Spread the burden of climate change

This week, the U.S. Senate is debating climate-change legislation that would set aggressive goals for reducing carbon emissions nationally.

This work has been left undone for so long that several states, including Washington, already have begun to set aggressive emission-reduction goals.

High in the senators' consideration should be how to minimize the inevitable increase in costs not just in energy but in goods and services because of higher energy costs — or at least to spread the burden fairly. People already are struggling in an economy convulsing from soaring fuel costs and the mortgage-industry crisis, among other things.

The energy-price increases from the emissions-reduction goals will pale in comparison to the economic devastation later in the century if nothing is done.

Still, unless people can afford the changes, lawmakers risk a backlash. Sponsors of the climate-change bill say people's costs will be offset by proceeds from a so-called cap-and-trade system. Companies are issued permits for their emissions and have to buy the right to pollute more from those who pollute less.

By 2050, the Senate climate bill would require emissions of greenhouse gases be cut by about 70 percent. The bill is sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va.

On Monday, President Bush, whose administration's indolence on this issue finally has been swamped by the public's acceptance of the science, criticized the bill as too costly, threatening a veto. Some GOP senators are threatening to filibuster for similar reasons.

To say "no" is not enough — especially after seven years of a presidential term. Opponents in Congress have some valid concerns. Better they work to improve this bill than try to delay critical action even longer.