Given the twin demands of controlling climate change and
ensuring the world's future energy needs are met, "the first
question to ask is not 'how do we reduce emissions?' " says
Roger Pielke Jr., a science-policy specialist at the University
of Colorado at Boulder, the author of the critique. Instead, he
says, the question should be: "In a world that needs vast
amounts of more energy, how can we provide that energy in ways
that do not lead to the accumulation of carbon in the
atmosphere?" Technologies that are already at hand or likely to
go commercial over the next decade may not be climate friendly
enough to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations so
that global warming is held to about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by
century's end. At this stage, he says, people should focus more
on policies that directly address what many analysts see as a
yawning technology gap, rather than on regulatory approaches
that deal with the gap less directly. The critique by Dr. Pielke
and colleagues at the National Cente