THE PLANK FEBRUARY 13, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A few days ago, Matt Yglesias wrote the following about global warming:
One doubts that any of these various rightwingers were actually humming along and then got bribed by energy companies to come up with the outlandish conservative arguments you here on this score. Rather, the money's just sort of out there ready to flow to individuals who make outlandish arguments and to publications and institutions that associate themselves with such people and such arguments. Under the circumstances, the human mind proves remarkably supple and creative. Next thing you know, the Bangladeshis are all in our debt for generously allowing them to burn gasoline so who cares if they wind up drowning when the glaciers melt.
In response, here is Ross Douthat, who disagrees with Matt:
Why, for instance, is Michael Novak a global warming skeptic? He doesn't write about the environment very much, and I doubt he has any special knowledge on the topic. But he does write a great deal about the virtues of democratic capitalism, and the modern environmental movement, from its 1970s infancy to the present, has been defined by its not-so-secret antipathy toward modern capitalist society. So Michael Novak has a default suspicion of environmentalism for that reason--and then he tends to work and socialize with people who share that suspicion, which works to reinforce it. This means, in turn, that he tends to respond well to arguments that further reinforce his suspicions, even when those arguments are somewhat outlandish ... The reason he doesn't [change his position on global warming] is the same reason that so many conservatives (myself included) who lacked special foreign-policy knowledge backed the Iraq War in 2002. People we thought of as good guys for a variety of reasons were for it, and people we thought of as bad guys for a variety of reasons were against it.[My italics]
I basically agree, but I think Ross is leaving out something: spite. If you read, say, The Corner on global warming, you get the sense that many of the contributors are skeptics not because they spend time with other skeptics or because being a skeptic is broadly consistent with their worldview. Rather, you get the distinct impression that they don't want to believe in global warming because they want to embarass and annoy Al Gore and company.
I certainly hope Iraq will be pacified, but a part of me takes pleasure in how disastrously the occupation has gone. I can't deny that I really, really want to see Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol humiliated for making really, really bad predictions (and because, well, I despise Dick Cheney). Rationally one can know this is an unhealthy impulse (not the hating Cheney part!), but it's prevalence in a contentious, partisan environment can't be overstated. And, I'd argue, it's one of the reasons you see people take the party line more than they ought to.
--Isaac Chotiner
22 comments
"a part of me takes pleasure in how disastrously the occupation has gone" While I admire your candor, I wonder if perhaps you might come to regret this particular disclosure?
- drdannyu
February 13, 2007 at 10:09am
I completely sympathize with this - and I think it's very important that all lety types think about it. While it may be human nature to enjoy things like Valerie plame, we need to be cognizant of our own desires and protect ourselves from them.
- bstahlbe
February 13, 2007 at 10:12am
Most of human history can be explained by analyzing spite and fear.
- Fairfax
February 13, 2007 at 10:24am
listen to the doctor. btw, what has really interested me in this global warming polarization is not that partisan politicians will take positional stances based solely upon partisan notions - think that GOP senator - where was he from? Alaska? Oklahoma? - who said that global warming was the biggest farce ever perpetrated upon the US. It is that the currency that politicians understand, now and forever, is power and how many of these non believers in global warmning are now admitting the obvious SIMPLE BECAUSE OF THE NEW POWER SHIFT IN CONGRESS. Lesson to be learned - Win elections, then your ideas get currency and validity, a point I have been making on Talkbalk for some time, especially in the face of all those "Democrats have no ideas" bromides. Btw, have you heard any of that lately? NO! Why? Now repeat after me....
- MrCookie1
February 13, 2007 at 10:26am
I'm suspicious of anyone who claims not to feel a little glee at the downfall of his enemies even when the consequences are disastrous. People like that are either liars or so different from me as to be incomprehensible.
- ratnerstar
February 13, 2007 at 10:50am
It was Sen. Inhofe who said that global warming was the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind. He's also the dude who bragged about the absence of divorce and homosexuality from his family tree during the FMA debate.
