As usual Don Boudreaux is that rare, calm, sensible voice speaking at a conversational volume and in pleasant tones about a contentious issue.

Let’s assume that global warming is happening and that it’s caused by modern human industry and commerce. Is there a case to be made for the United States government to continue to avoid signing the Kyoto Protocol? More generally, is there a case to be made to shrug our shoulders and say “best not to do anything through government about global warming”?

I think so.

One legitimate reason for refusing to endorse massive, worldwide government-led efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is that any such effort will inevitably be politicized. Even if the possibility exists for such regulation to make the world a better place, this possibility is remote compared to the likelihood that grandstanding politicians, special-interest groups, arrogant environmentalists who are intolerant of commercial values, and well-meaning but misinformed voters will combine to generate policies that do more harm than good.

Boudreaux admits to not being up to speed on the current state of the conflict, and it's well that this is so since otherwise we could accuse him of predicting the present situation. That's an accomplishment too compared to what many achieve, but not quite as impressive.

That world leaders will still pay lip service to Kyoto, even as they fail to live up to its demands, demonstrates the extent to which environmentalism has become about moral posturing more than practical measures. . .

Despite the rhetoric, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the terms of the Kyoto protocol won't be met because they are unacceptably expensive, particularly in economies that are already floundering. Even then, Kyoto is pointless for two reasons: firstly, the emissions cuts are by common consensus too small to have any noticeable effect on climate change, even if the USA were involved; secondly, because Kyoto excludes fast-developing countries like China. China's rapid development of coal-fired power stations would wipe out the Kyoto cuts in months.

So, why all the fuss about the Montreal agreement? From the point of view of the environmental lobby that has been pushing for a souped-up 'Son of Kyoto' with even bigger emissions cuts, it means they are still in the game. As long as politicians still talk about climate change as a major problem, they have the potential to wield influence. . .

[T]he goals seem to be more political and moral than practical. Environmental awareness is about learning the lesson that the planet has been screwed up by human beings. In an era where economic and social progress has slowed to a crawl, the notion that reining in growth is actually a positive thing, not a failure, is very attractive to a political class in search of a mission.

It is attractive at a diplomatic level, too. For the EU in particular, setting itself up as the polar opposite of the USA on just about every issue is important as a means of creating a sense of unity and purpose. In this particular fable, America is the bogeyman, not just on Iraq, but also on its insistence in striving for increased wealth at the expense of the planet. The irony is that the US record on emissions is, if anything, better than Europe's despite refusing to ratify Kyoto.

That sounds a lot like Boudreaux's prediction that "grandstanding politicians, special-interest groups, arrogant environmentalists who are intolerant of commercial values, and well-meaning but misinformed voters will combine to generate policies that do more harm than good."

But enough praise, Boudreaux also falls short of a useful analysis of what we can usefully do about climate change.

. . . if the only way to prevent or slow global warming is through political action, it is neither absurd nor irresponsible to argue that the best course of action is to ignore the problem.

He's not quite wrong, inaction is better than political action, but there are useful actions that we can take independently. We are doing so. We've been able to filter out the incoherent shrieking of the various opportunists seeking to exploit our concerns about climate and formulate some useful approaches. We also see our limits and the need for improved technologies to provide cleaner, cheaper energy in abundance as we require for world development now and in coming decades as population continues to rise for a while before leveling off.

I'm not claiming that there are no nutters still lost in the wilderness, fearful and confused, or that there are no predators feasting on them, just that the number who have managed to hack through the thickets and progress along the path is large and growing.