Like many Americans, Christmas is one of my favorite holidays. Although I try to prioritize the spiritual (after all, Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ), many of its secular aspects also float my boat. I throw caution and cholesterol to the wind (for one day) as I splurge with a roasted duck dinner. I can smell the caraway seeds already! Oops. Let me return to the here and now. I had better get that duck stuff off my mind before I start drooling on the keyboard! Lose more computers that way.

Some Christmas zealots, however, stress themselves because they bite off more than they can chew. Rather than a blessing, the Christmas holiday means a demanding routine of endless, sleep-deprived, hectic days. Why do people do this to themselves? More is not always better, in my opinion. I know, not everyone shares my opinion!

But sometimes more is definitely not better. This is true with prescription medicine, it is certainly the case with electricity, and it might even be true with chocolate. I would like to suggest that it seems to be true with the president’s effort to reduce greenhouse gases.

Sometimes well-intentioned folks become so stubborn and adamant about achieving a goal that they no longer care about the reason for the goal. Sometimes increasing efforts produces an unintended effect; it may actually harm the initial cause.

Let me share my perspective on this matter. I think I am being logical, but if not, I am open to correction. If the U.S. requires American businesses to spend billions of dollars to lower greenhouse emissions, that makes American-based manufactures less competitive with the non-regulated Chinese (and thus prone to relocate in China). If the Chinese practice virtually no pollution control, then further restricting American corporations (thus enticing them to move their operations to China) will not reduce greenhouse emissions, it will increase them.

Premise one: Additional greenhouse gas controls are expensive. President Obama has made it clear that his administration will push for much stricter emissions requirements. According to the AP, “The EPA finding clears the way for rules that eventually could force the sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles and require plants to install costly new equipment — at a cost of billions or even tens of billions of dollars …”

Premise two: Jobs move from the U.S. to China for a number of reasons, including the (already strict) environmental controls in America. Phyllis Schafly at the Eagle Forum shares a common analysis: “Why do U.S. companies relocate their plants overseas, thereby abolishing U.S. jobs? (a) they can hire workers at very low wages … (b) the companies don’t have to pay any employee benefits, (c) they don’t have to comply with safety and environmental regulations, (d) they don’t have to pay foreign taxes ...”

It is true that our pre-existing environmental standards are not the only reason jobs have moved to China, but they are a contributory factor. Harsher emissions requirements would likely push some borderline corporations to make the move.

Premise three: More jobs in China mean more global pollution. According to the New York Times, “In early April, a dense cloud of pollutants over Northern China sailed to nearby Seoul … [and] … crossed the West Coast.

“Researchers in California, Oregon and Washington noticed specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts of coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountaintop detectors. These microscopic particles … [contribute to] … respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer.

“The increase in global-warming gases from China’s coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks.”

Do you get it? Unless China complies (and it has no intent to do so), the greenhouse gas problem is destined to get worse, not better. How serious is the world about reducing these emissions? Serious enough for all the nations to boycott products made in China? No. Without China complying, our attempt to reduce greenhouse gas is not a not-so-funny joke. Doing nothing is better than making the problem worse.

• Ed Vasicek is pastor of Highland Park Church and a weekly contributor to the Kokomo Tribune.