- armadorsky
February 13, 2007 at 11:04am
Yes, you are correct, it was that guy. Sounds like the right and honorable Senator Inhofe is a ripe candidate for being the next guy discovered with Ted Haggerty's masseur...
- MrCookie1
February 13, 2007 at 11:36am
DAMN!! He's dreamy.
- drdannyu
February 13, 2007 at 11:51am
Yet another example of the Great American Pissfest distracting us from a painfully obvious political truth: even by their own estimates, none of the proposed remedies will have anything more than a trivial impact on carbon emissions. China and India's growth in carbon emissions over the next genreation will vastly outpace any reasonable estimate of what the industrial west might achieve in terms of cutbacks. The only way to make a meaningful dent in this increase would be to scrap cars for bicycles and throw hundreds of millions of people out of work. A modest proposal: less BS from the climate change lobby and more in the way of non-hysterical, honest, practical suggestions for managing the problem as humans have managed for centuries-- adapt our cities and migrate where necessary.
- teplukhin
February 13, 2007 at 1:14pm
It is called schadenfruede, the taking of pleasure in other's pain. I am with Isaac on this. I will take eternal pleasure in the knowledge that Bush will go down as such a disaster, but I also never withheld my opinion on how he should lead and know that if only he had listened to me, to me, yes me, he would have been ever so better at his job.
- blackton
February 13, 2007 at 2:46pm
that your boys in the nviro movement - anti-capitalists all - are not about to propose non-hysterical, practical adaptations to the warming problem. Much more fun telling others how to live their lives. Like they're paragons of virtue! See Gore, Albert and a very large plane.
- butchie b
February 13, 2007 at 4:11pm
But let's not forget that for all the glee one takes in the abject and obvious failure of Cheneycorp's plans, the reality is that those failed plans are directly responsible for the deaths of countless thousands of Iraqis and American service men and women. I would prefer that unmasking the gross incompetence of the war planners could have come at a lower price, and for all the pleasure I take in the sinking fortunes of the White House, it's important not to overlook what this means for the real human beings involved.
- drdannyu
February 13, 2007 at 4:13pm
as opposed to those paragons of virtue on the right who have spent the past 6 years denying there is a warming problem in the first place? Can you tell me why 5 years after 9/11 not every car in America is not mandated to be a hybrid and Save the tax credits and breaks to see that that is done?
- blackton
February 13, 2007 at 5:06pm
NO ONE will buy what you're selling. People love their SUVs and want to keep them. Whether they should or not is a separate issue. Besides, I'd feel a lot better about the science if I had not been told 30 years ago, and with the same level of certainty, how the planet was inexorably cooling. Paragons are hard to come by these days.
- butchie b
February 13, 2007 at 5:16pm
they have hybrid SUV's, give tax credits to make up the difference between that and a regular SUV, in short order market efficiency will eliminate the price differences. Not only would it lessen the greenhouse gases, it will put less money in the pockets of Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia. The simple reason the Bushies don't do it is because there is no business constituency in favor of doing it. If it were Steel mills or oil companies then they are hard pressed to find a tax credit or tax break they don't like. So you remember what people said 30 years ago about global warming? I tend to doubt that. Besides, that argument is pretty specious, because some people were wrong before means other people will be wrong today, even though the evidence today is pretty overwhelming. You can't make the argument that since for thousands of years people believed the earth was flat that maybe people are wrong about it being round now. I know you know better then that.
- blackton
February 13, 2007 at 5:57pm
butchie b - depressing, isn't it? Good thing my eldest kid has a strong interest in physics and mechanical stuff (airplanes! jets! volcanoes and oceans!). God forbid that my sons should be infected with the #$*&^!@%politics bug, like their old man.
