September 26, 2007
An analysis from the Cato Institute aptly illustrates my suspicions about environmentally-friendly politics. We do know that the climate is changing. We also know that the climate of the earth is constantly in flux. We don’t know how the climate is currently changing or what the consequences will be. We know that human activities amount to a very small portion of greenhouse gas emissions. We don’t know how much we would have to change human activities to affect “climate change,” or even if such a thing is possible.
And yet the good folks in Washington are obsessed with appearing environmentally friendly, regardless of how their proposed laws and programs will actually affect the climate. From this desire to be PC, we get the push for increased fuel economy standards, mandated by law. In support of this premise, politicians and political commentators are fond of pointing out that technology has greatly increased since the last time fuel economy standards were raised. The same justification is used in support of all kinds of environmentally sustainable projects.
But the people who invoke technological advancements rarely bother to explain which advancements actually relate to their proposed climate change solution. In their zeal for change, they ignore the fact that not all technology is equal. The discoveries that improve computer processor speed or allow us to fit more music on a smaller iPod don’t necessarily translate to improved fuel efficiency of cars or creation of biofuels.
Americans especially have great faith in the human capacity for imagination and creation, so the word technology is politically expedient. Technology means there don’t have to be trade-offs. Invoke technology and you can ignore the messy fact that increased fuel economy is most often generated by decreasing car size and weight, which in turn makes cars less safe in a crash. I am immediately suspicious of people who use the word technology loosely; if we did have the technology to do what they claim we should be able to, they would be able to tell us what new process or material has been discovered/created to make it work.
Vagueness is always the enemy of truth, because that which is not specific cannot be proved either true or false.
All this reminds me of a Facebook group called “Use Science to Turn Rain into Cupcakes.” That’s the kind of research I could get behind.
November 12, 2007 at 11:33 am
I’ve got three big points, so I’ll put them up in chunks.
1) “We do know that the climate is changing. We also know that the climate of the earth is constantly in flux. We don’t know how the climate is currently changing or what the consequences will be. We know that human activities amount to a very small portion of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, it’s always changing (take that, dinosaurs). No, we actually do know how the climate is currently changing- we can see it around us everyday, and scientists have devoted a lot of time to studying how it’s changing. Maybe you mean that we don’t know how the climate will change next- though we can predict that to some degree of certainty. We do have a very good idea of that the consequences will be, since large-scale climate change has occured on Earth before (I refer again to dinosaurs). Predicting the future is a risky business, so no, we don’t “know” 100% for sure what the consequences will be, but no one ever does, and no one ever can, which is the fun part about life. Asking scientists to “know” things, and to mean by “knowing” what the non-scientific world does- to be certain- is unreasonable. Good science must work on levels of uncertainty, and always be open to new possibilities, causes, and consequences: otherwise, it would become a dogma. I have no idea where your numbers on human activities being a small portion of greenhouse gases come from, and I would like to know, as I agree, vagueness is the enemy of truth. I suspect whatever source it is is relying on the difference between total greenhouse gas emissions from everything everywhere, and changing greenhouse gas emissions. Without greenhouse gases, we wouldn’t have a greenhouse effect to keep us warm and grow things, and thus no life on earth. So yes, a lot of greenhouse gases are caused by the natural world (very fortunately, or sweaters and fleece pants would have had to evolved before humans). Greenhouses gases become a problem only when too many are emitted, so the real danger of global warming is in the increase in greenhouse gas emissions that’s occurred over the last hundred years give or take. Many studies talk about the measure of change in emissions, not the total amount, since the change is the more interesting part (liken it to the derivative of a curve in calculus- they’re looking at the derivative, not the curve). While it may be completely legitimate to say that humans are not responsible for most emissions, that doesn’t capture the essence of the problem. Humans are responsible for the increase in the emissions. My source is the 2007 IPCC report, which is summarized in plain language at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf. It may be accessed through their website, http://www.ipcc.ch, under the heading WORKING GROUP I REPORT, “The Physical Science Basis”- find the summary for policymakers. Their report is an amalgamation of the science everyone else has committed upon the question of climate change, so it’s not just 1 study by 1 dude. It concludes that humans are the primary cause of increase in major greenhouse gases (see the yellow box, page 2). When a body as constrained by the uncertainty of science as the IPCC can make a definite claim like that, we have to pay attention. This is not a recycled opinion, either. Their last report, in 2001, could not conclude with this certainty that humans were responsile for the change in greenhouse gases. Based on new, cited evidence, we now can.
