Lately, it seems like we are being inundated with new information about the negative impact of global warming. The polar ice caps are melting, polar bears may become extinct, sea level rise will inundate island nations and coastal areas, and some have even suggested this year's hurricanes were yet another manifestation of "global climate change."

	Ted Crow, Post-Gazette Click illustration for larger image.

Whatever you call it, the impact and evidence seem to be penetrating our SUV-driving, gas-guzzling consciousness -- everyone's that is, but Congress'. The reality is that policies limiting the greenhouse gases that cause global warming are all but inevitable. The only question that remains is whether the United States will move quickly enough to shape those policies to its fullest advantage.

Even though U.S. citizens have been showered with science confirming global warming, it hasn't been reflected in the country's political awareness. With Americans' furious combustion of coal and oil, the United States is the world's most egregious contributor to global warming.

The electric utilities, auto industry and some shortsighted politicians fear that reining in the nation's 25 percent contribution to the world's greenhouse gas pollution could risk our economic growth. Their view is that we should save our own financial hide whatever the environmental cost. What they neglect is that the nation's own financial self-interest will be better served by getting in early on the carbon-cutting action.

In February, an international agreement known as the Kyoto Protocol will go into force, limiting the greenhouse gas emissions of its industrialized signatory nations. Most of the 128 nations party to the treaty, such as Canada, Great Britain, Russia and Japan, are both U.S. allies and major trading partners. As they implement Kyoto, two things are likely to happen: The United States, as the world's biggest greenhouse gas contributor, will come under increasing international pressure to join in a global carbon cap and trading system; and, secondly, U.S. corporations will suffer from competitive disadvantage until it does so.

		Write us To submit a letter or an essay for consideration for The Private Sector, please send it via e-mail to Business@Post-gazette.com or via regular mail to Post-Gazette Business Section, Private Sector, 34 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222. Please include your telephone number, municipality and return address for verification.

A global carbon trading market is already emerging, led by Europe and Japan, in which the U.S. government and American businesses have no say. Furthermore, U.S. companies with operations in Kyoto-participating countries will be required to curb their greenhouse gas pollution, but won't be able to count reductions achieved at their U.S. operations.

All of this points to one conclusion. A carbon dioxide emissions cap in the United States is coming; it's a matter of when, not if.

Pennsylvania ranked fourth nationally in 2002 for coal production. More than half of the country's electricity is produced by burning coal. For years, some members of Congress have resisted limits on carbon emissions, thinking that coal industry jobs would be jeopardized if carbon emissions caps were to encourage power plants to switch to cleaner burning fuels such as natural gas.

The more realistic scenario, however, is that coal-burning utilities would get the market signals they need to modernize their power plant fleet so that it can burn coal without polluting the atmosphere with excess carbon. Many experts predict that even with carbon capture and sequestration in place, coal will still be the cheapest electricity generating option.

If Pennsylvania's coal industry is to thrive in the face of carbon restraints, our elected officials should be aggressively pursuing policies that will reposition the state's economy for the future. The Climate Stewardship Act, sponsored by Sen. John McCain. R-Ariz., would set an overall cap on the nation's carbon emissions, while allowing companies to buy and sell carbon pollution credits.

The legislation gained 43 votes in the Senate in 2003, and McCain has vowed to bring it back again and again until it passes. Pennsylvania's senators voted against the bill in 2003, but should reconsider. Creating a carbon trading scheme in the United States will help the state's coal industry to grow in the most cost-effective manner possible.

With a patchwork of state carbon regulations beginning to emerge and the Kyoto Protocol taking effect in February, it may eventually be U.S. corporations that persuade the federal government to implement a national carbon policy. As global warming pollution reduction requirements become a new business reality, they can no longer afford to give up their seat at the negotiating table.

Luckily, Pennsylvania's congressional members will have another opportunity to secure our coal future by voting for Sen. McCain's bill next year.