Climate Change: Does It Really Matter If It's Real Or Not?
Nobody will ever mistake me for a scientist, but I am informed enough on the subject to recognize that if ice is melting, temperatures are rising. One would think the indisputable evidence of melting glaciers and mountaintop ice caps would be sufficient evidence to shut down debate on whether climate change is really occurring, but obviously nothing is that cut and dry when it comes to people whose paycheck depends upon the evidence being wrong.
And therein lies the problem. Combatting climate change will cost people, both powerful and unpowerful people, money. And as "concerned" as the majority may be with the possible consequences of climate change, paying money to stop or slow it is not an option for most people. If the price for saving the planet is an extra dollar a gallon for gas, then that's way too high of a price for most people to accept.
But of course, the price would be far more than an extra dollar a gallon for gas. Several industries and entire regions of the country would likely be priced out of existence in the Western nations if serious climate change legislation passed. The cost of energy would soar if cheap high-pollution sources such as coal and oil were disincentivized. As these prospects become even tangentially real for Americans, the lip service they paid to combatting global warming in the past has withered away and we're fast becoming a Jim Inhofes.
To be fair, it's hard to know what's real and the climate change alarmists like Al Gore have done the movement no long-term favors by preaching fire and brimstone even as the rate of global warming has stagnated for the past decade. Even before the Climategate would-be scandal, becoming a climate change skeptic was becoming easier. Furthermore, the predicted return on investment from painful carbon tax or cap-and-trade legislation in the form of emissions reductions do not look particularly impressive, and their predicted impact on reducing the growth of warming look even less impressive. And all the while, the world's fastest-growing polluters China and India refuse to play along. It seems like all pain and no gain to a nation that refuses pain and insists on gain.
The bottom line is that even if the heating trends of 1998 had continued uninterruptedly, selling people in this country on the idea of significant (or even modest) sacrifices in the name of saving the planet was never gonna happen. So long as there are no definitive consequences in sight for those enjoying the status quo (and this could just as easily apply to fast-bankrupting entitlements and the existing trainwreck of a health care system for that matter), Americans will be more than willing to risk Armageddon for future generations to preserve their own comfort. And the fact that the climate change consensus is breaking down at the very time when sacrifice for the cause is no longer merely a hypothetical is creating a perfect storm for the denialists to sell their message of inaction.
What does it all mean? The global summit on climate change in Copenhagen this week could have just as well been a tiddlywinks tournament because no matter how serious the threat, nothing will be done. Not now....and not likely ever.
And therein lies the problem. Combatting climate change will cost people, both powerful and unpowerful people, money. And as "concerned" as the majority may be with the possible consequences of climate change, paying money to stop or slow it is not an option for most people. If the price for saving the planet is an extra dollar a gallon for gas, then that's way too high of a price for most people to accept.
But of course, the price would be far more than an extra dollar a gallon for gas. Several industries and entire regions of the country would likely be priced out of existence in the Western nations if serious climate change legislation passed. The cost of energy would soar if cheap high-pollution sources such as coal and oil were disincentivized. As these prospects become even tangentially real for Americans, the lip service they paid to combatting global warming in the past has withered away and we're fast becoming a Jim Inhofes.
To be fair, it's hard to know what's real and the climate change alarmists like Al Gore have done the movement no long-term favors by preaching fire and brimstone even as the rate of global warming has stagnated for the past decade. Even before the Climategate would-be scandal, becoming a climate change skeptic was becoming easier. Furthermore, the predicted return on investment from painful carbon tax or cap-and-trade legislation in the form of emissions reductions do not look particularly impressive, and their predicted impact on reducing the growth of warming look even less impressive. And all the while, the world's fastest-growing polluters China and India refuse to play along. It seems like all pain and no gain to a nation that refuses pain and insists on gain.
The bottom line is that even if the heating trends of 1998 had continued uninterruptedly, selling people in this country on the idea of significant (or even modest) sacrifices in the name of saving the planet was never gonna happen. So long as there are no definitive consequences in sight for those enjoying the status quo (and this could just as easily apply to fast-bankrupting entitlements and the existing trainwreck of a health care system for that matter), Americans will be more than willing to risk Armageddon for future generations to preserve their own comfort. And the fact that the climate change consensus is breaking down at the very time when sacrifice for the cause is no longer merely a hypothetical is creating a perfect storm for the denialists to sell their message of inaction.
What does it all mean? The global summit on climate change in Copenhagen this week could have just as well been a tiddlywinks tournament because no matter how serious the threat, nothing will be done. Not now....and not likely ever.
posted by Mark at 3:02 PM
3 Comments:
The environment is my biggest issue, and I have studied it a lot in the last few years. I knew things like cap-and-trade, and driving fossil fuel prices sky-high (which the petro companies already did a great job of doing at about that time) aren't going to be seen in a positive light and are one-step-forward-two-steps-back measures. What I've been thinking is a stimulus program to create jobs in industries focusing on energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biofuel, and others, as well as incentives for entrepreneurs in the field.
We need to frame the debate on climate change as good for the pocketbook and good for the planet, and I think creating jobs in wind, solar, etc. would be a great way for us to get more people on board with clean energy, bring back good-paying jobs to the country, and also serve as a role model to China and India, to show that they too can grow their economies without having to rely so much on fossil fuels.
And even if fossil fuels did not influence climate change, I still think it is a good idea to wean ourselves off of them, though more by way of "green-collar" jobs than by cap-and-trade-and-jack-up-prices, because they still cause negative effects that are undebatable, like acid rain, cancer, and chronic diseases such as asthma and emphysema, in which the affected live long lives but consume a lot of medical resources. So we could also frame the issue in that weaning ourselves off fossil fuels may also save money, on the health front as well as damage to statues, buildings, and the like from acid rain.
sara, I know you're an environmentalist and I generally agree with your position here, but I think the comparative ease at which we're used to tapping into fossil fuels as opposed to less-efficient renewable fuels is the biggest obstacle to your goals. As new technologies emerge to extract oil from places where we previously could not with any level of efficieny (deep into the ocean, the current huge find in Montana and North Dakota) the less enticing wind and solar will be to investors.
Even now, many existing wind farms are sitting idle with investors backed out of the project and no replacement buyers in sight. My suspicion is most wind turbines will be sold for scrap in another five years. I'm not sure of the fortunes of solar energy but recall the country went through a solar panel phase about 30 years ago that also ebbed. I'm more excited about the prospect of hydrogen fuel cells. I don't know a great deal about the science of them, but they sound as though they'd be the most efficient means of clean technology in the pipeline. Any idea on the timeline of these things? Seems I've been hearing about them being on the horizon for a generation now.
Post a Comment
<< Home