What's so rare about Robert J. Samuelson's prediction from nearly a decade ago is that it is correct.

Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the next century, but -- regardless of whether it is or isn't -- we won't do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem, the less likely they are to be observed. Little will be done. . . . Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national hypocrisy. - Robert J. Samuelson, WaPo, July 1997

Nailed it. What is he saying now?

Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. Let me explain.

From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty -- and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.

I suspect that's a conservative view, one that will seem modest a decade from now. Though various government groups have visions of "tough government regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of higher fuel prices" as part of a crash energy diet it seems all but certain that emissions will rise above their already problematic levels and continue to accumulate. What does Samuelson predict?

I draw two conclusions -- one political, one practical.

No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something." The result is grandstanding. . .None of these programs will reduce global warming. They're public relations exercises and -- if they impose costs -- are undesirable. . .

The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology. . .

Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it. Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse gases?

The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.

Politics is stupid, and in this case dangerous too. Squandering our resources, time, energy and wealth on PR exercises is criminally stupid. Remember this when the Gore brigades chant their mantras or your pseudo-green activist group wants still more donations. They are part of the problem, not the solution. They are cynical posers exploiting a threat to advance their political agenda even though it will cause great harm to do so.