November 12, 2007 at 12:25 pm
2) “politicians and political commentators are fond of pointing out that technology has greatly increased since the last time fuel economy standards were raised. The same justification is used in support of all kinds of environmentally sustainable projects.
But the people who invoke technological advancements rarely bother to explain which advancements actually relate to their proposed climate change solution. In their zeal for change, they ignore the fact that not all technology is equal.”
First, if you are actually at all curious about what these people could possibly mean by fuel economy technology, listen to Car Talk. Click and Clack, the Tappit brothers, or Tom and Ray Magliozzi in real life, graduated with engineering degrees from MIT and have run an auto garage for about 40 years, as well as a car repair questions show on NPR for at least my conscious lifetime. They are thus my experts on cars, car repair, and current auto technology. If you doubt their competency to stand as experts, check out their show- they’re good. In a letter to a congressional committee, they have outlined exactly the technologies that will allow car companies to raise fuel economy standards to 35 mpg in the next 5 years. None of these involve making cars less safe, as you imply: though car companies may use that technique to increase fuel economy, technologies like hybrid drive trains, clean diesel engines, turbochargers, and superchargers- to pull from Tom and Ray’s list exactly- render that technique unnecessary. Just because car companies choose to make their cars less safe instead of investing in known technology does not mean that all fuel economy increases must happen that way, it means that, just maybe, large corporations are more interested in cost savings than making a good product.
Then the next part, about how people who think technology can accomplish things should specify what technology they mean, so you don’t confuse smaller iPod technology with say, clean burning coal technology: hoo, boy. If anyone actually is making that mistake, then their needs would be best served by some basic science courses and the use of internet search engines, rather than a laundry list of all pertinent technologies. Again, if you are actually curious about what technology is being created to ensure an energy efficient, environmentally friendly, sustainable future, check out the “Business of Green” archive at the International Herald Tribune- it’s at http://www.iht.com/indexes/special/green/index.php. Almost every listed article describes a specific technology used in an environmentally sustainable project, who’s investing it it, gives links to more information on the technology, and guesses when it might come to widespread use. All of this information could be cited every time someone claims that technology might accomplish something, but that would turn every discussion into a science lesson, and that is unpalatable to most of the population. “Zeal for change” is not the reason most people don’t list specific technologies, and ignorance of those technologies is almost never the case, unless you’re talking about poorly briefed politicians, and that’s a different issue entirely, and one that is a big problem. Most presenters would be thrilled to give you the details behind their broad statements if you ask, but will not alienate a broad audience by getting too technical, too quickly. If you are really concerned about the research and developments claimed, please ask or do your own research, and you will be pleasantly surprised by all the fascinating hard work going on in various fields of technology.
To the contention that it is a “fact that not all technology is equal”: How can the broad concept of equality be applied to technology- the development of tools and systems for the use of mankind? When this phrase is divorced from the rest of the argument you present, it is very interesting. I’ve been active with a group, Student Pugwash USA, that examines the ethics of science and technology and how that bears on public policy, but while ethics as applied to applications of technology is a subject I’ve thought about, “equality” of technology is not. I’m trying to get my mind around it, and all I can come up with it while technologies may be equal in their development- the same types of requirements go into the creation of technology, no matter the purpose- their inequality lies in their applications (Polio Vaccine > Atomic Bomb, for instance). Anyway, if you’ve got other thoughts on the subject, I’m interested to hear them.
November 12, 2007 at 12:51 pm
3) The third point is about use of technology in general, and some is covered in the 2nd, so I’ll try to make this shorter.
