The Tacoma News Tribune published pro and con op-eds on the Copenhagen climate summit this week. Professor Matthew R. Auer of Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs said an agreement to cut GHG emissions was possible, and the U.S. should get aboard. Citing recent news that India would cut emissions voluntarily and that China was rushing ahead with renewable energy, Auer wrote: "An international agreement requiring the United States to do what it intends to do at the domestic level anyway, with or without China and India as treaty co-signers, is better than a feeble, 'lowest common denominator' agreement that gets China and India on board, but requires no real action from anyone. The United States, China and India could turn out to be climate heroes if they put their minds to it. Some tantalizing assets are in place."
Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, disagreed, writing: "A new global warming treaty would be all economic pain and little environmental gain for America even if China and other fast-developing nations sign on as well. But if developing nations remain exempted, it would be all economic pain and no environmental gain. Either way, America should stay out!"
