Global warming and conservatives
I’ve been following Jim Manzi’s series of posts on global warming over at the American Scene with some interest, mostly because I think it’ll get liberals in a tizzy. It is now socially irresponsible, the left would have us believe, to not do absolutely everything we can to ensure global warming doesn’t take place. Emissions must be slashed! Carbon must be capped! Density is the solution! etc., etc.
I’m not going to comment on the economics now, other than to say that what the enviro set is proposing is to drastically damage our economy now for an exceptionally mild amelioration of the warming and some possible economic benefit to future generations. Manzi’s posts do a good job of summarizing the issues, and for more you should check out this Freeman Dyson piece.
One of the commenters on Manzi’s post today wrote “you’re going to grant that climate change will lead to catastrophic effects, then convince the public to accept them using an economic rationale? Good luck getting your guy to shout ‘DISCOUNT RATE‘ from the podium to the cheering throngs.” But this commenter has it entirely backwards: politicians need to make the case for sacrifice to the American people. I’m firmly convinced the American people will do absolutely nothing about global warming on their own–it’s simply not a salient issue. In the most recent WSJ/NBC News poll, “the environment and global warming” was the seventh most important issue, falling behind jobs, Iraq, the cost of gas, health care, terrorism, and illegal immigration.
So my question for those on the left is a pretty simple one: How do you make a compelling case for wrecking our economy now over an issue no one cares about so people who live near the equator 150 years from now might have a marginally better life? How do you do it?
Furthermore, how, specifically, would you implement your proposals? It’s all well and good to say that density is the answer, but in the real world that’s not a solution. Gas prices aren’t driven entirely by people living in the suburbs, and even if they were how would you fix the problem? Forcibly move everyone living and working within a 50 mile radius of a city into said city? And how does this help the people who live in rural America and are paying just as high a price for gas and have nowhere to move? Do we just eliminate those tiny towns dotting the midwest where tens of millions of our citizens live? Force them into the cities as well? Try the opposite of Mao’s cultural revolution?
That’s just gasoline. I defy you to convince Americans that it’s worth radically raising the prices of everyday goods–the real life effect of strict carbon caps–to marginally allay the costs of global warming in the distant future. This is why global warming is a winning issue for conservatives: inertia will lead to resistance towards radical change, a resistance that conservatives share.
11 Comments - add your own
Paulidan — June 18, 2008 at 9:02 pm
And never mind that the vast majority of emissions come from coal powered plants.
Solving that would require liberals to overcome their deep seated fear of physics and actual learn what a nuclear reactor is and why its the safest, cleanest form of electricity,
Gil Smart — June 19, 2008 at 1:00 pm
The argument for “radical change” wouldn’t be nearly as straightforward as you’re supposing, though. I mean, I agree with you that that caps or some other big government solution will have a negligible effect, and even then years down the road.
At the same time, I think the issue of global warming/climate change is in the process of becoming a much bigger issue for Americans - especially those, right now, who live along the Mississippi and are wondering whether the devastation coming their way might in some way be connnected. Which, some suggest, it might.
As we have more Katrinas, more Iowa Cities (and not coincidentally more people watching the Weather Channel) the sense that the weather/environment is doing really strange things and we might, you know, want to do something about it will grow. That doesn’t necessarily translate into support for the big governmental solution, and hopefull will translate more into individual action.
Sonny Bunch — June 19, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Paulidan: You’re right, nuclear power would be a great thing to get started on. I’m fully in favor of dotting the landscape with nuclear power plants in an attempt to reduce emissions and cheapen energy.
Gil: I think the American people realize that Katrina and Iowa City weren’t caused by “climate change,” or “global warming.” Katrina was a category 3 hurricane that managed to hit New Orleans dead on and take out an outdated, broken down levee system left vulnerable by decades of corruption at the state and local level. Iowa City is a different case altogether, a 100 year flood. But even then, I think people realize that these things happen.
I don’t know, maybe I’m just overestimating the intelligence of the general populace, but I think that if, after a decade of indoctrination about the evils of global warming/climate change from the mainstream media, the American people STILL consider it only the 7th most important issue of the day, they’re never going to change their mind on their own. And, even if they did, let’s be honest: individual action doesn’t mean much without massive industrial change, change that won’t occur without government mandates.
Arthur — June 19, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Any chance of consensus here?
What about a program that would involve subsidizing wind, solar, and nuclear? Given the increasing price of both coal and natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear are becoming relatively cheaper sources of energy.
What about discouraging the construction of coal-fired power plants in favor of nuclear ones?
What about spending money subsidizing mass transit, which more and more people want anyway, given that gas prices are going through the roof?
There are a lot of politically palatable,
even popular, partial ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
By the way, people are beginning to move away from the suburbs to central cities and inner suburbs? Why? Because of the increasing price of gasoline. No central planning here–just the free market at work.
Arthur — June 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Sorry, the 1st sentence of the last paragraph should be a declaration, not a question.
Gil Smart — June 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Actually Sonny, what we’ve seen in Iowa a 500-year floods. The Sioux didn’t see these type of floods; we have.
NOAA itself (and if I knew how to embed a link here I would so bear with me) says here:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/default.php
…that weather “extremes and their associated impacts are now changing” - becoming more severe. We can debate why that might be happening, but my point is that people turn on the news and see the flooding in Iowa; as Andrew Freedman noted a few weeks back at the WaPo’s Capital Weather Gang blog, “even typically storm-hardy residents of tornado-prone areas of the country have begun asking: what is going on?”
A lot of people are asking, “What is going on?”
