Climate Change Progress

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives took time out from fending off the world and exempted large cattle-, dairy- and hog-producing operations from an Environmental Protection Agency requirement for reporting greenhouse gas emissions. And 13 Great Lakes cargo ships were exempted from a proposed mandate requiring the use of low-sulfur fuel. When constituents’ interests conflict with global grandstanding, Congress’s rule is “act locally, think globally tomorrow, maybe.”

via George F. Will – George F. Will on the changing climate for a global warming treaty – washingtonpost.com.

No student of Public Choice theory would be the least bit surprised. Elected politicians will act to increase their chances of re-election or post-career economic well being. Politicians from farm states know not to aggravate their farmers. That’s why the government pays farmers to grow tobacco. Politicians from industrialized states know not to aggravate the unions. That’s why public education has almost no chance of improving. Politicians who receive huge campaign funding from lawyers know not to aggravate the lawyers. That’s why there’s no interest in reforming malpractice insurance.

I’m not a big believer in taking urgent action on climate change, but even if I did think something was required, it’s apparent that there’s not enough campaign cash flowing through the political system to make a difference. We might get a “cap and trade” law to supposedly help the climate, but it’s main effect will be to reward campaign contributors and punish non-contributors.

Tradeoffs in Everything

Every decision in life involves trade-offs. Sometimes they’re obvious, sometimes not so obvious. Ed Glaeser points out one trade-off that most people miss: our housing policy vs our environmental policy. Will Congress and the President sacrifice the environment in order to stimulate the economy? Or will they leave a moribund economy alone in the quest to counter global warming? Whichever they do, someone is going to be upset. Let’s see – who has the most votes? Oops – too bad for the folks concerned about global warming!

Dog Gone

Help the planet and trade in your dog for a new Land Cruiser.

Global Alarming

George Will has a great article on the subject of global warming:

Warnings about cataclysmic warming increase in stridency as evidence of warming becomes more elusive. A recent report from the United Nations Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit increase by the end of the century even if nations fulfill their most ambitious pledges concerning reduction of carbon emissions. The U.S. goal is an 80 percent reduction by 2050. But Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute says that would require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the 1910 level. On a per capita basis, it would mean emissions approximately equal to those in 1875.

That will not happen. So, we are doomed. So, why try?

Bjorn Lomborg puts it in perspective:

Imagine for a moment that the fantasists win the day and that at the climate conference in Copenhagen in December every nation commits to reductions even larger than Japan’s, designed to keep temperature increases under 2 degrees Celsius. The result would be a global price tag of $46 trillion in 2100, to avoid expected climate damage costing just $1.1 trillion, according to climate economist Richard Tol, a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose cost findings were commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center and are to be published by Cambridge University Press next year.

Hmm. Does this make any sense?

The Climate at the EPA

Because the act was never written to apply to today’s climate neuroses, clean-air regulation is based on an extremely low threshold for CO2 emissions that will automatically transfer hundreds of thousands of businesses into the EPA’s ambit. The agency is required to regulate sources that emit more than 250 tons of a given air pollutant annually, which may be reasonable for conventional pollutants like NOX or SOX.

But this is a very low limit for ubiquitous CO2, and so would capture schools, hospitals, farms, malls, restaurants, large office buildings and many others. To exempt these sources, the tailoring rule unilaterally boosts the rule for greenhouse gases from 250 tons to 25,000 tons, an increase of two orders of magnitude.

via Obama Wants to Use EPA Loophole to Force Through Cap-and-Trade – WSJ.com.

The WSJ Editorial Board is quite critical of the EPA’s decision to enforce carbon emission standards only on the biggest emitters. Well, I’m no fan of the global warming hysteria, but fair’s fair. If the agency is required to enforce the standards, it makes sense to prioritize the work and go after the big “problems” first.

The big “problems” will be power suppliers of all sorts. To comply with forthcoming regulations, the suppliers will either have to go out of business (unlikely) or increase prices to cover the new costs. If they’re smart, they’ll identify the price increase as a carbon surcharge right on the bill they deliver to every American home and business. The higher costs for businesses will, of course, be passed on to consumers by means of higher prices – for everything. Higher prices mean less discretionary income for households and less money to invest – including those investments that might otherwise be made in green energy.

Changing the climate may prove quite expensive. It may prove to be ineffective and expensive. Still, those who warn of impending doom just might be right, so we should at least pay attention. On the other hand, there are many skeptics. That says to me that we shouldn’t commit whole hog toward a plan of action, but we shouldn’t do nothing. Starting with a portion of the plan makes sense. We will learn a lot. We might learn it’s just too expensive, or we might learn the impact is better for the climate and not so bad for the economy. Who knows?

I’d rather see tentative steps in the wrong direction than a full commitment to a bad plan. If I’m right, we won’t irrevocably damage the economy and will have the opportunity to change course. If I’m wrong, we haven’t lost much by not addressing the entire problem at once, especially since we probably couldn’t do it anyway.

All Cost and No Benefit

Tyler Cohen has published his interim analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (“cap and trade”). In short, it’s all cost and no benefit. I’m not surprised: this has always looked to me like an empty moral gesture. Of course, it’s no coincidence that the one certain result is that money will flow from ordinary people into the pockets of big Democratic Party supporters. Slowing climate change? Not so much.

Mr. Cohen suggests steps for attacking climate change that would have a better cost/benefit ratio, such as limiting meat consumption. That sounds like a non-starter to me – can you imagine the resistance from the agricultural states? In fact, I haven’t seen any proposal that isn’t either a non-starter or an exercise in futility.

There is a lot of “magical thinking” surrounding the global warming issue. Most of the ideas for “fixing the problem” sound implausible, and the more promising require a level of sacrifice and austerity that backing such ideas would be political suicide. Even the tiny steps taken so far will generate a lot of blowback once the impacts are felt and understood.

As a practical matter, I think we’re going to have to adjust to whatever climate change occurs. That may prove expensive, which is why I hope we don’t impoverish ourselves in the interim with empty moral gestures.

Jumping the Gun

Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges 'notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming' & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears ]

via James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’, & Models ‘Useless’ « Watts Up With That?.

Meanwhile, politicians continue to fret about carbon dioxide levels and contemplate new ways to strangle the economy and lower your standard of living. Given the growing evidence that earlier conclusions about climate change were premature, wouldn’t it be best to wait for the dust to settle?

Armageddon Chic

Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Matthew 15:14

John Tierney has a great article on global warming and availability cascades. What’s that?

The availability cascade is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear.

Maybe this is just Armageddon chic.

Panic Attacks!

I haven’t tackled Global Warming here for a while. I don’t need to because Bjørn Lomborg is doing a great job on his own. The issue, as usual, is the choice between a panicky response which will accomplish little or a sensible response. Guess which way politicians favor! As Jeffrey Taylor wrote, commenting on the financial goings on:

I’m picturing guys with gasoline cans standing around a fire with a plan to put it out using the liquid at hand.

What’s more, you can make a good case that government’s panic is causing the markets to panic!

How should we cope with all the financial stress? Ask Dr. Sanity! My favorite quote:

In the not-so-remote past, Americans tended to view human suffering as the consequence of the imperfections of human nature and the bad choices each of us makes in life. But with the dawn of the therapeutic sensibility, most Americans tend to see suffering — including the financial setbacks we are now experiencing — as some sort of temporary state of being caused by unjust social and economic structures.

Sad but true.

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?