A frequently overlooked element of the energy/climate debate -- most debates about big issues, really -- is opportunity cost. That is to say, there's a limited stock of national attention and money, and if you argue that a large portion should to go one set of issues, you are implicitly arguing that proportionately less should go to other issues.
That, at least, is my tenuous hook for pointing out that Rudy Giuliani's recent foreign policy manifesto -- which argues for an enormous increase in "defense" spending, a principled rejection of diplomacy and international agreements, and a reorientation of the entirety of American government and society around fighting (and, I'm not kidding, the caps here are Giuliani's, not mine) the Terrorists' War on Us -- would, if implemented, leave us in an extremely poor position to address our pressing energy and climate problems.
It's also insane. Jim Henley has more on that aspect.
Comments
View as Flat
pbearden47 Posted 4:03 am
15 Aug 2007
Aunt Phyllis
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:28 am
16 Aug 2007
"If we learned that Al Qaeda was secretly developing a new terrorist technique that could disrupt water supplies around the globe, force tens of millions from their homes and potentially endanger our entire planet, we would be aroused into a frenzy and deploy every possible asset to neutralize the threat"
"Critics scoff that the scientific debate [about global warming] is continuing, that the consequences are uncertain - and they're right... In the same way, terror experts aren't sure about the magnitude and timing of Al Qaeda's next strike. But it would be myopic to shrug that because there's uncertainty about the risks, we shouldn't act vigorously to confront them - yet that's our national policy toward climate change, and it's a disgrace."
Unfortunately, you have to pay for the on-line link to the NYT article, or I would post. But Giuliani's position suggests that the political heuristic deserves more attention.
Permalink