Cooling The Environmental Jets

Weekly Standard: Policy Action On Climate Change Not Always A Good Thing

(Weekly Standard)  This column was written by Irwin M. Stelzer.

---

If you follow the media you must think that everyone agrees that the earth is warming, and that it is our fault because we create greenhouse-gas emissions by driving, flying, heating and cooling our homes, and making other uses of fossil fuels. And you must think that everyone agrees that unless something is done, and soon, the polar ice cap will melt, floods around the world will become more frequent and more lethal, and hurricanes will increase in intensity and frequency. If you don't believe this calamity is upon us, go see Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth."

Well, not everyone thinks our future is so dire. There are responsible scientists who attribute recent warming to the natural, long-run rhythms of the weather cycle. Others concede that the earth is warming, but say that it is important not to panic lest we rush to adopt excessively costly solutions. Still others urge us to “Cool It”, the title of a wonderfully readable new book by Bjorn Lomborg, an economist specializing in environmental matters.

No matter: Enough people believe something must be done to propel politicians into action -- not always a good thing. The Bush administration and the Congress want to lavish still more funds on growers of corn so that what was once a food crop can be converted into ethanol, a gasoline substitute. This has had at least two unfortunate and unintended consequences. First, corn prices have been driven so high that (even after a recent easing) poor Mexicans can no longer afford their tortillas, and American housewives find the prices of everything from salad oil to dairy products and meat (corn is an animal feedstock) hitting new highs. Second, farmers around the world are rushing to clear land to make room for products that can be converted to fuel -- it's called deforestation. These unintended consequences matter little to most politicians, especially those eager to please corn-growing Iowans who will troop to the polls in the nation's first presidential primary.

Those who are less enthusiastic about the ethanol solution see our salvation in a revival of the nuclear power industry. These plants produce electricity without emitting the greenhouse gases that are alleged to cause global warming. But they are expensive, and cannot be built without substantial subsidies, either paid directly by taxpayers or hidden as a surcharge on electricity bills. And they do produce radioactive waste that Senate leader Harry Reid has sworn will never find its way into the storage site that can accommodate it, that site being located in his home state of Nevada. Besides, new nukes can't do much to reduce consumption of oil by our cars and trucks, at least until we figure out how to run these vehicle for long distances at high speeds on batteries, without sacrificing other economies of operation.

Then there are the technology worshippers, each of whom has an invention that will enable our automobiles to do without gasoline, or permit us to heat and cool our homes without connecting to the electricity grid, or will generate power from renewable resources. There is no question that many of these technologies do work. But they are expensive -- and not without environmental problems of their own, ranging from the vast spaces needed by solar generating plants, to the visual and noise problems incident to the operation of wind machines. Still, Congress stands ready to spend taxpayers' money on research and development of these sources, although history suggests that our government, which squandered something like a cool billion dollars on a failed attempt to liquefy coal, is just not well suited to picking winners. Better to leave this chore to the many hard-nosed venture capitalists who stand ready to bet their own money on technologies that look promising.

None of this means that it would be wise to hope that doing nothing will prove prudent. What is needed is some method of making fossil fuels more expensive so that alternative fuels will be more competitive and attractive to consumers, and therefore attract private capital. Most economists agree that the solution is a tax on fossil fuels. After all, use of these fuels imposes costs on society that are not paid for by the drivers and homeowners who use them. A tax would make them pay, and at the same time encourage the development of efficient alternatives.

Congress' most senior member, and a veteran of energy wars for some 50 years, understands that, and is preparing to propose a carbon tax. Cynics say that John Dingell, the Michigan congressman who is known both for his defense of the interests of the automobile industry, and his shrewd legislative skills, is simply calling the bluff of his very green Democratic colleagues, who try to conceal the costs of their environmental programs. No matter, Dingell, an old friend, has got it right.

But Congress will prefer a cap-and-trade system, which is less efficient, but has the political virtue of loading the costs of emission reduction onto America's corporations, who will then have to pass these costs onto consumers. Watch the greens' lips: no new taxes -- just higher prices for manufactured goods.

Dingell's approach would raise the cost of emitting greenhouse gases, and leave it to the markets and private investors to decide which of the new technologies solve the warming problem at lowest cost. Other schemes, such as cap-and-trade, do the same thing, but not as well and at greater cost. But both at least depend on markets to sort out alternatives to fossil fuels, or to make it more expensive for consumers to continue current consumption patterns.

Meanwhile, approach media reports with care. One example: We are told that global warming will increase flooding. The fact is that warming will indeed increase precipitation but, as Lomborg points out, "If we check out when the increase happens, it turns out that it happens mostly during the fall, when there is generally lower [river] flow and little risk of flooding..." Facts matter, even when making environmental policy.

