Listening to all of the talk about reducing emissions these days, one would think it's just a matter of making a decision. Not so fast, writes Steven Hayward in today's Wall Street Journal:

The usual chorus of environmentalists and editorial writers has chimed in to attack President Bush's recent speech on climate change. In his address of April 23, he put forth a goal of stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025.

"Way too little and way too late," runs the refrain, followed by the claim that nothing less than an 80% reduction in emissions by the year 2050 will suffice--what I call the "80 by 500" target. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed it. John McCain is not far behind, calling for a 65% reduction.

We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 really means. When we do, it becomes clear that the president's target has one overwhelming virtue: Assuming emissions curbs are even necessary, his goal is at least realistic.

The same cannot be said for the carbon emissions targets espoused by the three presidential candidates and environmentalists. Indeed, these targets would send us back to emissions levels last witnessed when the cotton gin was in daily use.

In other words, Americans should prepare for a whole lot of cold showers, political and otherwise: Hayward notes that "to stay within the magic number...In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater."

Reality has a way of mugging these projects, of course, and leading to all sorts of fun, unintended consequences. Exactly when this mugging will occur is the is the 1,000,000 kilowatt question, but it's probably safe to say it won't be before November.