We haven't heard much from the White House about the U.N. Climate Conference that convenes in Buenos Aires on Nov. 2, the day before elections. Perhaps that's why.

It's certainly quite different from last year, when the Kyoto Conference garnered lots of attention and headlines. So why isn't B.A. on everyone's lips? Why hasn't Al Gore trotted out his usual litany, warning of the terrible fate that would befall our children and grandchildren, not to mention our little FFFs (furry friends in the forest), if the nations of the world do not reach some kind of agreement in Argentina?

There may be a better way to explain the lack of interest in Buenos Aires. The House Commerce Committee has just released a confidential economic analysis from the Energy Department; it shows the costs of controlling emissions of greenhouse gases exceeding any benefits -- and the benefits cannot even be quantified. In fact, there likely are no benefits at all to avoiding a warmer climate -- just costs.

The Kyoto Protocol calls for the United States to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore energy use, by 7 percent from 1990 levels -- which translates into a reduction of at least 35 percent by 2010, a mere decade away. It's just beginning to dawn on people that energy is important to all human activities, including earning a living. Perhaps that's why most of the world's nations, including the growing economies of China, India, Brazil and Mexico, have no intention of accepting any universally applied Kyoto targets.

In July 1997, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously against Kyoto-like restrictions that will only hurt our economy without achieving any results -- especially if the rest of the world does not go along. The White House will certainly try to finesse the matter in Buenos Aires by claiming that "key" developing nations are taking "meaningful" steps, but this won't fool anyone -- nor should it.

So besides trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, what will this conference really accomplish? A lot of haggling but little substance.

Take emission trading, for example. The White House has hyped the concept of buying and selling of unused emission quotas as a way of drastically reducing the cost of complying with the Kyoto restrictions. Ignored is the fact that the European Union doesn't favor trading. Ignored also is the violent opposition from the environmental elite to any scheme that would permit the United States to "buy its way out" of compliance; activists really want us to suffer through less energy, less heat, less air-conditioning, less driving, less of everything.

It's ironic that those who promote trading and those who oppose it have overlooked the fact that, realistically, it cannot be made to work. Negotiations will break down as soon as decisions have to be made on national allocations. First of all, will less developed countries, with rapidly expanding populations and economies, really agree to fixed national allocations? Of course not; they will insist on a per-capita quota, increasing their emissions as their populations grow. And what should be the base -- or the base year? Certainly not 1990 (which, incidentally, happens to favor Germany and Great Britain.) The LDCs may insist on a per-capita quota that could be anything up to 100 percent of the energy consumption of industrialized nations. To some extent, that approach already is under way in Europe, where the poorer nations are not required to reduce emissions from their 1990 levels and may even increase them.

Now comes the kicker. If the LDCs get a generous quota -- creating an unused surplus they can sell (and will sell) to the industrialized nations -- then CO2 emissions worldwide will not be reduced at all -- at least not for many years to come. The whole scheme becomes ineffective as far as the atmosphere is concerned. But it will certainly produce an income transfer -- perhaps even the New International Economic Order, sometimes referred to as a transfer of money "from the poor in the rich countries to the rich in the poor countries."

And if the LDCs don't get a generous quota, perhaps only enough to meet their current needs, there won't be surplus allowances to sell and to buy at rock-bottom prices, and the trading scheme will not produce the cost savings so devoutly desired by the proponents of Kyoto in the White House. So the Hobson's choice is either a scheme that's ineffective in slowing growth of greenhouse gases or one that's ineffective economically.

Ditto, on "Joint Implementation," getting credits for building more efficient power plants abroad or for planting trees in the tropics to sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere. This will require environmental bookkeepers and accountants, and lawyers who will argue forever. The global bureaucracy will continue to grow, as inspectors and enforcers are added to the nonproductive sector -- all at the expense of workers who produce tangible wealth.

There will be much haggling at Buenos Aires about restrictions on other greenhouse gases, like methane, which is mosey produced by cattle raising and rice growing. Killing all the cows may not go over too well in India, and filling in the rice paddies and wetlands will upset others. Therefore, don't look for results at Buenos Aires or future conferences. Negotiators will continue to meet for years to come and make brilliant careers in this specialty.

There will come a point in time -- hopefully sooner rather than later -- when all this becomes obvious to the public. Assuming there is still an interest then in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, what should be done?

· First of all, take a longer-range point of view. Energy systems, such as electric power plants, cannot be changed in a decade or even in two or three. The same goes for transportation systems, the other big user of fossil fuels.

· By the middle of the coming century, power plants may be twice as efficient as the present-day average plant. Better use of the waste heat can increase energy efficiency even further. The cost of producing electricity will fall significantly, making it harder for solar energy to catch up.

· Therefore, don't look for large-scale use of renewables while fossil-fuel resources remain cheap. Do look for increased use of fuel cells that generate electricity locally and use fuels more efficiently...

· By 2050 also, I would expect personal transportation to be dominated by a fleet of "hybrid" electric cars, using either a small on-board engine or a fuel cell to charge the batteries that run the vehicle. Look for a range of 1,000 miles between fill-ups and an efficiency of 80 miles to the gallon, or higher.

By then, the global warming scare will have faded, going the way of the acid rain scare and the ozone scare. Scientists on government grants may again worry about a coming ice age, as they did back in the 1970s. Atmospheric CO2 level will be higher than today's value but won't double (as currently assumed). Greenhouse warming will be barely detectable and within the "noise" of natural, year-to-year temperature changes. And Kyoto and Buenos Aires will be blissfully forgotten.