Just days after admitting that global warming is a real threat, President Bush announced that he was committed to ... studying the issue further. "The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge," he said from the Rose Garden before heading to Europe. But the only action he called for now was to "fully fund high-priority areas for climate change science [research] over the next five years." Otherwise, he pointed to his energy plan, which emphasizes expanding conventional energy production by opening public lands up for exploitation and easing environmental rules. Bush's plan also includes $2 billion in fresh subsidies for development of so-called "clean-coal" technologies, expansion of the nuclear power industry, which he touts for not producing greenhouse gases, and a modest amount in tax credits for use of renewable energy and conservation. It also calls for more study rather than action on whether to require the auto industry to meet higher fuel efficiency standards.

Compare Bush's go-slow global warming policy to his head-long rush to build and deploy a ballistic missile defense system that has yet to pass the most basic flight testing. Last Friday, the Washington Post reported that the administration was shooting to have a rudimentary system in place in three years or less. A senior defense official told the Post, "Is something better than nothing? The president and secretary [of defense] have made it pretty clear they believe that some missile defense in the near term is in fact better than nothing."

What gives?

That's the right question. In the 2000 elections, money poured in from the oil, gas, mining, electric and automobile industries. While a few companies have begun to take climate change seriously, these sectors are still predominantly urging that the U.S. reject the Kyoto Protocol's mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They gave at least $60.2 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal parties and candidates, a 50% increase over their giving in 1996, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. By comparison, environmental groups and alternative energy producers gave $2.3 million in 2000. That's a ratio of 26 to 1.

The same kind of imbalance skews the Star Wars debate. Overall, military contractors gave $13.6 million in the 2000 elections, compared to just a scant $323,000 from the Council for a Livable World, Women's Action for New Directions and Peace Action, the largest arms-control groups.

So while polls show that the public favors joining the Kyoto Protocol and believes it is more important to protect the environment than to encourage economic growth, a different poll drives U.S. energy policy. One where dollars count for more than votes.