Get it? The global warming FRONT?
There is so much good stuff out there now on GW it's hard to keep up. We've been told that all the scientists are on one side on this but from what I can see the advocates of global warming are entertainers, politicians, and actors, and the skeptics are scientists! The IPCC reports are written by policy wonks, not scientists. It is SO weird and disturbing.
Alexander Cockburn, a socialist leftie if ever there was one, writes for The NAtion. He has a column on GW here.
The first two paragraphs are about "carbon credits", which allow the over-indulged to continue their high-living ways while lecturing the rest of us on our use of fossil fuel:
"In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.
The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution--and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed. "
He goes on to hammer on a point that has always bothered me. This is carbon dioxide we're talking about here. Carbon. Dioxide. A major component of our "ecosphere". A small simple molecule that is everywhere. A byproduct, not a catalyst. And the amount of CO2 given to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels is very small compared to the amount of CO2 given off by the oceans. I"m not a scientist, but I really don't believe the CO2 molecule has the power they think it does.
And Glenn Beck had an excellent show on GW on CNN tonight. Real scientists with real credentials talking about their skepticism.
But the thing I find most objectionable about this whole thing is the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in schools. I can see why it won an Oscar. It's a great performance by a great actor. But scaring kids about their future on the basis of flimsy evidence is unconscionable, and they should be ashamed. It will come back to bite them when the kids grow up and realize that, like all the other Malthusian fears, it was just a big hoax.
5 comments:
I know many people (myself included) who are unsure if (a) global warming will continue and (b) whether humanity can do anything about it.
However, I support a serious carbon tax (credit trading is for wimps) because:
1) The global costs of continued warming would be extreme, even with optimal management (which would be impossible, anyway).
2) There's a nonzero chance that cutting CO output will greatly reduce those costs.
3) The cost of cutting CO would be (in relative terms) cheap insurance even if there's only a 1% chance that it will prevent global warming. Based on the evidence, the probability seems higher than that.
4) CO aside, fossil fuels are geopolitically and environmentally stupid anyway, and their production and use shouldn't be subsidized. The tax would recapture the implicit subsidy.
5) Consumption taxes let the market work out how to solve the problem.
Hi, James. I looked up the tsx on edmunds.com. Very interesting. The editors LOVE the car, and the consumer reviews just rave about it. I see now how it looks like the Accord, but it really has a special something that the Accord doesn't have.
To your points:
1) The global benefits of GW may far outweigh the costs. Longer growing season, fewer cold deaths, etc.
2) That's not saying much, and see #1.
3) Based on the evidence, the costs of cutting CO2(which I'm sure you mean) could be massive, especially in the developing world. Of course, all the handwringers and tonguecluckers are scared to death that the developing world will adopt our ways ( I remember when I believed in "appropriate technology", a racist term if ever there was one.)
But that is the way out of poverty for the developing world. Energy consumption. It brings economic vitality, wealth, and health. I'd hate to see them stymied by having to live with wind and solar power.
4) I agree that fossil fuels are geopolitically dicey. But, they've been a tremendous boon to the "environment", whatever that is, exactly. The abandonment of wood and dung as fuels has led to air and water that are cleaner and safer. The modern car is nearly zero emmision. It's cheap fuel that has led directly to the betterment of mankind and the environment. Supplies are cheap and plentiful. Coal and natural gas have many centuries of know reserves, and the more oil we use, the more oil is discovered. Technology relentlessly improves the cleanliness with which we burn it. Hard to beat fossil fuels, unless you want to live a spartan life, and far as I can tell, almost no one does, regardless of how much they talk that way.
5) Consumption taxes don't let the market do anything. They distort the market, to the desires of the social engineers, and to whatever unintended consequences result from the tax. Fossil fuels are massively taxed already. The government makes more from fossil fuels than the oil companies do.
But I'm all for the market deciding. Actually, I think it already has, and it really annoys some people, like Al Gore, who are just sure that not everyone should live the way that they do.
As noted last week, I've been delighted with my TSX.
You're absolutely right, I did mean CO2. This is what I get for missing chemistry in school.
1) I have no idea whether heat or cold kills more people in total, but heat waves seem to be deadlier than cold snaps. Since there's no global shortage of food (distribution, on the other hand...), a longer growing season will have no net economic effect -- an acre of land will be more productive, but fewer will be farmed. The real problem is when a country runs out of sufficient farmable land and must invade its southern/northern neighbor.
3) I'm not suggesting a carbon tax for the developing world, or anywhere outside the US, really. Would a unilateral carbon tax hurt the US economy competitively? Yes, but so do lots of other things, and the carbon tax would at least serve an ethical and strategic purpose.
4) There's a low-hanging carbon fruit in the US, though: electricity. According to these government figures, 40% of 2007 US carbon dioxide emissions come from power generation. We know how to replace that capacity -- 21% of US power comes from nuclear plants, another 7.5% from hydro (source) -- it's just a matter of creating the economic incentives for it to happen.
You're right that transportation is a much tougher area. I have faith that the market would work it out and there were be few outbreaks of Spartanism, in part because gas/diesel demand has stayed strong in recent years even with the rapid increase in prices.
5) Any tax is a form of social engineering, since it will encourage some behaviors and discourage others. I think most Americans would prefer a carbon tax with an offsetting reduction in FICA rates to the current tax regime.
James, I can't cite chapter and verse, but it's my understanding that cold is more deadly than heat. To wit, life thrives in the tropics, and disappears at the poles. Similarly, things grow in the summer and die in the winter. When I want a sick calf to survive, I put it in my calf warmer (Oh! No! Calf Warming!). Maybe more people die from the heat than from the cold, I don't know, but population density is much thicker in the tropics than near the poles. And the tropics contain manyfold species more than the poles. Warmth promotes life.
The longer growing season and fewer acres farmed are both same sides of the coin. They have the economic benefit of cheaper food, good for everyone but the farmer, of course. Cheaper food is one of the main drivers of the incredible increase in the health, wealth, and numbers of people in the world that has occurred with the green revolution. Also increases wildlife habitat and recreational land availability. I think it would be a net economic benefit.
I'm with ya on nuclear and hydro. Low-hanging fruit indeed.
You could proabably talk me into a carbon tax offset by a FICA tax, FICA being the most regressive of taxes. It hits working people the hardest, and a carbon tax might not be so concentrated. The carbon tax could be applied to air travel and leave those who regular folks who need gas to commute to work alone. TaX the rich!
I don't see us as that far apart. You're more concerned with catastrophic effects of GW than I am, and I am less inclined to impose a carbon tax on our economy than you are, but it sounds like many of our solutions are similar. In the end, they all come down to one thing, the creativity and ingenuity of the human mind.
A longer growing season will have the effect, all other things being equal, of reducing the
Tom, I think you're right that we're pretty close. I'm amazed by how the regressive nature of FICA is essentially ignored in discussions of tax policy.
I think the heat vs. cold question is pretty interesting. My basic line of thinking is that humans live in a much wider range of temperatures below that of their bodies than above it, and colder climates (to a point) tend to be more developed and have longer life expectancies. Heat and cold likely kill different groups of people, too -- maybe more people die from cold, but those people also tend to have infectious diseases that would spread if the cold didn't get them (pure conjecture, obviously). I'm not sure if there's any way to study it, even, while controlling for all the variables.
Post a Comment