The latest round of international talks on global warming recently took place in India. Developing countries refused to agree to restrictions on their greenhouse gas emissions. They were more interested in adapting to climate change than cutting emissions. I think this is good news.

In July, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment held a seminar for federal judges on "Understanding the Ecology, Economics, and Ethics of Climate Change." Speakers included economists, law professors, climate and wildlife scientists, and representatives from industry.

Michael Schlesinger, from the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Robert Mendelsohn, an economist with the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, both emphasized the deep uncertainty around global warming. Professor Schlesinger pointed out that natural temperature variation has contributed as much to warming over the last 25 years as humans have.

Given the uncertainty around warming, and the fact that some models predict that temperature increases of up to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit would have beneficial effects, increasing our adaptability to change may be more important than cutting emissions. The best way to do this, particularly for the developing world, is through economic growth. The wealthier a nation, the easier to adapt to changed conditions. Richer countries have greater resources to deal with environmental problems.

In addition, as countries develop economically, they adopt cleaner technologies. Right now, according to Michael Harbordt, Vice President of Temple-Inland Forest Products, 60 percent of the wood used in the world is burned for fuel. (In fact, the World Health Organization lists indoor air pollution from solid fuels as one of the leading health risks in developing countries.) As incomes rise, people move to lower-carbon-content fuels like oil and natural gas.

Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute recently demonstrated the strong correlation between economic freedom and "environmental sustainability." Economic freedom promotes growth and flexibility. Rising incomes also foster environmental concern and provide the means to address problems.

Thus economic development in poor countries is doubly beneficial for the environment. Not only does it lead to the adoption of cleaner fuels and technologies, it also allows people the luxury of concern for environmental quality -- not just food and shelter -- and provides the wherewithal to do something about it.

Poor regulations hinder economic growth. They increase the cost and difficulty of doing business and siphon off resources into unproductive bureaucracies. Imposing First World regulations on Third World countries prolongs their poverty.

In contrast, creating markets for environmental "bads," e.g. carbon emissions, is perhaps one of the cheapest, most equitable ways to reduce and control pollution. Not only is it economically efficient, it creates opportunities and incentives for less developed, largely rural countries to provide and be paid for environmental services.

Neal Wilkins of Texas A&M and Michael Harbordt described the potential of grasslands and forests as carbon sinks. Under an international market for carbon credits, countries with large forests and grasslands would have an incentive to manage them wisely. In fact, the World Bank recently launched a $100 million BioCarbon Fund to help establish just such a market. This could give poor farmers the opportunity to earn income by sequestering or conserving carbon.

Environmentalists truly concerned about global warming could put their money where their mouths are and buy and hoard carbon credits. This reduces emissions without restricting freedom. But as Professor Todd Zywicki of George Mason Law School pointed out, most environmental groups prefer regulations to markets, because the regulatory approach allows them to exert an influence disproportionate to their numbers.

Are Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and their ilk more interested in social engineering and scaremongering to raise money than in truly helping the environment? Laws and litigation are their preferred tactics. Do they understand that growth-stifling regulations harm the world’s poor? Their positions suggest these Greens hold humanity in low regard.

I suggest they avoid this implication by applying the ecological principle of resiliency to this difficult and contentious arena of public policy. This we know for certain: wealth improves the ability to cope -- even with the threat of global warming. Policies that inhibit wealth creation in the Third World may soothe the psyches of affluent Greens but they fail the ethical test.