THE PLANK OCTOBER 2, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
There are two main arguments conservatives put forward against cutting carbon emissions. The first is that the science undergirding rising global temperatures is wrong, or uncertain, or that the effect is negligible. Generally this argument relies upon grasping at small bits of data while ignoring their broader context. Here’s a classic example from a recent op-ed column from a climate change skeptic:
One recent conservative op-ed column, for instance, seizes upon a recent New York Times article that cites a recent plateau in global temperatures. The climate change skeptic ignores the fact that the article reports the following…
Scientists say the pattern of the last decade — after a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere.
… and simply seizes upon the fact of the plateau to cast doubt upon the science.
Skepticism about the science of climate change has grown less useful (and more ridiculous) over time. Thus many conservatives have leapt to a second argument: fatalism. Having once denied the reality of rising global temperatures, they now say they reality is so stark that there’s nothing we can do about it at all. Here’s a good example of the futility argument:
A recent report from the United Nations Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit increase by the end of the century even if nations fulfill their most ambitious pledges concerning reduction of carbon emissions. The U.S. goal is an 80 percent reduction by 2050. But Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute says that would require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the 1910 level. On a per capita basis, it would mean emissions approximately equal to those in 1875.
That will not happen. So, we are doomed. So, why try?
Of course, this is also pretty silly. While there’s tremendous consensus that greenhouse gases are causing, and will continue to cause, average global temperatures to rise, there’s great uncertainty as to precisely how much they will rise. So seizing upon either the low end of the projected rise (to argue for complacency) or the high end (to argue for fatalism) is a silly exercise that utterly fails to comprehend probability and statistical range.
Moreover, even if we could be completely certain about the high-end forecasts, what does it mean to say “we are doomed”? It doesn’t mean that humanity will disappear. It means that climate change will bring about a great deal of human suffering. To say “we are doomed” is to wave away the reality that there will be people alive whose suffering we can help mitigate.
Anyway, I find both these arguments tiresome and dishonest. The other thing about them is that they’re completely mutually exclusive. Either climate change is too small a problem to worry about, or it’s too big a problem to deal with. It can’t be both. Yet both the passages I quote above come from the same author, George F. Will. They even appear in the same column.
5 comments
This is 21st century American conservative thought in a nutshell. "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" -- Walt Whitman
- zardoz67
October 2, 2009 at 5:12pm
I find this article 'tiresome and dishonest'. Maybe not dishonest but redundant. This battle has been fought. Pleople have chosen sides. The majority think greenhouse gases should be controlled. The real fight will be over what that means. So write about that. The debate about 'the public option' in health care has overwhelmed the reality of what the Senate bill would do: uncap benefits; make prior-disease discrimination illegal, outlaw post-diagnosis cancellation of benefits. This is game changing for Americans, whether insured or not insured. It is the most fundamental of provisions and the type that make majority parties. Most Americans believe greenhouse gases should be controlled. The issue, despite holdouts in the pundit class, is how. Move on to that. "Cap and trade" won't pass. It's too complicated and all-encompassing. Yesterday the EPA announced it would propose regulation of emissions from power plants and industrial sources. Do people realize how the Bush Administration blocked this action for 8 years? How they piloried 'command and control' regulation? Why business is so much more open to 'cap and trade'? Why not just restrict power plant emissions or implement what the Bush Administration would not: mandate environmental controls whenever a plant is upgraded or 'modernized'? Pleeze! Don't get so caught up in arguments of the past. Let Will think what he wants to. Address the next series of arguments, obstacles, compromises, etc. Maybe some creativity will result.
- CAMtwo
October 2, 2009 at 5:35pm
Here are two arguments suggesting that however this turns out don't really expect much to change: What the oil industry has contributed to Congress since the 1990 election cylcle: 2010 $4,628,944 [thus far] 2008 $35,445,941 2006 $20,167,113 2004 $25,911,585 2002 $25,023,138 2000 $34,293,806 1998 $21,589,252 1996 $25,966,434 1994 $17,715,863 1992 $20,577,972 1990 $10,910,864 Total: $242,230,907 What the overall energy [and natural resorces] industries have contributed: 2010 $11,678,170 [so far] 2008 $77,405,128 2006 $48,000,778 2004 $52,955,030 2002 $57,965,185 2000 $67,366,938 1998 $41,611,727 1996 $46,455,890 1994 $30,331,740 1992 $33,151,869 1990 $19,011,754 TOTAL: $485,934,209
- iambiguous
October 2, 2009 at 6:33pm
I agree that all possible measures should be taken to reduce emissions, but the conversation does, I think, need to shift somewhat from prevention to preparation. The simple fact is that there is no current model for economic development that will not lead to increased carbon emissions. There will for many years to come be a strong correlation between standard of living and CO2 emissions per capita. The Western countries that have been most aggressive in reducing CO2, for example Sweden, still produce on the order of 6-7 tons of CO2 per capita each year. Massive reductions in the West will be essentially meaningless as countries like India (and, one hopes, those in sub-Saharan Africa) gradually develop and increase the standard of living of their populations. And there does seem to be a kind of baseline in terms of CO2 per capita for a decent standard of living, maybe 4-5 tons. That, and the fact that global population will rise from 6.5 billion today to 9 billion by 2050, means that any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions is for all practical purposes impossible, that is, if poverty-ending development continues to occur. The new coal-fired power plants that will be built in the US, India, and China alone in the next decade will produce four times as much new CO2 emissions each year than Kyoto sought to reduce from 1990 levels. Folks, this train has left the station. So, while the international community should do all it can to reduce CO2 emissions, one has to wonder if resources should slowly be shifted to preparing for the inevitable consequences of warming. (Written by a Prius-driving, bike-commuting, light-bulb changing, obsessive-recycling, and Inconvenient-Truth-watching liberall).
- bhunziker
October 2, 2009 at 6:39pm
Yeah, I hear you. Will is sort of saying, well, even if you buy their nonsense, there's nothing to be done. It's worse than dishonest. He exhibits total indifference to reality. Hence the sarcastic "we're doomed." On the other hand, I read a lot these days to support the bhunziker view, and I'm irritated that there seems to be little acknowledgement of the potential magnitude of the problem and the extent to which "this train has left the station." There's a British TV show called "MI-5" -- "Spooks" in the UK -- which is sort of like a classy "24." One of the plots was that the government was secretly working on a climate change preparation rather than prevention plan -- that the powers that be had given up. This was presented as scandalous on the show, but the more I hear and read -- including the recent TNR piece telling Obama that he can't compromise with the planet -- the more I start to think, maybe that whole preparation thing has something going for it. (Written by a public-transportation-taking, recycling, Inconvenient-Truth-watching liberal.)
- jhildner1
October 3, 2009 at 12:52am