- teplukhin
February 13, 2007 at 5:58pm
blackton - I'm not a gas hog, I think Hummers are silly, I used to race bicycles and would love to bike to work everyday. Here's the rub: I can't. I don't have time. My family doesn't have time to take mass transit and wouldn't have time even if, unlike 99.999% of the US public, we lived within walking distance of efficient and reliable mass transit. There is simply no prospect of this nation or any other major nation kicking the automobile habit within our lifetimes, and thus no chance whatsoever of not just counterbalancing but actually exceeding the huge increse in carbon emissions that will come from those 10%-per-year rapid-growth giants in the making, China and India. Not a chance. The notion that one side or other in this debate is going to save civilization and the other will destroy it is asinine on its face. This is like two cancer specialist docs, one of whom recommends surgery and the other chemotherapy, insisting that the other is wicked and determined to kill the patient. Enough already.
- teplukhin
February 13, 2007 at 6:03pm
The practical results of this, National Pissfest #47, will be to shovel many many billions of $$$ into that Iowas sinkhole known as ethanol subsidies. Sigh.
- teplukhin
February 13, 2007 at 6:05pm
I didn't say anything about mass transit, I was just talking about gas-electric hybrid cars. I would love to buy one, save me a ton of money on gas each year, for poor people that can add up to real savings. The reason I can't is because they are out of my price range. If all new cars were mandated to be hybrids I am pretty damn sure market efficiency will bring the prices down, rich people will still have their hybrid SUV's or sedans, I can have my hybrid corolla. Who is the loser in this scenario, besides the oil companies? All that is lacking is political will to see that this is done.
- blackton
February 13, 2007 at 6:32pm
The hybrids don't save you very much in either gas or $$. Even if their mpg were up in the 50-60 range-- and as I understand it they're not even close to that-- the carbon reduction would still be fairly marginal unless everyone, everywhere, were to drive one of these kloogy little goofball vehicles that are useless for families, contractors, working men generally. Again, this is all just tinkering at the margins and will do zip to reduce carbon emissions. Maybe I should be investing in ethanol futures. Tiger in your tank? Try putting Uncle Sam + the green lobby in your portfolio. Can't lose. Just ask Vinod Khosla.
- teplukhin
February 13, 2007 at 8:32pm
I disagree it will do zip to reduce emissions, if the US takes the lead in mandating it (thereby driving down costs nationwide and then worldwide) Europe, Japan, and even China will quickly follow. Besides, the whole notion of hybrids is as a stopgap measure until we institute a fuel cell economy. I know it is not a magic bullet, but to say we lost the battle is not very helpful either. As to the notion of migrating where necessary, people in Bangladesh have nowhere to go, the same is true for people in thousands of islands in the pacific. ie. Say goodbye to Kiribati. Yes, it might be inevitable but at least I would like to think we have done our best, even if it is at the margins, to prevent the coming catastrophe. And speaking of fuel cells, my proposal is modest, I could have suggested we institute a crash program of converting all cars to hydrogen fuel cell cars. I understand the transition will be very expensive but that would have the benefit of eliminating car based carbon emissions, not just reducing them. And you and I know not to do this is just a complete failure of will. No one wants to be first and bear the costs of the transition. As to whether it stops global warming, it still might be too late, but it will stop dollars going into Wahabbists hands, or in the hands of loons like Chavez, and then what happens in Iraq will be irrelevant.
- blackton
February 14, 2007 at 10:03am
The US will "mandate it" and the EU and China will follow? Huh? There will never be such a "mandate." Not so long as 600,000 or so very high-paying blue-collar US jobs hang on production and sale of non-hybrid vehicles, esp trucks. More like, in pushing hyrbids on consumers the US will hang a millstone around its consumers' necks, causing consumer spending (2/3ds of the US economy) to slide sharply and prompting Chinese central bankers to dump US treasuries, hammering the dollar, which will also crush European exporters, who will rush to come out with super-cheap NON-hybrid cars that can be sold to US consumers for many $000s less than non-hybrids cost, which will depress demand for hybrids in the US.... So you've hammered US economic growth ie thrown a million or more Americans out of work, triggered a run on the dollar, and finally, undermined sales of the very hybrids you set out to "mandate."
- teplukhin
February 14, 2007 at 1:57pm