Between 1970 and 2004, the US population grew by 40% … its Gross Domestic Product by 187% … miles traveled by 171% … electricity consumption by 115% … and coal burning by 80 percent. And yet, during this period, aggregate air pollution was cut in half, thanks to improved efficiency and pollution control, air quality expert Joel Schwartz points out. New rules require large additional reductions over the coming years that will eliminate most remaining power plant emissions by 2017.

Coal-fired power plants are now the primary source of US mercury emissions, not because their emissions are large, but because the real sources (incinerating wastes and processing ores containing mercury) have been eliminated. America now accounts for only 2% of global mercury emissions, and new EPA rules require a further 70% reduction from power plants over the next decade, Schwartz says.

Total air pollution now poses no significant health risks, even for children. (Asthma rates have risen as air pollution fell, so pollution cannot be a factor.) Moreover, coal-generated electricity costs much less per kilowatt hour than alternatives – leaving families with more money for nutrition and healthcare.

In 1900, the world supported 56 billion human life years, notes climatologist John Christy: 1.6 billion people times a 35-year average life span. Today it supports 429 billion life years: 6.5 billion people times a 66-year average life span – and they live far better than anyone in history.

The reason: energy, primarily fossil fuels. And in exchange for this incredible progress – if fossil fuels really are the primary cause of global warming – we have had a net increase in average global temperature, over the past 100 years, of about 1 degree F. (As a percentage of Earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide emissions from US coal-fired power plants equal the thickness of a single human hair on a football field.)

The Kyoto Protocol would compel the United States to slash CO2 emissions over 20% by 2012 – to reduce average global temperature increases by 0.2 degrees F by 2050. Current congressional bills would bring even fewer environmental benefits.

If the pervasive misinformation exemplified by the Chesapeake ad campaign is used to justify global warming legislation, Congress may well enact something like the Sanders-Boxer bill, which a new MIT study says would impose a tax-equivalent of $4,500 annually on every family of four by 2015.

These congressional experiments on constituents – mandates, cap-and-trade, and other pork-laden bills – must be corrected before real damage is done.