One of the things we’re trying to get people to see at the Breakthrough Institute is that Kyoto isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. In fact, it is probably ecologically irrelevant. Despite self-congratulatory claims otherwise, most nations in the EU have seen their emissions rise, not fall, under the protocols. We think it’s misguided, convoluted, and a regulatory nightmare — so we were, at first, pleased to see an opinion piece from Dieter Helm in the Wall Street Journal yesterday pointing out these failings.

He argues that any effort to reduce emissions must take into consideration consumption just as much — if not more than — production. Otherwise, we’ll wind up like the U.K., for whom, if you factor in carbon outsourcing to developing countries like China and India, emissions actually rose by 19 percent, rather than falling by 15 percent. Helm is absolutely right; it’s a mistake to put too much faith in the regulation-centered approach of cap-and-trade. It is so full of holes like these that it’s almost certain to descend into ecological oblivion, even as ratifying nations pat themselves on the back for reducing their carbon footprint.

What’s more, he points out, our technology isn’t up to scale, and any attempt to address the climate problem will need to focus heavily and getting it there, and fast. Helm sets himself apart from those environmentalists like Al Gore who would argue that we have all the technology we need to deal with climate change, and a regulation-centered approach is the way to go.

But even as Helm rails against the Gore-esque blind faith in taking the regulation route, he ends up shoulder to shoulder with Gore when it comes to the sacrifice it will take to deal with the climate challenge. Despite Joe Romm’s claims to the contrary, Al Gore is quite clear when it comes to what the “inconvenient truth” is:

“The truth about the climate crisis is an inconvenient one that means we are going to have to change the way we live our lives.”

You can be sure he doesn’t mean change our lives for the better. No, this doomsday message is that we must lower our standards of living or suffer the consequences.

Just when I was expecting Helm to further break with Gore by proclaiming that by massive investment in technology R&D, we can improve the lives of everyone from China to Brazil, he hits me with a dose of Gore-style melodrama:

The U.S. and Europe refuse to acknowledge that halting the relentless rise in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will take a significant slice out of economic growth. It will probably mean living standards will have to be cut if our consumption is going to be environmentally sustainable. We are simply living beyond our — and the planet’s — means. This is not a welcome message for politicians to give their voters. But it happens to be what is required to tackle this global crisis.

And that was all. No inspiring call to action, no leading us out of the darkness, just doom and gloom to the very end. Spelling out the fatal flaws of Kyoto, he had set himself up perfectly to unveil sparkling new recommendations for what we ought to be doing. But instead, he chose to remind people that they’re probably not sad enough, given how much global warming is going to hurt humanity. Maybe we have a chance of beating it, he implies, but only if we give up the comforts of development, and keep our fingers crossed that the Chinese and Indians don’t want it too badly either.

Helm does a great job of what a visionary alive during the birth of this unfortunate environmentalist rhetoric so aptly pointed out:

“You say you’ve got a real solution? We’d all love to see the plan.”
- John Lennon