Global Warming 5
Until now, our take on Global Warming has often been colored in a troubling way by assumptions about what the nature of public and governmental reactions would be, once it is declared a "crisis." In a recent conversation with Geoff, we took the breakthrough step of posing the problem as a hypothetical: Suppose Al Gore is essentially correct, and that there is a crisis? We're not saying there is in fact a crisis; we're simply supposing there is in order to then consider what the economic ramifications and the appropriate political responses might be independently of what the science actually says. The economic and political aspects of the issue will be intimately commingled with each other, but both of these aspects are separate from the science. They will be heavily determined by the science, but the science is independent of them.
Said thus straightforwardly, it seems obvious. But saying it "out loud" frees up these three conversations to be conducted separately from each other. We can continue to track and critique the progress of scientific research about Global Warming, and simultaneously tackle questions about the economics and politics. Making the hypothetical assumption of a crisis allows us to consider alternative economic and political scenarios without having to wait until the scientific results "are in." Those results will in any case change constantly and incrementally, presenting us with an ever-moving conceptual target. Projected economic and political scenarios that are developed in the meanwhile can be adjusted according to the incremental changes in scientific research as it appears in the journals and the media.
posted by Peter Van Dusen @ 9:19 AM
5 Comments:
So, I guess our working hypothesis is that human activities do influence global climate.
Here's one idea. It's not mine, but I can't recall where I heard it (probably on Fresh Air) and I'm too lazy to track it down. Besides, if I don't look it up, I don't have to worry about misrepresenting it.
I am John Q. Public, and, as such, I can stake a claim to certain certain resources. Among them are the National Forests and a stable climate. The government is responsible for preserving these resources. So, when some outfit raids them, the government should ask of compensation in order to restore or replace them.
Thus, the lumber companies do their bit to preserve the National Forests, and they pass the costs of doing so on to consumers of newspapers, closet rods, and toilet tissue. Truckers, as they are wont to remind us with signs on the backs of their trucks, pay their share of what it takes to maintain the highways. (Actually, they probably don't, but they should.)
When a refiner or power company degrades the climate, they need to pay the cost of repairing the damage. How they do this should be up to them, but that they do it should not.
I have Terrapasses for the cars in the family, for my house and for our air travel. The cost of these passes goes to carbon abatement programs. What should be the case is that Exxon-Mobile and City Public Service should buy the Terrapasses and pass the cost on to me at the pump, in cost of my airfare, and in my utility bill.
This sounds like an admirable plan, Henry, although it requires us to be able to accurately calculate the costs to the environment of each of the human activities that has an impact on it--an area that economists, I understand, have been reluctant to tackle. But the habitability of the earth (as distinct from its resources) seems to pose a different problem. Even if economists could assess the right fee to the right "polluters," what good would this do us if the damage people are causing were irreparable? If people have sufficient wealth to pay the tab, and would rather do that than stop the damaging (or global warming-causing) activities, aren't we up the proverbial creek without a paddle? Or to modify the metaphor: won't we have plenty of paddles, but perhaps find ourselves sitting in a dry creek bed?
May I suggest a slightly different paradigm of discussion? I suggest that it is not fruitful to concentrate on the nuances of the scientific findings. Peer review in the various disciplines will do that job. However, the socio-political aspects of the “global warming” phenomenon bears close scrutiny.
I suggest that the “global warming” issue provides a micro-cosmic view of a larger pattern. The central feature of that pattern is the degree of control over the culture that is exercised by industrial/financial/corporate power centers. There is, I suggest, a battle raging for the “hearts and minds” of the American electorate.
That battle has origins that can be traced back at least as far as The Enlightenment. A Corporate Coalition now stands in the traditional position of the Church. The battle continues to be characterized by an attack on reason and science.
We see that attack in such policies and practices of the Bush Administration as the appointment of oil-industry lobbyists to rewrite government publications so as to distort those publications in order to present the case most favorable to the position of the oil industry. That position can be stated simply as anti-regulation. Their message is: “there is no problem therefore no regulation is called for.”
Consider other such attacks and look to the coalitions that are their sponsors. You will note the political actions of the Christian Right in such areas as “Intelligent Design.” Examples are legion and an exhaustive list is beyond the scope of this message, but I suggest that if you to look to the broader pattern they will be readily apparent to you.
That is my bottom line: look to the broader pattern. The issue is political. Do not be diverted into microscopic analysis of each element. It is the fabric rather than the thread that should concern us. To quote perhaps the most influential American in recent history, Deep Throat, “follow the money.”
The gist of this postion is that the cost of environmental destruction become part of the cost of doing business, eventually footed by the consumer.
It is an improvement over the status quo, where all such costs are simply externalized. But it does not ring to me to be the ultimate solution.
I think the scientific consensus is that global warming - ie. that the average temperature of the planet has risen by a couple degrees since we began taking data, is a fact. The debate is primarily over whether or not this or that phenomena is attributable to global warming, if humans caused global warming and can or should humans attempt to do something about it.
I concur that the best way to deal with this is not through increased regulations, but the tax code. Right now in the US, the taxes on a gallon of gas do not account for the entire cost of driving: pollution in manufacture and in driving, medical costs of accident victims, loss to society of working age citizens killed, interruption of animal habitat, solid waste disposal, road maintenance, wars to secure a stable petroleum supply etc. If it did, then the American consumer would make the best, informed decision about what kinds of cars to drive and how much to drive. As it is, owning and driving a car is heavily subsidized in the US by public funds, so the costs are kind of hidden.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home