“Technology means there don’t have to be trade-offs…”
Well, no. Since we’re being specific here, technology creates new paradigms. Some technologies can change the decision calculus entirely. For example, Old Trade-off: never see people on different continents, or spend 3 months each way on the voyage. Technology: Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. Technology: 1, Old Trade-off: *poof* For example, Current Trade-off: pay a lot of money for fossil fuels to power your car and also emit lots of greenhouse gases, or don’t drive. Developing Technology (most of which is already out there, though “reasonable cost” is in doubt): Electric car charged by wind power, with insignificant emissions at reasonable cost. Technology 1, old trade-off: what fossil fuels?
“I am immediately suspicious of people who use the word technology loosely; if we did have the technology to do what they claim we should be able to, they would be able to tell us what new process or material has been discovered/created to make it work.”
Always good to get the facts before you decide, but it’s not up to everyone else to hand the facts to you. It’s up to Amazons to do their own research, ask questions, and get informed. Speak out about scientific and technological claims that don’t add up after all the homework is done.
November 12, 2007 at 10:50 pm
[...] to another’s blog’s article on technology and the environment. The exchange is here, if you’d like to take a gander (just leave my alpaca alone) or jump on [...]
November 13, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Let me start with your second and third points first, as those are by far the easiest to answer. I’m afraid I did myself a disservice by not including my context for writing those post in the first place, which has led to a slight misinterpretation (most notably, I don’t believe that technology means no trade-offs - I think that’s how it’s being sold to us).
Several representatives from various presidential campaigns have been coming to speak to a poli sci class I’m taking (Poli sci classes are breeding grounds for all manner of stupidity). Inevitably, these folks bring up their candidates plans to save the environment by harnessing the power of “technology.” Also inevitably, they have no answers when pressed as to which technologies will achieve which desired effects or what the trade-offs may be. Clinton’s Lowcountry Representative was perhaps the worst, refusing to acknowledge that his boss’ ideas might have anything but positive, proportional consequences.
So, all but the first paragraph are perhaps best read as rhetorical criticisms. If Politician X (or his/her lackeys) want to push through an environmentally-friendly policy (many of which are economically unfriendly, at least in the short-term and often in the long-term as well), then they’d better be prepared to be honest about the trade-offs required. Unfortunately, they rarely feel the need to be upfront.
So, my criticism is of the word “technology” as a rhetorical tool, used the way that political figures have used phrases like “the American Dream” - sounds awfully pretty, plays on exactly the things Americans want to believe about themselves and their country, but lacks substance.
Thankfully, despite that fact that politicians are not willing or able to sell substance along with all of the fluff, there is a lot to be hopeful about in terms of cleaner, greener technology. Again, though, it’s a mistake to assume that there aren’t other costs involved.
With my car example, reduced size and weight have historically been used to bring cars up to freshly-imposed fuel efficiency standards, for the simple reason that it’s cheaper to find ways to reduce the size of a car than to invest in new fuel technologies. A 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that, yes, fuel efficiency standards could be increased over the next 10 to fifteen years, but that trade-offs include environmental benefits, safety and cost.
If manufacturers use new technology as suggested by the Tappit brothers, the trade-off is going to be cost rather than safety. They do mention use of lighter materials in their letter, though they say it would be safe as well, so they probably know something I don’t. Wouldn’t be the first time that has happened. For you or me, trading cost for environmental benefit is perfectly reasonable, because we either already are or soon will be positioned economically to pay the extra money to buy a car with shiny new technology. But there are also plenty of people who can’t, who need a dependable, safe car to drive to work but need the extra money for other, more pressing expenses.
Public transportation is fairly limited in this country, especially once you move away from large urban centers, largely because public transportation is only cost-effective when you have a large group of people living and working in a small area. This is not the norm for American towns and cities. Because of the cost-effectiveness issue, public transportation is the worst for the people who most need it: those who don’t make enough money to live in safe neighborhoods near their place of employment, and whose low-wage jobs have them working shifts at off hours (i.e. not 9-5).
So, even assuming that this isn’t an issue, because people who aren’t us can just buy old cars anyway, there still remains the question of whether government ought to be imposing fuel standards. There are good arguments for and against, I think - whether Americans are just too attached to gas-guzzlers, whether it is the government’s responsibility to help shape America’s cultural priorities, whether it is really an appropriate role of government in the first place.
