Between polar opposites.

Stewart, Richard B. ; Wiener, Jonathan B.

S.Fred Singer's review (Winter 2003-2004)of our book, Reconstructing Climate Policy: Beyond Kyoto, confuses our argument. Singer calls our proposal clever, but then dispenses a string of discourteous barbs that are inapposite and unbecoming, while criticizing our book for positions we do not take. His review associates our book with support for the Kyoto Protocol, which he then deplores, but our book is in fact a critique of Kyoto and a proposal for an alternative, superior approach. He dismisses our proposal for trading emissions allowances with China as leaving "emissions ... essentially unabated," achieving "zilch," rather than cutting emissions 60 to 80 percent, but our book clearly explains how our proposal would gradually reduce emissions rather than achieving either nothing or drastic cuts (and, curiously, it is Singer who prefers leaving emissions unabated). He also slams a number of others' proposals that appear nowhere in our book, such as convergence to equal percapita emissions worldwide or authoritarian fertility control--positions we obviously do not advocate. Meanwhile, his historical recounting of the flaws in the Kyoto negotiations is almost the same story told in our book in greater detail. We welcome debate over our proposal, but not reckless mischaracterization.

Singer's main objection is that we propose doing anything about climate change at all. He says we "assert the existence of a future climate problem more or less on faith," but our book carefully surveys the research on the expected damages (and benefits) from a changing climate. As serious risk analysts know, even a low probability of a high consequence can warrant preventive action. Staunch refusal to recognize risk is the real indication of blind faith. Our book, based on sober cost-benefit and expected-value criteria that should be dear to the hearts of Regulation's readers, finds that even though climate change may be of uncertain and low probability, its consequences warrant at least some modest preventive insurance measures (but not as drastic or rigid as those in Kyoto). Our book then articulates how to respond sensibly, using efficient market-based policy tools.

That our book was published by the American Enterprise Institute Press and supported by AEI's Robert Hahn, who also sits on Regulation's editorial board, is itself some indication that (extremists aside) there can be a constructive dialogue across diverse viewpoints toward a sensible climate policy. That the book has drawn the ire of a longtime climate change skeptic is perhaps a badge of honor for a centrist position.

RICHARD B. STEWART

New York University

JONATHAN B. WIENER

Duke University