It seems that what you’re saying is that IF something is going on (realizing you’re not conceding that point), then we’re simply screwed. Governmental action is too burdensome to the economy, individual action insufficient to make a dent.
Sonny Bunch — June 19, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Arthur: Like I said, I’m totally in favor of pushing for more nuclear power. I’m less convinced of the feasibility of wind/solar power, but hey, if it works, great. I don’t think anyone opposes reducing greenhouse emissions–what people oppose is ruining the economy to do so. Cleaner energy is better than energy reduction, which is the real-life effect of plans like Kyoto.
Gil: I agree the floods are bad (I’ve even blogged something to that effect!) but I don’t think there’s any evidence that global warming/climate change is the culprit. It’s just easy to yell “climate change!!” when something weird happens weather-wise.
But let’s, for a moment, hypothetically say climate change is occurring. My most likely reaction would probably be something along the lines of: Okay, we’ll adapt. We’ll try to reduce emissions, but it doesn’t make any sense to do so in a radical way because global warming has pluses as well as minuses. More farmland, fewer hurricanes, less brutal winters–good comes along with the bad. We humans are a pretty resilient people. We’ve survived ice ages, and I’d bet we can survive heat ages (for lack of a better term) as well.
orogeny — June 19, 2008 at 3:36 pm
This is just one more example of “conservatives” crying wolf whenever a change in our economic habits is required. When the Clean Air was passed conservatives and Big Business screamed that it would bankrupt our society. The Clean Water act was supposed to wipe out the economy. CAFE standards would destroy the auto industry. Doing away with chlorofluorocarbons was going to make AC so expensive that no one could afford it. Doing what is necessary to reduce our carbon emissions will be expensive for some industries. It will cause economic hardship for some. But, for every industry that suffers, there will be a new industry that benefits. Employment will go down in the polluting industries thtt cannot or will not adapt, but will skyrocket in those that do. Industries producing or taking advantage of new, non-polluting technologies will prosper and eventually take the place of those dinosaurs that cannot adapt. In the long run, the world economy will be better off for the changes that we must make to address this issue.
jason — June 19, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Despite the propoganda by interested party, Global Warming is not at a stage that is changing weather patterns. When you look at the data, Katrina was not the result of Global Warming - it was the result of bad engineering and badly maintained levees. The amount of theorized global warming at present is not enough to support these conclusions. In 30 years? Maybe. Now? Absolutely not.
It’s “Sadaam’s got WMDs” all over again, but in an environmental form.
Nukes with solar power incentives for long term energy needs. More efficient cars for gas, but until then DRILL.
John Ryden — June 19, 2008 at 5:37 pm
We can’t just abruptly stop using fossil fuels. The economic damage to our economy would not justify the future savings from reduced global warming (Present Value of Future Costs vs. Present Cost). What we should do is have a national energy plan that reduces carbon emissions over time as substitute clean energy sources are developed. We should also look at reducing the most polluting energy sources like coal while continuing to develop cleaner sources like natural gas and oil.
To say it is better to just buy foreign oil is wrong because of the damage that does to our foreign trade balance and value of the dollar. Environmentalists would be better off if the US would take the lead on global warming with rational policies and a strong economy to go along with it. Imagine if we just shut down all of the American industry that causes a lot of carbon emissions. Wouldn’t that reduce global warming a therefore be a good thing? Maybe not! In addition to destroying millions of US jobs, the production might move to a country like China that produces 4 times as much carbon for each unit of output as we do. That would actually make global warming worse. If we restrict drilling here, we could just buy more oil from Canadian tar sands. That again makes the global warming problem worse. A lot of environmentalists are good intentioned, but many times what seems like a straight forward answer to the global warming problem will actually make the problem worse. I discuss many of the economic issues related to global warming on my website: examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner
Arthur — June 20, 2008 at 4:25 am
Wind, by the way, is really taking off. Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens (about the last person on planet earth one would suspect of being motivated by sentimental environmentalism) has been investing very heavily in wind turbines. Nationally, the number of windmill projects is surging as people see an opportunity to make money. Just because a form of energy generation is relatively green doesn’t mean that it is unprofitable.
Climate change can very severely affect the food supply. A lot of fish species, for example, only thrive in cold water. (Cold water is much more oxygen-rich than warm water, and many fish species will only do well in cold water). If the oceans warm up, their populations will fall, with negative consequences for fisheries around the world.
No one is talking about centralized planning requiring people to live close to central cities. The suburbs (at least those that are located far away from public transportation) are entering a long period of decline, while central cities, inner suburbs, and suburbs located on rail lines will experience a boom.
No central planner is making this happen, and, as a matter of fact, American population patterns are merely returning to their pre-World War I arrangement. Before the advent of cheap gas, cheap cars, and massive local, state, and federal spending on roads and highways (e.g. the massive increase in highway spending during the Eisenhower era), Americans who didn’t live in small towns or farms lived in densely-packed cities or in suburbs that were connected to central cities by electric trolleys. Few people drove to work, but either walked or took the trolley.
As a result, population densities in cities, such as St. Louis, were much higher than they were today. We can expect a return to urban layouts of a century ago–and this change will largely come as a result of market scarcities–the high price of gasoline.
By the way, the expansion of the suburbs is, in part, a result of centralized planning–one of the reasons that people take cars to work is that they collectively have decided to spend huge amounts of money at the state, local, and federal level on developing a first-rate road and highway system. The boom in suburbia after world war II is largely due to cheap fuel and cheap cars, but is also in part the result of a deliberate decision by governments to spend taxpayer money on roads.