Finally, while I agree that people opposed to changes need to do their research, the burden of proof is and ought to be on those who wish to implement changes in our public policy. Innocent until proven guilty in the criminal justice system is predicated on the notion that it is far better to set a guilty man free than to see an innocent one jailed; political action ought to be based on the fact that it’s better to stick with what we do have (free markets, private efforts and the tools of grassroots to corporate lobbying, rather than grassroots-to-government-to-corporate) than to implement a change that could potentially cost livelihoods and, in extreme cases, lives. The policymaker and the activist have a responsibility to be specific and know the trade-offs that their ideas require.
As for all technology not being equal, “same” or “equal in application” would have been a more clear way of saying what I meant. I suppose, though, that there are ways to fit technology into a crude framework of equality, based on the formula of trade-offs versus gains. For example, if there were two new car-powering technologies, one that offers the same benefit in terms of mileage or emissions with fewer trade-offs in terms of cost, safety and consumer choice might be considered better than another with fewer benefits. But across the spectrum of innovation, it would be practically impossible; for example, you use the example of the polio vaccine versus the atom bomb. We could add up projected deaths and/or economic losses due to incidence of polio that have been averted because of the vaccine, versus the deaths caused by atomic bombs (which would have to include direct deaths [Hiroshima] as well as wars fought over rights to make/posses nuclear technology) and the deaths averted because nuclear weapons have deterred world powers from going to war. At this point, the possibilities for complication are endless - how would you decide whether a war had been averted, or whether it probably wouldn’t have taken place regardless? Looking at it from an economic perspective, you can certainly compare opportunity costs versus benefits, but the formula would have to be adjusted constantly, and people will always disagree on how human life, standard of living and such ought to be measured and valued.
Whew. OK, rebuttal to and expansion on your first objection I might put up in a regular post, because I’m not loving this tiny comment box.
November 14, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Now for my much-delayed reply to part one:
First, I’ll agree with you that science operates on levels of uncertainty. But how much certainty do we need before we take steps that will undermine our economy or our freedom, and drain resources away from other potential uses of our limited resources?
I’d argue that we need a great deal. And the consensus of the IPCC, a body as prone to political influence as any other governmentally-funded and appointed committee, does not justify the level of action that most activists believe would be necessary to stem the tide of global warming.
Consider this survey of about 530 climate scientists (http://downloads.heartland.org/2086111.pdf). There is very little dissent over the fact that global warming is already happening. But, when asked whether human activity was the primary cause, 55.8 % agreed. When asked whether computer modeling could accurately predict climate conditions in the future, only a third agreed.
There are enough skeptics of the current political assumptions out there that I’m leery of taking too much at face value. Some dispute that global warming is caused by human activity, others dispute the idea that the effects will all or mostly bad, still others that we have the tools to make fairly accurate predictions. Some examples:
(http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/node/3367)
(http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12392)
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html)
(http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/not_that_simple_opedcolumnists_roy_w__spencer.htm?page=0)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o)
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the IPCC is right. Let’s assume that the climate will change as they predict, and that we can trust their level of certainty. What kinds of trade-offs are we willing to make in terms of prosperity and economic growth? What level of response is required? And what kind of response should that be?
There’s some interesting work being done by economists about how best to respond and what the most helpful responses will be. George Reisman, an economist at Pepperdine, argues that there is a trade-off between preventing global warming and retaining industrial civilization (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reisman/reisman34.html) and (http://www.mises.org/story/2591).
William Nordhaus, an economics professor at Yale, also does some interesting work on the trade-offs and tactics used. You can find the original work here: (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/recent_stuff.html). Jim Manzi of National Review elegantly sums up his argument against immediate strong action here: (http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=N2Q5MDM2MGNmZDA5ZjAwOGM2NjFhMjkzNGY3OGIxNDE=)
Finally, there is no way to (rationally) deny that the free market is already responding to the impending loss of fossil fuels as an economic engine of growth. As easy as it is to villify “Big Oil,” companies like Shell, BP and Exxon are pouring millions into alternate fuel research (http://www.cnbc.com/id/21547192/site/14081545). Venture capital firms and businesses are realizing the potential value of green technology, and are investing in it
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111200653.html?wpisrc=newsletter)
Investment in these kinds of projects can help grow our economy and maintain our standard of living (as well as advance that standard around the world, as economic growth and free trade are wont to do), while helping to reduce emissions over a period of time admittedly longer but probably more practical than the time frame suggested by activists (high carbon tax, as soon as possible).
