THERE'S A STRATEGY for reducing global warming that goes something like this:
Trees and soil are wonderful natural sponges for carbon dioxide, the most prominent of the greenhouse gases.
More than half the carbon dioxide we've put into the air by burning coal, oil and natural gas over the past 150 years has been absorbed by plants and soil (and oceans).
So manipulating these natural elements -- known as carbon sinks -- to soak up more carbon gases is one major way to reduce or retard the process of global warming. Makes sense, right? The problem is not everyone agrees that strategy is the most effective.
Last week in The Hague, where 181 nations were gathered to discuss policies to curb global warming, negotiations broke down after disagreements over this strategy's effectiveness became hard impasses.
The United States wants credit under the 1997 Kyoto treaty for the atmospheric carbon its vast forests, farms and range lands absorb.
But European nations rejected that argument, insisting instead on using taxes, energy efficiencies and alternative power to reduce carbon gas emissions.
There is much imprecision in calculating the net impact of carbon sinks and terrestrial absorption of greenhouse gases. Harvesting trees and plants and plowing up farmland release these carbon deposits into the air. And U.S. forest fires this year unleashed about 15 percent of the nation's claimed annual carbon-sink credit.
Still, there's good reason to give credit under the global treaty for responsible land management that decreases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially as an interim measure. Just as there's good reason to insist on energy-curbing steps to reduce carbon emissions at the source.
The Hague conference failed to produce plans to reduce emissions by the world's industrialized countries, pledged to a 5 percent cut from 1990 levels by 2012. But it advanced the dialogue among 181 nations. The United States committed $1 billion to developing states hit by rising sea levels, a direct impact of warmer climate.
Global warming is a complex scientific and political issue. Agreement on remedial plans with far-reaching economic and social impacts will take much effort.
This month's conference showed how difficult that process will be.
