Your current issue is brimming with good advice on climate change and control. In one of the leaders (“What Price Carbon?” March 17, 2007), you offer a clear analysis of policy choices: subsidies of alternative energy sources, standards on products and processes, and pricing of greenhouse gases, of which the first is almost always a bad idea, and the second should generally be avoided. In your review of the European Union’s recent initiatives (“Climate Control”), you offer a clear analysis of their perils, mainly due to the fact that the above policy choices are getting confused in a hasty attempt to appear to be doing something, as well as to be leading the world in the effort. And in your review of the recent British initiatives (“A Hot Topic Gets Hotter”), you offer a clear analysis of the dangers of putting climate change at the front end of the battle between the leading political parties, and thereby confusing the policy choices once again. Throughout, you valiantly argue that the EU’s emissions-trading scheme is the best way forward all around. By capping the amount of greenhouse gases emitted, as well as giving producers tradable allowances, the scheme puts the market first. However, as you point out throughout, this is rarely the policy choice dear to politicians, who tend to go for greener-than-though initiatives dear to their electorates. Clear economic analysis tends to suffer as a result. Thus I see a new rôle emerging for your mighty newspaper: in the turbulent years to come, you should guide the world opinion toward policy choices in climate control that make economic sense rather than serve as political palliatives. This is a tall order, it goes without saying, but, as a good economist, I am behind you one-hundred and fifty percent.