Call it the five stages of climate change. After watching policy-makers go through fits of denial, anger and bargaining over the reality and impacts of global warming, leading scientists are obviously trying to get everyone past depression to acceptance.

Last week, more than 100 countries, meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, as the International Panel on Climate Change, issued a list of things the world economies could do to stabilize greenhouse gases and not go broke doing it. The clear message of the panel's 36-page summary report is that mitigating change is possible — not easy, inexpensive or without technological adjustments, but a manageable goal. The combination of straight talk and hand-holding in the report is a nice segue from an influential assessment released by the panel last fall.

Almost three decades ago, the climate-change panel was directed to weigh the validity of the science of global warming and its potential impacts. Periodic assessments inched toward an unequivocal conclusion this past November that climate change was real and the consequences could not be ignored.

In a rather remarkable way, the credibility of the findings switched the discussion from what if to what now.

The to-do lists are broad with lots of room inside them: rethinking how energy infrastructure is designed and operated; mitigating transportation with vehicle efficiency, biofuels and shifting modes of travel; agricultural practices; waste management; and creation of national incentives for mitigating energy use.

Given all the past skepticism out of the Bush administration, it was encouraging to see how quickly the U.S. State Department endorsed the summary report on climate mitigation. In particular, the U.S. remarks noted the extensive underlying technical support behind the assessment.

The climate panel has moved the talk along: Global warming is real, it cannot be ignored and there are ways to blunt its impacts. This is considerable progress in a short period of time.

— The Seattle Times

Commercial airliners — and their customers — pay more in taxes to support the air-traffic control system than they impose in costs. Corporate jets and other "general aviation" operators pay less.As part of a bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration, the Bush administration wants to partially reverse that arrangement by shifting more costs to general aviation.This makes sense, and it could result in lower ticket prices for commercial passengers.Revenue from the system would help finance a modernized air-traffic control network, one better able to handle the hefty increases in air traffic expected over the next decade.Dan Elwell, the FAA's assistant administrator for policy planning and environment, says that under the plan, the commercial carriers' tax load would drop by about $1 billion.In a recent conference call with the Kansas City Star's editorial board, Elwell said some airlines might pocket their share, but in a fiercely competitive marketplace, many would offer lower ticket prices.Under the administration's proposal, the maximum airport passenger fee — which provides revenue for local airports — would rise to $6 from $4.50.But the plan would eliminate many of the annoying add-ons that jack up ticket prices, including the 7.5 percent ticket tax and the 3.4 percent levy for every trip "segment" flown. Instead, airlines and private plane operators would pay charges based on the costs they impose on the system.Currently, general aviation imposes a cost burden of 16 percent, but contributes only about 3 percent of the aviation taxes paid. Under the proposal, general aviation's share would rise to 11 percent, with most of that paid by jet operators.From the vantage point of air-traffic controllers, it doesn't matter whether a jet flying from Dallas to Houston at a particular altitude is carrying 200 people or three. Guiding that plane costs the same in terms of labor and equipment.Shifting more costs to general aviation would be eminently reasonable, but private-plane owners are a powerful lobby. This group has repeatedly squashed such plans in the past and already has announced opposition to the administration plan.Even so, Congress should react favorably to the proposal and require general aviation to shoulder more of the costs it imposes on the system.<I><B>— The Kansas City Star</I></B>