" argument. Whatever gains we make in tackling global warming will be wiped out by China's expansion.

Yes indeed. That would happen, if you let it. On the other hand, since obsolete manufacturing and processing plants in the US and Canada are closing faster than rabbits breed in favour of establishing in environmentally unregulated China, one possible means of dealing with the problem is another carrot and stick approach.

North American manufacturers can be encouraged to build plants in North America which employ clean technologies and, oh by the way, just so you don't attempt to use the "too expensive" argument, those same manufacturers can be put on notice that products originating from dirty Chinese plants will have crippling import duties slapped on them for that reason alone. In short, if you want to tap cheap labour in China to make your table-lamps, you can, but the plants are subject to inspection and verification for environmental standards.

Does that sound too simple? I guess so. It's almost warlike in its approach. Oh well.

But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: we simply don't have a solution for this problem.

That's encouraging. Without even starting Samuelson has quit.

Let's gain some perspective here.

You can deny that global warming is happening and you'll be proven wrong. The facts are out there along with compelling visible evidence. If all we do is sit about, we'll eventually burn up.

You can deny that global warming is an anthropogenic creation in the past couple of centuries. That's fine. You can sit there and accept that the planet is warming but it wasn't your fault, your antecedents' fault or the fault of an industrial revolution that paid no heed to the crap being pumped into the atmosphere. If we all do that, we'll eventually burn up.

You can accept that global warming is a fact and that it is an anthropogenic creation and toss your hands in the air crying, "It's too late! There's nothing we can do. People won't adapt to the massive changes that need to take place to correct the problem." So, we do nothing, and eventually we all burn up, but with the knowledge that we didn't even try to make a change.

It's tough for some to accept that those who actually got a pony had to do some work to get it, maybe even shoveling out a stalls every week. Those who just wished for a one are still wishing.

In any event, Samuelson's squawking that the media shouldn't be dragging deniers into the light because there's nothing we can do about global warming anyway is more than a little cowardly. At which point I would send you back to Coeruleus.

Boundless pessimism coupled with a can't-do attitude is un-American? Say it isn't so! I'm sure someday in the future someone will go to where no man has gone before and come up with the silver bullet to stop carbon emissions and then that dreaded media bias will hopefully also finally be over.