Must Be The Day For It
Scanning the various news sources today, I cam across yet another column taking on Newsweek magazine's wild accusation that everyone who questions anything about global warming is part of a vast, well-funded conspiracy. This time it is Newsweek itself, in the person of Robert Samuelson dismembering the holier-than-thou morality fable. His take is a bit different.
The global-warming debate's great un-mentionable is this: we lack the technology to get from here to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 doesn't mean it can happen. At best, we might curb emissions growth.
Consider a 2006 study from the International Energy Agency. With present policies, it projected that carbon-dioxide emissions (a main greenhouse gas) would more than double by 2050; developing countries would account for almost 70 percent of the increase. The IEA then simulated an aggressive, global program to cut emissions based on the best available technologies: more solar, wind and biomass; more-efficient cars, appliances and buildings; more nuclear. Under this admitted fantasy, global emissions in 2050 would still slightly exceed 2003 levels.
Even the fantasy would be a stretch. In the United States, it would take massive regulations, higher energy taxes or both. Democracies don't easily adopt painful measures in the present to avert possible future problems. Examples abound. Since the 1973 Arab oil embargo, we've been on notice to limit dependence on insecure foreign oil. We've done little. In 1973, imports were 35 percent of U.S. oil use; in 2006, they were 60 percent. For decades we've known of the huge retirement costs of baby boomers. Little has been done.
I've linked to things Samuelson has written before. I still do not agree with his favored solution – raising gas taxes and CAFE standards – because the two together effectively cancel out. Even if gas costs more, if the MPG ratings increase significantly, people will drive more. That's beside the point of what Samuelson is really beating Newsweek over here, though:
But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: we simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale—as NEWSWEEK did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.
Precisely. And a lone dissenter, bucking the "consensus" and refusing to be intimidated by the extremely well-funded true believers of the First Church of the Presumptuous Assumption of Global Warming®, managed to force incorrect data to be changed, didn't he? That is the real danger of the new McCarthyism. Intimidating others into silence will force bad, voodoo solutions that will likely do more harm than good.
Besides, as I have been pointing out – repeatedly – there are definite results coming from the actions of the true believers in the most holy church of Gore. For example, there's the eradication of the orangutans. There is the total destruction of rainforest and displacement of native peoples. There's the wholesale murder of the poor in land grabs to grow more palm oil. There are skyrocketing food prices and soon there will be a shortage of food to export to the poorer countries. There are scads of results! It has simply never been easier to rape the planet. All you have to do is pay lip service to Pope Goreus I, say you're doing it to save the planet and you are good to go. There are results all right.
The "solutions" are already doing more harm to the planet than good, aren't they?
Energy, Environment | Gaius August 12, 2007
Other Links to this Post
-
Sister Toldjah » Newsweek contributing editor: We went way too far on “well funded global warming skeptics” story — August 12, 2007 @ 8:54 am
-
JammieWearingFool — August 12, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
By Rich Horton, August 12, 2007 @ 11:37 am
It is amazing how many people are calling Newsweeks six page collection of ad hominems good journalism. I guess good scientific method isn’t the only thing taking a beating from AGW as religion.
By Chris, August 12, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Nothing wrong with raising CAFE standards just a little big — and I’m saying this as someone who works for the Auto Alliance in DC. We should all want to drive cleaner cars, but the version of CAFE in the energy bill now is unacceptable. There’s no differentiation between cars and trucks. The standards as written would drive some of the best-selling models on the road, off the road.
Look for the issue to come back in the fall — it ain’t over yet.