Glenn Reynolds: The climate change jet set

So with world leaders gathered in Paris for talks on climate change, critics are doing a lot of snarking, and charges of climate hypocrisy are flying fast and furious. But I have a solution.

The critics are fierce. As one blogger snarked: “‘Climate Change Crisis Requires Giving Money and Power to Global Elites,’ say Global Elites.” Others are noting that this event to reduce carbon footprints has ... a rather large carbon footprint.

Obama’s Paris trip, we are told by the Daily Caller,has emitted more carbon than 31 American homes‘ energy usage for an entire year.

Wired Magazine calculated that the Paris Climate Summit’s overall carbon footprint would amount to nearly 300,000 tons (575 million pounds) of carbon dioxide. Which is a lot, since carbon dioxide is a gas. Jim Geraghty at National Review mocked the delegates for "Discussing Climate Change Sacrifices Over $36 Sorbet.” And David Harsanyi called the conference participants ”hypocrites.”

Well, opulent conferences seem to be our political class’s response to pretty much everything, but they do ring hollow when the topic is what sort of sacrifices should be imposed on the rest of us. (Haven’t these people heard of Skype?) And that may explain why public support for new climate rules is lukewarm around the world. (A recent poll reported by the BBC found majority support for climate action in only four of 20 countries surveyed, down from 8 in 2009.) Yet President Obama warns of “Submerged countries. Abandoned cities. Fields that no longer grow.”

Perhaps people aren’t inclined to treat climate change as a crisis because, despite all the talk, the political class itself isn’t acting as if it’s a crisis. Shouldn’t “shared sacrifice” start at the top?

Branchburg sets forum to discuss affordable housing

With that in mind, I have a few modest proposals, whereby our leaders, in the United States and worldwide, can demonstrate their seriousness regarding this mortal threat to humanity.

First, no more jetting around. Congress should provide that no federal money — either at agencies or at institutions receiving federal funds — should pay for travel to attend conferences or meetings. Sure, participating in a Webinar isn’t as much fun as jetting off to a plush hotel, but the carbon footprint is much lower. The savings could be redirected to fund alternative energy projects.

Second, to set an example, no air conditioning in federal offices. Sure, it’s uncomfortable without it, but we won World War II with mostly un-air conditioned offices, so we can manage without A/C today. (Besides, according to Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak, air conditioning is sexist.)

Branchburg sets forum to discuss affordable housing

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Third, no more fundraising jaunts on Air Force One. Typically, presidents schedule a fundraiser, then find an elementary school or something to tour in the same town to make the trip “official business.” Congress should provide that no fundraising appearances can be made on any presidential trip charged to the taxpayers. (Since Barack Obama is on his way out, and we don’t know what party the next president will be from, now is a good time to make this rule without seeming partisan. We could even delay it until January of 2017).

Fourth, no more UN conferences except online. I mentioned Skype, right?

These are just a few suggestions; I’m sure readers can come up with others, which I encourage you to share with your Congressmembers. If our leaders implemented these proposals, I’d take their claims of crisis much more seriously. And so would everyone else.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.