When it comes to one of the most serious threats to the planet, global climate change, the Bush administration is content to continue calling for studies of what scientists have already said is sufficiently clear – human activities contribute to measurable changes in the earth’s climate. While more study of the details of the problem is welcome, they should be accompanied by action: Demand for reduced emissions in manufacturing, energy production and automobiles to cut greenhouse gases.

Last week, the administration’s secretaries of commerce and energy announced they would coordinate current climate studies that are now spread among 13 federal agencies, while boosting spending on such reviews by $103 million. This is good news.

The money, however, would be used to further examine the “uncertainties” surrounding global climate change. This is not so good. As the National Academy of Sciences, which has studied the issue several times at the behest of the administration, said in a report two years ago: “There is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past twenty years.” This is because greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, the science panel said.

More study is needed, but not just of whether climate change is happening. More details are needed for how to combat it while also preparing for its consequences. That is why more federal money should be directed toward abrupt climate change research such as that being undertaken at the University of Maine. An amendment by Sen. Susan Collins to the Senate energy bill, which will be considered beginning this week, would provide $10 million annually for the next six years to study abrupt climate change, an issue the National Academy of Sciences recently highlighted.

Also this week, Sen. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman hope to force a vote on an amendment that would cap emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, among many industries while allowing them to buy and sell rights to emit more under guidelines similar to the successful 1990 acid rain reduction program. Their proposal, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Olympia Snowe, who has rightly advocated for discussing climate change as part of the energy debate, faces an uphill battle and is opposed by the administration because it includes carbon dioxide. It shouldn’t be; it is serious, market-oriented legislation to address a serious issue.

The administration’s reluctance also suggests that states are right to address the issue on their own. Maine has done so with last month’s enactment of goals to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 80 percent below current levels by 2010. Meanwhile, the governors of 10 northeastern states have pledged to develop a regional plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Like the McCain-Lieberman legislation, the plan probably will include a regional trading program, making it more palatable to governors.

The questioning of the whether climate change exists as serious problem should stop. The questioning of what might work to solve it should not.