The temptation is strong to get the government involved in research and development. This could be a good idea on a limited scale (i.e. through tax incentives and the like), but it’s probably not a terribly efficient use of resources to have them funding much research, as the current focus on ethanol as the solution to the energy crisis bears witness to.
So, to sum up, there is too much uncertainty in our knowledge of the climate (not to even get into all of the problems often caused by political solutions) and too little immediate risk of damage to justify taking on the kinds of changes that most activists push for (large, immediate carbon tax, for example). The free market is already working on the long term problem of how to transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy.
So, recycling religiously, supporting green businesses and making all manner of crafty things from left-over bottle caps and plastic? Virtually no risk to the economy and potential reward directly related to how many people you can get to join you. Therefore, it’s a proportional response. Carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, mandatory emissions reductions in the short-term? Not so much.
November 15, 2007 at 4:38 pm
In your second reply, you bring up a new point, which I’ll be referring to as point 4, on proposed solutions to global warming. I’ll answer that separately. The flow of this debate could get messy, so I’ll try a short recap by point:
1) Existence, cause and effects of global warming
2) and 3) Technology and it’s uses (These have been blurred, I’m fine consolidating them from here on out)
4) Remediations of Global Warming.
So, here’s my second response to point 1:
“But how much certainty do we need before we take steps that will undermine our economy or our freedom, and drain resources away from other potential uses of our limited resources?”
Whoa, now! Here’s that rhetorical tool you criticize politicians for using. “Undermine our economy”? “Take away our freedom”? “Drain resources”? There are broad, reactionary statements with no comprehensible basis in this discussion. From where are you drawing these fears? You’re assuming a specific set of “solutions” to global warming that I certainly have not advocated, either here or anywhere else. I don’t know what you’re drawing those assumed “consequences” of “fixing global warming”, but wherever it was sure was crazy, and there’s no reason to take it seriously.
“I’d argue that we need a great deal. And the consensus of the IPCC, a body as prone to political influence as any other governmentally-funded and appointed committee, does not justify the level of action that most activists believe would be necessary to stem the tide of global warming. Consider this survey of about 530 climate scientists (http://downloads.heartland.org/2086111.pdf).”
I’m very surprised that you quote the Heartland Institute, an unabashedly conservative American political group with a stated free-market agenda, as a counterpoint to the work of the IPCC. First of all, their work is simply not on the same level as the IPCC. Secondly, if you are really worried about political bias in your science, it’s best not to get it filtered through a political movement. The survey you cite by them is telling, indeed. It’s a poll of 530 scientists taken in 1996 and 2003. In 2003, 82% of scientist polled thought global warming was real, and only slightly over half agreed that humans caused it. These results are similar to the IPCC report of 2001, when it was only concluded to 66% certainty (ie not enough) that humans were causing global warming. There’s such a huge disparity between the known climate data in the early 2000s and the known data today- which is why the IPCC report changed so drastically between 2001 and 2007- that the Heartland would probably find their scientists knew different things, if they’d bothered to take any data recently. As for their sample size- the Heartland replies on the personal opinions of 530 climate scientist types who responded to a survey. 530 self-selecting respondents at the Heartland Institute, vs 4000 scientists at the IPCC chosen by their peers for their expertise, 600 of whom survey data for 2 years and write technical drafts, and the rest of whom check and double check their work: I’m going to go ahead and pay more attention to the IPCC. Their technical work is just not really up for political influence. The written summaries for policy makers are edited by an international committee of non-scientists along with the scientists who wrote them, yes: most scientists simply aren’t good at putting their work in layman’s terms, and considering the broader impacts of it, so this is not unnecessary interference. In this summary, the technical data and conclusions are not changed- the specific way they’re phrased, perhaps, but you can’t put anything more or less strongly than the science has found. A great explanation of how the process works by an author and Co-chair of a working committee at the IPCC is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7082088.stm). He concedes that there is room for political bias, as in all processes for governments, but points out that the bias tends to be more conservative and stick to only what is known, and outlines how hard the IPCC works to iron out potential political wrinkling. It’s not 100% objective, but really, what is? It’s, as he points out, “as good as it gets”. In that article, there is a link to a article by an editor of the 2007 report who argues that the IPCC is all sorts of politically biased, but even he concedes that there’s no better way to compile climate data than the IPCC.
