On October 6, 1997, President Clinton convened a conference on global warming with representatives of business and science to sell them on the importance of acting to curb greenhouse gas emissions and hence on the necessity of "doing something" about climate change. So far, however, the administration has refused to indicate what that something is. Currently the White House is agonizing over its posture at the forthcoming international meetings in Kyoto on Global Warming. On the one hand, Bill Clinton and especially Al Gore want to please their environmental supporters who view climate change as the greatest scourge ever to threaten the earth. On the other hand, industry, labor, and the US Senate have told the administration that this treaty would wreck the economy, cost millions of jobs, and provoke a flight of investment to more hospitable climes.

A crucial point gets lost in the debate: Global warming, if it were to occur, would probably benefit most Americans. Even if the pessimists are right and it would, on net, harm Americans, the course of capping greenhouse gas emissions would be much worse.

If mankind had to choose between a warmer or a cooler climate, humans, nearly all other animals, and most plants would be better off with higher temperatures. The climate models suggest, and so far the record shows, that nighttime winter temperatures would rise the most and daytime summer temperatures, the least. Most Americans prefer a warmer climate to a colder one; and the preference is justified. A warmer climate would actually reduce disease and cut mortality. More people die of the cold than of the heat; more die in the winter than the summer. Statistical evidence suggests that the climate predicted for the end of the next century might decrease US deaths by about 40,000 annually.

In addition, less snow and ice would reduce transportation delays and accidents. A warmer winter would cut heating costs, more than offsetting any increase in air conditioning expenses in the summer. Manufacturing, mining and most services would be unaffected. Longer growing seasons, together with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, would benefit plant growth, including agriculture. Already there is evidence that trees and other plants are growing more vigorously. Not all regions or all peoples would benefit from a shift to a warmer climate. Some locales might become too dry or too wet; others might become too warm. On the whole, though, mankind should benefit from an upward tick in the thermometer.

If we take the pessimists' view, the cost of warming to the United States, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), might be as high as 1.5 percent of our GDP at the end of the next century. Most estimates of the damage from climate change, however, are considerably lower. In contrast, the cost of trimming emissions of CO2 would be much higher. William Cline of the Institute for International Economics -- a proponent of major regulatory initiatives to reduce the use of fossil fuels -- has calculated that the cost of cutting emissions by one-third from current levels by 2040 as 3¹/2 percent of World Gross Product. The IPCC also reviewed various estimates of losses from stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels, a more modest objective, and concluded that the cost to the US economy would be 1.5 percent of our income by the year 2050 -- the equivalent today would be over $100 billion -- with the burden increasing more or less linearly with time. This assumes that the US adopts the most efficient method of curbing greenhouse gas emissions -- taxes on carbon or a scheme of pollution certificates. More likely, however, the administration will recommend a series of regulatory steps, such as tightening CAFE standards, which will be much less effective in achieving CO2 reductions and ultimately much more costly to the American people.

The forecasted cost of warming is for the end of the next century, not the middle. Adjusting for the time difference, the cost to the United States from a warmer climate at mid-century, according to the IPCC, would be, at most, only 0.75 percent of GDP, meaning that the cost of holding CO2 to 1990 levels would be twice the gain from preventing any climate change! But the benefit/cost calculus is even worse! The administration is planning to exempt Third World nations, such as China, India, and Brazil. If they do so, the US economy, especially its energy intensive sectors, plus its consumers, auto drivers, and workers, would pay a huge price for virtually no benefit.

But even if the developing countries agreed to return emissions to 1990 levels, which they have refused to agree to, greenhouse gas concentrations would not be stabilized. Since more CO2 will be added annually for many decades to the atmosphere than removed through natural processes, the buildup would only slow; consequently temperatures would continue to go up, although by less than if no steps were taken to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore, instead of saving the full 0.75 percent of our GDP by keeping emissions at 1990 levels, we would be saving much less, perhaps half as much or 0.375 percent of our GDP or, again in terms of our current economy, about $25 billion. Using the IPCC's own figures, the costs of acting, under the best of circumstances, are about four times the maximum estimated losses from climate change.

It is much easier for a rich country, such as the United States, to adapt to any long term shift in weather than it is for poor countries, most of which are considerably more dependent on agriculture than the wealthy industrialized nations. Such populations lack the resources to aid their flora and fauna in adapting, and many of their farmers earn too little to survive a shift to new conditions. If the climate shifts quickly, these agriculturally dependent societies could suffer real hardship. The best preventative would be a rise in their incomes, which would diminish their dependence on agriculture. Higher earnings would provide them with the resources to adjust to changes in the weather, including increases in precipitation and possible flooding or higher sea level. Subjecting Americans to high taxes and onerous regulations to aid a handful of foreign nations will help neither them -- we will buy less from them -- nor us.

The optimal way to deal with potential climate change is not to strive to prevent it, a useless activity in any case, but to promote growth and prosperity so that people will have the resources to deal with the normal set of natural disasters. Based on the evidence, including historical records, global warming is likely to be positive for most of mankind while the additional carbon, rain, and warmth should promote the plant growth necessary to sustain an expanding world population. Global change is inevitable; warmer is better; richer is healthier.