Global Warming Remedy

Cato Unbound, which is one of the most thought provoking places on the Web, is starting a series on Global Warming. The first article is pessimistic about the possibilities of actually doing something, but many points of view will be presented.

I too am pessimistic about any of the Big Plans that are getting tossed around. Most Big Plans involve inflicting draconian hardships on everyone, despite the attempts of the Big Planners to hide the fact. Politicians have a strong instinct for self-preservation, so it strikes me as unlikely that they will support inflicting pain on voters. Even authoritarian governments will be reluctant to adopt unpopular Big Plans if the authorities themselves have nothing to gain.

But I also believe in the Long Tail. The essential problem behind Global Warming is excessive energy consumption. Each of us could do a lot in this regard, and many small contributions can add up to something huge. Global Warming worriers should focus less on Big Plans and more on individual level peer pressure. For example, behaviors such as owning a huge TV, owing an Xbox, and using too much air conditioning should be made to seem as socially acceptable as smoking or maybe torturing kittens. This takes cultural conditioning like was done with smoking. But the list of wasteful energy practices is long - almost like shooting fish in a barrel. Rock concerts, theater, and sports events? Staying up late at night? Snowmobiling, power boating, sightseeing? Owning too many clothes, too big a house? Ordering pizza deliveries? The waste goes on and on.

Global Warming could be stopped, or at least slowed down, by simple attitude and lifestyle adjustments. So if someone’s bugging you about global warming, ask them if they’re willing to lead by example - or do they want to wait for someone else to do something based on a Big Plan?

No WMDs? No Global Warming?

Although some people have more sinister theories, I believe that George W. felt an urgency to invade Iraq because of WMDs. The failure to find WMDs in Iraq cost the President a lot of his support and spawned all manner of conspiracy theories.

If this is right, we might be in a similar situation with global warming. Already a few scientific societies have backed off their whole hearted endorsement. Will Al Gore’s popularity and credibility evaporate if it becomes increasingly evident that the global warming excitement was really much ado about nothing? It won’t matter to Gore - he’s not running for office. Will people ever say that it was a good thing we got Bush instead of Gore because all Bush got us into was Iraq, while Gore would have destroyed the economy?

Rush To Reform

I am beginning to suspect that most attempts by government to solve a social or environmental ill simply introduce new problems which are more difficult to solve than the original problems being addressed. This kind of news story (biofuels having a huge impact on food prices) is more anecdotal evidence. Unlike the UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food, I don’t believe the biofuel boondoggle is a crime against humanity. Crimes require malign intent. What we see here is the result of acting too quickly with too little thought and too little humility. Reformers are always in a hurry, and can make a good moral case, but a more conservative and thoughful approach would seem to be justified in most cases. Beware the Rush to Reform.

Cap and Trade Rebate?

Arnold Kling explains why some companies like General Electric are lobbying for a cap and trade approach to global warming instead of a carbon tax. The bottom line is that GE cares about profits, not global warming. (No, I’m not committing the anthropomorphic error). This is as it should be. The pursuit of climate change is going to cost taxpayers dearly; owning some GE stock might ease the pain. [Full disclosure - I don't currently own stock in General Electric]

Pick Your Targets

It’s a pleasure to find an opinion piece that offers several different kinds of insight: a reminder of how supply and demand work in capitalist societies, a lesson in politics, and the most important question about global warming.

What’s the most important question? Assume for a moment that global warming is real and that it’s caused by human activity. What should we do about it? There are two possible strategies. One is to try to control climate change. The other is to endure it and, where possible, mitigate the effects. The second option certainly sounds easier, requiring fewer resources which could be applied to other pressing problems.

Everybody has problems. Every nation has problems. Humanity has problems. In all cases, you can’t solve all your problems at once. There’s a finite amount of time and energy. You have to prioritize and pick your targets.  I’m not convinced that solving the global warming problem is more important than eliminating global poverty (for example). Some people like to pretend that we can do it all and that there is no need to prioritize our problems. They need to grow up.

Cap and Tax

The cap and trade system being debated in Congress, and favored by all the Presidential candidates still standing, is a true abomination. Robert Samuelson explains it best.

If you ever need convincing that Public Choice Theory is real, look no further than this example. This will allow politicians to direct huge amounts of business to their campaign supporters, claim to be doing something for the common good, and claim that they didn’t raise taxes. Of course, this depends upon the public remaining mostly uninformed and unaware. I’d say the odds looks pretty good.

UPDATE: At lease one Senator seems to understand the problem!

The only good new is this: if Cap and Tax proceeds, there’s piles of money to be made by savvy investors. It’s as easy to make money from bad policy as from good policy.

It Costs HOW Much?

Wow! I thought the carbon emission goals being discussed were quite ambitious, but I had no idea just how outlandish they are. I’m sure the average person has no clue. And I’m also sure that no politician who values his hide would promote such draconian reductions in well-being if they thought their constituents understood. Stopping global warming looks like a non-starter. We need to think more (and do more) about this.

Clorox Hunger

It’s good to see indignation about our policies on biofuels causing starvation and death. This kind of reaction is showing up on the left and on the right. To me, there’s no question about this - if we have to choose between global warming or starving people, then bring on the warming!

The people who created our biofuel policies didn’t intend to cause mass starvation (I hope). But they certainly didn’t analyze and foresee the consequences of their actions. Maybe they couldn’t. But one thing is clear: broad policy measures can have unintended consequences, and tragic ones at that. Good policy change requires humility. It’s difficult, or perhaps impossible, to predict consequences. Policy change should be approached gradually, allowing time to assess the consequences and sometimes change direction.

Of course, such a common sense approach probably couldn’t get a person elected.

Immoral Energy

Other news may have crowded this out, but food riots are occurring all over the world. People are hungry and, I imagine, in some cases starving. Why? An article in Reason suggests multiple causes, the greatest of which is our political decision to convert massive amounts of food into fuel: ethanol mandates. Clearly our politicians didn’t think this through.

The moral question is this: do we want to fight global warming and have energy independence so much that we are willing to starve the poorest people in the world?

The Coming Ice Age

Global warming, global cooling - both give politicians a chance to take your money and give it to pliant voters, campaign donors, and future employers or clients. The facts don’t matter: any cause will do. Since most of us will believe just about anything we’re told, it’s an almost foolproof game plan.