“There are enough skeptics of the current political assumptions out there that I’m leery of taking too much at face value.”
Political assumptions? I thought we were talking about scientific data? Be skeptical of politics all you want, politics are a dirty thing, but don’t ignore science because of the way politicians use it.
“Some dispute that global warming is caused by human activity”
Yet since I think the IPCC has the best process and data set out there, I’m going to go ahead and take their certainty as the best indication we have. They can still dispute it, but they’re going to have to do better than “Well, I don’t know…” to convince serious people.
“others dispute the idea that the effects will all or mostly bad”
I’d say the great likelihood of several bad effects merits attention, regardless of the several good effects. This just doesn’t seem to be a legitimate argument against action. Sure, think of the positive, but don’t ignore the negative.
“still others that we have the tools to make fairly accurate predictions.”
No one can make completely accurate predictions, I don’t care what Miss Cleo says, so we can’t wait for those. As for fairly accurate predictions, well, we’ve got proof of the effects of global warming on the environment, a great idea of a lot of what’s causing it and some of the stuff that it can cause, and we can deal with that part while we wait for the rest to come to light. Surely this is a better plan than moping about twiddling our thumbs and wishing for a sign? Onward!
November 15, 2007 at 7:51 pm
2) and 3):
Ah-ha, so it is those poorly briefed politicians at work. I agree, people who talk about things they know nothing about and have not bothered to inform themselves of are ridiculous and should not be humored. And politicians should be required to consider before they speak. Sorry they subject you to that bunk in your poli sci classes, but it’s good to prepare for the drivel you’ll be dealing with in the field.
I’m going to jump around a little in your comments to collect related sub points, but I’ll cite what I’m responding to where it helps the flow.
“Again, though, it’s a mistake to assume that there aren’t other costs involved.
With my car example, reduced size and weight have historically been used to bring cars up to freshly-imposed fuel efficiency standards, for the simple reason that it’s cheaper to find ways to reduce the size of a car than to invest in new fuel technologies…If manufacturers use new technology as suggested by the Tappit brothers, the trade-off is going to be cost rather than safety.”
Yup, new technologies will cost manufacturers money to implement at first. They might even cost more than current processes to run over and over. Everything new has this start-up price. We agree on this. Let’s take it to the next level? Companies who are afraid of costs deserve their certain failure. Incurring costs to make your products better isn’t just a cost, it’s an investment. Go ahead and forgive car companies for wanting to build the same second-rate products they already have if you can. Keep choosing their obsolete cars if you want. When American car companies whine about “costs” instead of making better products, they consign American industry to the dust-bin of history.
“A 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that, yes, fuel efficiency standards could be increased over the next 10 to fifteen years, but that trade-offs include environmental benefits, safety and cost.”
Which report is this?
“For you or me, trading cost for environmental benefit is perfectly reasonable, because we either already are or soon will be positioned economically to pay the extra money to buy a car with shiny new technology. But there are also plenty of people who can’t, who need a dependable, safe car to drive to work but need the extra money for other, more pressing expenses.”