[j_omalley1]

Mr Stelzer, Cooling The Environmental Jets is no further from the truth. I respect environmental laws as intended, without agenda. Our community is suffering great environmental exploitation from such environmental agenda which has served those who have the money/power to use environmental laws for selfish reasons. I am a disabled veteran who is unable to afford fending against local government and powerfully exploitive development firms. Local interpretation of environmental regs has put at risk hobby farmers%u2019 historic rite to maintain an historic drainage causing our land to flood and revert to a wetland. Meanwhile, this reduced drainage maintenance equates to enhanced development dollars downstream. We seem to be in an environmental oddity where our continued rural use is damaging to the environment, while responsible high density development is good for the environment downstream. Your article hits home here and I welcome you to further investigate the colorful Pacific Northwest, Puget Sound, Whidbey Island. We need someone who is unbiased and capable of investigating through the bureaucratic red tape. I have volumes of authentic, historic archival data which lend a real life example of your views. Please give this your attention; it will help masses in our situation. Sincerely, I am at your service with hopes to expose truth and the goal of real preservation of our environment

[sjc_1]

Even if you do not agree about Global Warming, many could agree that it is a good thing to reduce importing oil for many reasons. Reducing our consumption of fossil fuels has so many good points that it is just the right thing to do. You can have a good economy at the same time as well.

[noloyalisti]

I know this is off the subject but since the Weakley is such a proponent for war in Iraq and now Iran, I thought I would throw this out.

Some of us are talking about starting a general strike the day that we start bombing Iran which appears inevitable now. We need to just say No to wars of offense.

I have been talking about walking out of work and meeting on a local corner that day and then deciding where to go and what to do (maybe help shut down the financial center of the closest city). A co-worker say he will not pay his taxes anymore.

We can fight back with out money (or lack thereof).

[andor3]

here they go again--this new tactic of trying to map climate change into an economic model is insane and asinine. Probably the biggest flaw is that nearly all economic models implicitly assume that natural resources--clean air, water--are free and in unlimited supply. And there are those pesky details like land becoming uninhabitable and natural disasters that are hard to attach with a dollar (or euro) value.

So if you ignore all those and rely on the pure economic model, the conclusion is pretty meaningless, although much more palatable to the corporate and greenhouse gas emitter villain set.

[clestes-2009]

Well, here we go. The always fair and balanced, well-intentioned Weekly Standard making its asinine views known to all.

What?? Spend money that could help slowing the warming trend!! NO WAY!! It must be spent on killing people and weapons to kill more people and continue an already lost war.

Real good Weekly Standard, show your a.s.s. again for us, please so we can kick it some more!!

[imnho]

If the current trends contnue unabated then costly solutions will be the least of our problems. If the ice in the nothwest passage melts there will be undesirable conquences. Ounce were dead it really wont matter how costly the solution is, we will stil be dead.

[observantx]

So, Since the Iraq debacle has grown to such monstrous proportions that even these neoclowns can''t prop it up anymore; they try to change the subject to another area that they are also sublimely unqualified to speak or write about: climate change.

This entire argument revolves around the fact that reversing or abating global warming might (shudder, wince, gulp) cost something. Here''s a question for the koolaid kids: What does it cost to NOT do anything.? (Hint: You always pay for it. It always costs less on the front end.)

More Kristol meth koolaid from the Weakly subStandard for the very few remaining

[sparks224]

I think the Earth is flat. There is no real proof that it%u2019s round. I think schools should teach both sides of the Earth shape controversy.

[bombadil4]

This article was all over the map and it''s hard to make a lot of sense of it. The issue of globabl warming is so complex that one man''s opinion (scientist or non-scientist) that "hey no problem, just a little rain in the Fall when we can accomodate it best" is no more than a guess at best and nothing more than (excuse the pun) a drop in the bucket of the potential problems that will develop if the data and changes we see right now continues to develop. Unfortunately, greed and short term thinking will probably prevail as usual. We already see countries and corporations jockeying delightedy for rights to the new Northwest passage as the ice cap melts, rights to mine the minerals and drill for oil as the land ice melts, and rights to build new ports in the north to reap the billions of dollars expected to be generated. Talk about whistling past the graveyard...

[tejasdemo]

Hey, the Weekly Nazi has an opinion about climate change ? I dont even need to read this article to know that it is another stupid, inane, factless piece of garbage. Why does CBS continue to treat this group of morons like they are a real news organization ?

[wogerwabbit]

"Congress want to lavish still more funds on growers of corn so that what was once a food crop can be converted into ethanol, a gasoline substitute. This has had at least two unfortunate and unintended consequences."

The third most crucial consequence is that growing the corn and converting it to ethanol consumes more energy than it producess, resulting in a net loss. But of course, Bush''s buddies are making money from this form of corporate welfare, so there''s no need to mention that little detail. And again, the little guy gets ripped off.