Uneasy Rhetoric

If there is one thing that is changing faster than the global climate, it is the rate at which scientists (and by “scientists” I am most definitely not including economists) and even nonscientists are abandoning the stance that global warming may not be at least a partial byproduct of human activity.

In today’s Bee, Dan Weintraub projectile vomits a line of thought that is so last decade:

The issue is a tricky one, for a number of reasons. First, scientists are not unanimous in their belief that humans are causing global warming. Second, even if humans are at fault, it’s not clear how much can be done to stop the trend without grinding economic growth to a halt. Some think that better technology, not limits on industry, will be the answer. Finally, even if the kind of measures widely advocated by environmentalists could have an effect, one state, even one as large as California, can’t do much by itself to change global climate patterns.

Let’s take this apart:

Scientists are not unanimous in their belief that humans are causing global warming. Since when is unanimity a criterion for belief? If that were the case, our political leaders should be urging us to “go slow” on adopting intelligent design or “set up an advisory committee” to discuss faith-based initiatives because scientists are not unanimous on the existence of God.

No, there are still a few scientists who relish their roles as contrarians and bask in the attention of a branch of conservatives who have their environmental heads in the sand. These scientists are the golden children of rags like the Wall Street Journal, who are growing increasingly desperate to find someone, anyone, to preserve the way of life of homo economicus.

It’s not clear how much can be done to stop the trend without grinding economic growth to a halt. And this is a good reason to do nothing? Once upon a time, we may have been able to say that global warming would affect our great, great grandchildren. This made the topic diffuse enough to dismiss because almost none of us (my own grandmother excepted) will meet our great, great grandchildren in this life.

But, as the rate of change increases, whether by human cause, nature, or most likely both, we have to do what we can to prepare for the consequences and mitigate the damage. It is not our great, great, grandchildren who will suffer, but our own children. Maybe “suffer” is too strong a word for children fortunate enough to have been born in the United States, but they will grow up in a world of increasing turbulence, uncertainty, and scarcity.

Some think that better technology, not limits on industry, will be the answer. There is no question that technology has thwarted the Malthusian Nightmare, temporarily. But we live in a world of limited resources, with limited space. We’re already talking about a “peak oil” crisis. No amount of technology will be able to replace the plentiful supply of cheap oil some Americans feel is their birthright. It will take a combination of better technology and human intervention if we are to have any chance of mitigating the effects of global climate change.

Weintraub is saying that since we’re already in this handbag to hell, we might as well enjoy the ride. I’d rather we get out of the handbag.

Even if the kind of measures widely advocated by environmentalists could have an effect, one state, even one as large as California, can’t do much by itself to change global climate patterns. So, what you’re saying is, because we can’t do much, we shouldn’t do anything. So, if I see Dan bleeding on the street, since I’m not a doctor and can’t do much, I’ll just let him be. After all, the only thing I can do is apply direct pressure and maybe call 911 if I happen to have my cell phone.

California is big enough to cause ripples both nationally and internationally. Cars are already manufactured to meet California’s emission standards. If we start to do something, especially with a well-known Republican governor riding point, other states will follow suit. The next president may feel compelled to act. And the international community, once they see that the US has taken its head out of the sand and actually started to act, may themselves find reason to change.

Despite the efforts in Europe and elsewhere to curb emissions, Schwarzenegger’s advisors may be right when they say, as Weintraub reports “…global warming policies will actually create the conditions for job growth by making the state a center of science and innovation in limiting the use of carbon-based energy.” California is a very large state with a tremendous research infrastructure that, given the right policy signals, could grow quickly into a serious environmental industry.

The issue of global warming is only tricky for those who are trying to avoid it.