The cost of buying shiny new technology certainly won’t go down if companies refuse to use it. “Shiny new technology” becomes common technology and affordable to most people when corporations invest in it. Wouldn’t it be incredible for working people with lower incomes to only need to fill up their fuel efficient cars once or twice a month to get to work, instead of every few days? Well, too bad, car companies think it’ll just cost too much to make that technology available to the public. Don’t get mad at people who appreciate shiny new technology, get mad at car companies who prefer staying obsolete. Without government involvement, a movement away from medieval thinking on the part of car companies, or a serious interest from a customer base, efficient cars will only be available to the rich. If you actually care about making this technology available to the working class, you’ll get yourself a hybrid or an electric car. We who can afford it have got to put our money where our mouths are, if we have any hope of fixing this.
I’m not quite sure where public transportation fits in- maybe you’re proposing an alternative to cars altogether? Yes, public transportation has been classically underfunded by local and federal governments, which is a shame, because with decent public transport the public wouldn’t be hit so hard by gas prices and the foibles of car companies. Good public transport can help smaller cities grow to be bigger cities. Boy I wish our train system worked. I think public transportation is a great argument for the necessity of government involvement in the transportation system. Underfunding and lack of upkeep on the infrastructure is holding back the growth and economic development of cities, because citizens increasing can’t afford to get around. I’m perfectly ok placing the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of shoddy government oversight. It makes America poorer as a country. But we digress.
“there still remains the question of whether government ought to be imposing fuel standards. There are good arguments for and against, I think - whether Americans are just too attached to gas-guzzlers, whether it is the government’s responsibility to help shape America’s cultural priorities, whether it is really an appropriate role of government in the first place.”
I don’t see the government imposing fuel standards as “shaping cultural priorities” at all. It has much more to do with demanding excellence from American companies, and yes, it is absolutely the government’s interest to require business to not prevaricate and stagnate, for economic and security reasons. Perhaps you could argue that fuel efficiency standards aren’t the best way to go about this, but it certainly allows companies huge leeway in how to accomplish it (by either making crappier cars or investing in good new technology, whatever), mandates the use of less fuel overall, which is a start to freeing us from our foreign oil dependency, gives our American citizens a much better choice and a better deal for buying gas, and may make our American cars more attractive to foreign buyers (well, the new tech ones, not the deathbox ones).
“Finally, while I agree that people opposed to changes need to do their research, the burden of proof is and ought to be on those who wish to implement changes in our public policy.”
Yup, so we have to get involved and ask questions.
“it’s better to stick with what we do have (free markets, private efforts and the tools of grassroots to corporate lobbying, rather than grassroots-to-government-to-corporate) than to implement a change that could potentially cost livelihoods and, in extreme cases, lives.”
To be off topic for a minute, we really don’t actually have a free market (personal disclosure: I’m very happy we don’t), we have a bizarre system of subsidies and tax cuts (not that I’m happy about that part). And grassroots-to-government-to-corporate change is a time-honored American tradition and not always a bad thing. Back on-topic: Consider your change wisely, but don’t be afraid of it. Change does not always result in the loss of livelihoods and lives: in fact, many of the proposed changes (to be taken up in point 4, mitigation of warming) would add good new jobs to the economy. The status quo (staying unprepared for global warming) will result in the loss of lives and livelihoods (tourism=kaput, oil all pumped out, natural resources gone). And if anything is going to lose us livelihoods, it’s companies that insist on staying obsolete.
I’ll avoid the more existential “equality of technology” point for now, since it doesn’t quite fit here and it’s dinnertime, but it appears that it won’t be a contentious point at all. Mental exercise, woot woot.
November 17, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I must begin with a quote from your first source, George Reisman, from his second cited article: “The public embrace of a movement as
dreadfully destructive as environmentalism brings to mind the rush to embrace Hitler and the Nazi Party in the Germany of 1932 and 1933…Nazism was a catastrophe. Environmentalism has the potential to be an even greater catastrophe…Those who recognize
the astoundingly evil nature of environmentalism must never cease opposing it.”
Now, by a corollary to Godwin’s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law), this debate is over, and I win.
For the sake of fun, though, I’m going to go ahead and continue with responses to this point. Not only is George Reisman a fear-mongering nutjob (and yes, going all ad hominem on him is completely called for in this situation), he also bases both of
his cited “arguments” against the environmental movement on the assumption that the only way to address global warming is to completely remove all vestiges of our industrial civilization. You
yourself have conceded that is a false dichotomy because of clean technologies, so let’s go ahead and ignore this angry little man.
