The extreme cold snaps of January sparked much gnashing of teeth among the chattering classes regarding anthropgenic global warming (AGW) aka climate change aka humans are a scourge on the earth, with some skeptics asking how “warming” is consistent with colder weather and AGW alarmists pronouncing that, of course!, extreme cold weather is part of global warming aka climate change aka humans are a scourge on the earth.
While I’m in the skeptic camp, based on the fact that the predictive models have failed to predict the last 17 years (indicating that the science isn’t mature and that climate mechanisms aren’t fully understood), I’m going to set that discussion aside in favor of a part of the global warming debate that’s, well, never debated. We are told that the solution to this problem of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human activity and the purported resultant greenhouse effect is to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Sounds simple, right? If you’re doing something that does harm, stop doing that something. There’s a rich irony in that this simple solution is one that governments around the world are so unable to grasp when they bear witness to the unintended adverse consequences of their policies, but apart from that, the solution seems pretty obvious.
That is, until we consider why humans are emitting carbon dioxide, what the cost and impact of reducing those emissions are, and whether it’s even possible to effect real and permanent reductions.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a natural compound, produced not only in energy generation but by animals large and small. It is also “food” for the plants of our ecosystem, and as such it is a vital and necessary component of our atmosphere. What the “correct” level of carbon dioxide is, how many parts per million are acceptable or optimal or desired, is a debate that would have to start with defining the meaning of those words themselves in this context, but the important thing to note is that carbon dioxide emissions shouldn’t and mustn’t be considered in the same fashion as industrial pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, PCBs, uncombusted hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, heavy metals or particulates.
Our societies and our standards of living are inextricably tied to energy. Energy allows us to produce more food and other products per man-hour of labor, to make and build things, to heat and cool our homes, to travel farther and more quickly, to communicate more efficiently, and in general to enjoy a standard of living that far, far exceeds the wildest dreams of even the wealthiest people of generations and centuries past. The cheaper and more plentiful that energy is, the better our lives are. Conversely, more expensive energy adversely affects our standards of living. Less of it means we can do fewer things with it, and higher cost for it displaces our ability to do other things with our wealth. If curtailing CO2 emissions increases the cost of energy, the impact on our lives must be weighed against the benefit of that curtailment. That impact will be real, it will be costly, and it will be significant in its adverse effect on living standards. And those most affected will be those who are just now climbing up to a level of lifestyle that those of us in the first world would consider the minimum we could tolerate.
More expensive energy will displace so many other things that are vital to our lives, a fact that’s, fortunately not lost on some. Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus is a good place to gain some depth on the subject, but the gist of the matter is that even if AGW is real and a problem, the world will benefit far more from devoting the resources some would direct at AGW to more pressing concerns, like clean water and rudimentary health initiatives like vaccinations. The people heading up developing nations and emerging economies also recognize this, and so we don’t see nations like the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) adopting carbon taxes or acceding to the carbon caps demanded by the alarmists. And therein lies the fatal flaw in the carbon-cap strategy. For it to work, the whole world has to participate, not just Old Europe, not just the USA. It’s an inescapable conclusion that the BRIC nations will not.
So, why the insistence on carbon caps, when it’s clear that they not only won’t be adopted by the world but that they’ll do immeasurable harm to our lives?
Some believe that we should lead by example, and that the world will follow our wise path. On top of the irony that many who hold this belief also stand in opposition to the concept of American exceptionalism, current events put the lie to the thought that the BRICs have any notion of following us anywhere. The USA is not some elder setting an example for impressionable children. It is but one nation of many, and while it is and has been the most powerful and productive nation in the world, that fact and history mean nothing to other nations fending for themselves and competing on the world stage.
Others simply want us to do so because it’s the “right thing,” a notion born out of feeling good rather than accomplishing anything. Or, as Thomas Sowell put it, “self congratulation as a basis for social policy.” It’s a modern, secular form of self-flagellation, although many who hold this attitude are wealthy enough not to feel the bite of that lash very much. The cost of “feeling good” in this case is large, both in cost and in harm to fellow humans, and the only way one can “feel good” in this circumstance is to cover one’s eyes and plug one’s ears to the harm that the feel-good creates.
Some simply stand to gain personally, and others base their beliefs on the notion that those they dislike (carbon energy producers, non-liberals, the great unwashed masses of flyover country) don’t support carbon caps and may suffer if they’re imposed. These people and these reasons are contemptible, given the immense cost that carbon caps will impose on humanity. To advocate a policy that will lead to mass suffering and wealth destruction simply out of biases or naked self interest is grossly offensive.
Mostly, however, I suspect that people support the carbon cap solution because they’ve been told to by experts, and haven’t given the topic much thought beyond that. They haven’t been introduced to even the possibility that the developing the world isn’t interested in carbon caps, or that they can’t be forced into adhering to them, nor has it been suggested that without full participation, carbon caps won’t reverse the accrual of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nor has there been mention of alternatives to carbon caps – solutions that are technological in nature e.g. engineering on a global scale to either sequester carbon out of the atmosphere or reduce the incidence of solar radiation on the earth.
While that’s a shame, it’s also an opportunity. People who haven’t invested in an idea can more easily be divorced from it. If the debate about AGW can be separated into distinct parts – validity and amelioration – there’s a better chance we’ll do less harm to ourselves and our fellow humans. And, if AGW does turn out to be real, significant, and a problem that needs to be addressed, we’ll be much better positioned, with far more resources available, to address it, technologically, in a fashion that doesn’t require every industrialized nation in the world to commit to doing harm to its people.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters