Robert Mueller, in an essay in Technology Review, presents a perspective on climate policy refreshingly outside of the Manichean “Kyoto: Yes or No?” framing of the climate debate.

“… scientific discussion on this issue has become rude and nasty. Ad hominem accusations abound. Is global warming real? Are humans responsible? One side says, ‘Yes, and if you don’t believe that, you are not a non-scientific troglodyte.’ The other side says, ‘It isn’t proven, and if you act prematurely you’ll kill our economy, you liberal communist tree-hugger.’ A symbolic word in this argument is ‘Kyoto.’ … People are categorized by their stand on this treaty—for it or against it—even though the issue is subtle and complex. I hold an unusual position. I believe carbon dioxide emissions should be brought under control—not because they are the scientifically proven cause of global warming, but because they could be responsible. Yet I dislike the Kyoto approach, since I believe it does not address the real issue. In fact, complying with the Kyoto treaty might lull us into thinking we had taken a valuable step, when in fact a substantially different direction is needed.”

Of course, I highlight this article because for a while now we’ve also been “unusual” in making a case for a third way on climate policy. But perhaps the realities of the climate debate are turning the unusual third (and fourth, etc. ..) ways into options at least worth discussing.