Your third citation from William Nordhaus argues for the economic necessity of carbon taxes in “The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy in the DICE-2007 Model”, “To Tax or Not to Tax: Alternative Approaches to Slowing Global Warming”, and “Critical Assumptions in the Stern Review on Climate Change”- from the random sampling of his most recent work I looked at. I saw no papers in which he argued against carbon taxes. I’m not really sure how this supports your argument that we shouldn’t have carbon taxes.
Your fourth citation is not available, since the National Review has blocked access to non-paying subscribers.
Yes, it is nice that Big Oil is investing in green technology- if they don’t diversify now, their business will tank pretty soon. And yes, there is wonderful growth in investment in green technology. But considering how much the energy and automobile industries are pouring into obsolete, polluting, non-renewable technologies, the size of “clean” investments is a paltry sum. Much, much, more could and should be done. Relying on the mystical magical wisdom of the “free” market is the biggest mistake we could make in this situation: while there is a price for almost everything there, there is no real associated cost with the use of common resources like air and water. Pollution and emissions are free in the “free” market. And that is why “free” market solutions won’t cut it.
It’s a shameful commentary on American industry and investment that the only green options for consumers are expensive hybrids, small-scale solar and wind systems, and CFLs. Really now, that’s the best we’ve got to deal with this on an individual level? Investment has to get serious and get huge for this situation to change, and for these options to be available to anyone but the richest. Perhaps our basic difference here is that you are content with waiting around for business to do this at their own self-serving, profitable pace. I’d prefer to be able to chose my energy and consumption based on my own beliefs of what is right, right now.
Actually, the government is pretty good at jump-starting research and technology. The atomic bomb? The internet? DARPA is a fantastic example of a government body catalyzing research into the impossible. Much of this work was and is done by partnerships in industry, but it was driven by government interest, intellectual resources, and investment. The government got ethanol wrong, sure- because the legislature imposed those tax incentives you’re fond of, not because the government got involved in research. Maybe if they government had done their ethanol research homework, they wouldn’t have been so gung-ho about it.
“So, to sum up, there is too much uncertainty in our knowledge of the climate”
The IPCC is certain enough for me, and anyone else interested in the best research we have on the issue: we know enough.
“(not to even get into all of the problems often caused by political solutions)”
I don’t know what “political” solutions you’re talking about- we’ve only discussed economic and R&D solutions.
“and too little immediate risk of damage to justify taking on the kinds of changes that most activists push for (large, immediate carbon tax, for example)”
Yet the IPCC can trace damage already done. And your source William Nordhaus agrees with reasonable and escalating carbon taxes as a viable and useful solution.
“The free market is already working on the long term problem of how to transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy.”
The “free” market doesn’t deal with the larger common goods of the environment, so it’s the wrong way to deal with an environmental problem.
“So, recycling religiously, supporting green businesses and making all manner of crafty things from left-over bottle caps and plastic? Virtually no risk to the economy and potential reward…it’s a
proportional response. Carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, mandatory emissions reductions in the short-term? Not so much.”
First off, this is the first we’ve mentioned cap-and-trade and mandatory emissions regulations, and you give no evidence against them. Based on what I know about current cap-and-trade policies, they need to change to really work. I’m fine with reasonable mandatory emissions regulations: it would give us a chance to see how quick and creative your “free” market can be! And let’s be honest: with the proportion of carbon emissions and other pollution emanating from industry, farming, and transportation, individuals reducing their own footprint makes an insignificant difference in the grand scheme of things. That doesn’t mean its a bad idea, because those changes can add up and every little bit does help- especially since, by living sustainably, we might be able to drag industry along with us, either by legislation, nasty letters to CEOs, or the magical “free” market. Real change can only come with changes in technology, industry, energy, transportation, and farming: bottle caps just don’t have that kind of impact.
November 17, 2007 at 2:07 pm
[...] nazis My debate with the Conservative Amazon blogger continues. The arguments are up here, and I first posted about them in my article “A Quickie”. It’s getting pretty [...]