Author of "The Bottlomless Well" with Mark P. Mills in 2005, Huber recently published "Bound to Burn," an essay (www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_carbon.html) that spells out just how the planet's poorest nations and their 5 billion people won't be too interested in falling in line with a carbon-constrained future that wealthy nations are championing.

Huber warns of the complexity of the energy issue. He depicts an organic, ever-changing planet on which humans must make choices that make sense for them. He notes that carbon is locked in rock strata, forests and farmland. How we manage those resources is critical to our future. At the same time, carbon is the fuel for living a better life because it holds energy. The Chinese, Indians and others know that, and they want good lives for their families, too.

Huber has a law degree from Harvard and a doctorate in mechanical engineering from MIT. He is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and writes about drug development, energy, technology and the law.

We probably should be paying attention to him and others who respect science and also recognize that people have a right to aspire to living better lives. Instead, we hear the politicians who, abetted by the media, seize the bully pulpit and offer profound and ominous predictions that they expect all of us to believe without questions.

Sorry, I've got questions. A lot of people do.

Let's start with the Kyoto Protocol -- a fool's deal. As proposed during the late 1990s and championed by Al Gore as vice president, Kyoto would require western nations to drive down their emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. It would give emerging nations a pass on greenhouse gas emissions. At least the architects of the Kyoto Protocol were honest in recognizing that emerging nations aren't as interested in saving the planet a couple of centuries from now as they are in saving themselves today.

I remember the first act of the Kyoto drama during the late 1990s, when Gore wasn't a movie star. He pushed for U.S. Senate passage of the Kyoto Protocol. He found no support in the upper chamber. Sen. Robert C. Byrd was a strong opponent.

Closer to the coalfields, Gov. Cecil H. Underwood was among the vocal critics. He said support of the Kyoto Protocol was "tantamount to treason." Some people think selling out your own country to another's advantage is a problem.

Politicians persist in pushing the impossible. With President Obama positioning the U.S. EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, Congress is marching this nation toward a carbon-constrained future that is certain in only one respect: Energy will cost more.

Advocates of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade policies dismiss as heresy any criticism of their plans. They argue that everyone is on board except those global warming "deniers" who are in the pockets of energy companies. Hmm. Deniers. Interesting word choice.

Huber, however, makes a case that the United States is rushing to address a problem without understanding the economic and environmental consequences of what we are trying to achieve. Complexities befuddle us. But that isn't a new phenomenon for the United States.

It may be that politicians who support a radical and immediate reduction in greenhouse gas emissions -- especially carbon dioxide -- are playing with fire. They are pushing an agenda that could create economic havoc in the developed world but does nothing to benefit the global environment. Will anyone notice?

Huber doesn't strike me as anyone's lackey -- someone giving cover to one camp at the expense of another. Huber respects science. He knows nuclear energy makes perfect sense as an energy source. It's just that its detractors have political standing and public fear in their corner. He understands that human nature -- especially the quest for a better life -- is not easily limited through government's wishful thinking.

Huber sees benefits from developing the Earth's natural carbon sinks, such as forests and prairies. Plants capture and store carbon quite efficiently.

If we must do something about carbon emissions, Huber suggests "the sequestration of carbon after it's burned is the one approach that accepts the growth of carbon emissions as an inescapable fact of the 21st century."

"And it's one approach that the rest of the world can embrace, too, here and now, because it begins with improving land use, which can lead directly and quickly to greater prosperity," Huber wrote.

Huber offers perspectives worthy of consideration, and yet politicians are eager to declare the discussion closed and immediate action necessary. Such conviction inspires global roulette, the ultimate game of chance.

* * *

A member of the North Carolina House of Representatives championed legislation to ban North Carolina power plants from using coal from mountaintop mining.

Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Greensboro, recognized late last month that she didn't have the votes to pass the bill. Some in the General Assembly prefer to take the fight to the federal level.

The bill drew the attention of some West Virginians, including Sam Barger, a newly elected member of the Webster County Commission. Barger simply and kindly asked Harrison whether she'd ever visited West Virginia. He pointed out that coal companies make a major contribution to the local economy and that surface mining yields developable land.

He noted Webster County's clean water and wondered whether North Carolina's water -- with the state's farm runoff -- could be as clean.

"I have no problem with wanting to protect our environment, but there has to be a reasonable balance," Barger wrote. "We have to also understand the full impact of our decisions. I would like to give you that opportunity to see first hand what a decision such as yours would have on the place I call my home."

I admire Barger for taking the time to try to educate a North Carolinian about coal mining and his county. To date, Harrison has not responded.

Dan Page is editor and publisher of The State Journal. His e-mail address is dpage@statejournal.com.