According to McElroy, although the Bush administration had legitimate grounds for criticizing the Kyoto Protocol as a flawed document, there is also an obligation to propose an alternative. One of the problems with the protocol, for example, has to do with the time scale by which it attempts to deal with climate change. To significantly replace the U.S. energy infrastructure —from power plants to cars —within one brief decade, for example, would place unreasonable costs on the economy. A longer-range strategy of CO2 reduction would be more economically viable.

McElroy cites one interesting recent development: the bill filed jointly by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman that instructs the administration to go back to the negotiating table and offer the F.C.C.C. a specific proposal to reduce U.S. emissions, but on a more relaxed time scale. McElroy says there is no reason to rush to reduce greenhouse emissions, because the chemistry of CO2 is such that about half of what we put into the atmosphere stays there. (In fact, half of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution is still there.) A more measured goal of significant Co2 reduction by 2050 or 2075 would insure helpful action without disrupting the U.S.'s economy. McElroy reminds us that, despite some uncertainty, reasonable scientific models do project that changes now occurring in the global and regional environment are very serious and occur in a relatively brief period of time. A prudent approach, therefore, to dealing with potential future climate change is one of insurance: effecting change in ways that are sensible and aggressive, that improve the efficiency of the energy system and improve national security, and at the same time contribute to a more secure future environment.