Both Matt and Ezra have commented on this question, quoted approvingly by Jonah Goldberg from a reader email:
If Al Gore were to be convinced that global warming WAS a natural phenomena, would he be so worked up about it? I don't think so, yet the consequences would be the same.
Let's address this in three ways.
1. Would it make a practical difference if global warming were natural? Would it change our response? Of course. I don't know how to put it any more simply than I did in this post:
If it's the case that human activity is driving rapid global warming, then obviously scaling back GHG emissions should be our first priority. If it's the case that human activity isn't driving global warming -- that warming is part of a natural cycle -- then reducing GHG emissions isn't a priority at all.
This point seems thuddingly obvious, but this "what if it were natural?" question seems to obsess some conservatives, so there you have it. If global warming is anthropogenic, we need to both stop exacerbating it and start adapting to the effects that are already inevitable. If it is natural, then we only need to adapt, since apparently nothing we do can affect the natural course of climate changes. OK?
2. Would Al Gore, and environmentalists generally, be so worked up about global warming if it were natural?
There are some semantic issues here. If there were an asteroid approaching earth on a collision course, presumably everyone would be concerned. Would that be an "environmental" problem? Would people concerned about it be "environmentalists"? I don't know. But I feel pretty confident saying this: Al Gore is passionate about global warming because it stands to visit incredible suffering on the planet's most vulnerable. If it were natural, it would still stand to visit that suffering, so Al Gore (and anybody else who isn't a deluded jackass) would still be worked up about it, yes.
Or to more straightforwardly address the common conservative point: The notion that global warming activism is animated by hatred of capitalism and America is paranoid fiction of the sort that seems to substitute for analysis in far-right circles these days.
3. In the real world, global warming is a huge problem, and it is driven by human activity, and so who cares what activists would do in some fanciful counterfactual situation? As Matt says:
Faced with a large-scale environmental problem and the question of what to do about it, they're fixating on the fact that they don't like environmentalists ...
Matt and Ezra both profess bafflement over this, but I think they're just being coy. It's not that big a mystery. Over the past few decades, the animating conservative philosophy has rotted away. Bush's catastrophic presidency has put the final nail in it. What's left? Partisanship. Jostling for power and influence. Pure political warfare.
Partisan hacks like Goldberg approach every question through the lens of his team vs. the other team. To him, that's all there is. Naturally, he projects this partisanship on his opponents as well. He assumes everyone sees the world this way. So when environmentalists -- or worse, Democrats -- raise alarm over global warming, the only analysis available to Goldberg is partisan analysis: What's their game? What are their motives? What advantage are they trying to gain? It simply doesn't occur to him that people might be genuinely concerned about the fate of everyone on the planet, including Republicans.
Comments
View as Flat
ffletcher Posted 8:02 am
06 Jul 2006
I see now that reduction may be seen as foolish under two conditions, one, if CO2 rise is natural (unlikely, but I have been wrong before), two, if reduction will not be effective in preventing serious outcomes, say melting of the polar caps.
I don't believe I can promise the latter with even a 50% probability with reduction targets that go out to 2050. I find little support for reduction targets that will significantly affect life as we know it today.
Tonight I am proposing to our Board a policy that Burbank Water and Power, with other Southern California municipalities, prepare a CO2 reduction plan to determine how much CO2 we can reduce and at what costs.
Nature or human, if reduction can work to reduce global warming I support them, realizing it could in fact be too late for such reductions to remove all threats from our future. We need to know more, but that ignorance is not an excuse for failing to act.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:07 am
06 Jul 2006
Reducing CO2 does not cost money, rather it makes money. The cost is less than zero.
Energy end use efficiency is the best investment for utility management and is the best method to reduce CO2 emissions.
Permalink
Rufus Posted 9:54 am
06 Jul 2006
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 10:07 am
06 Jul 2006
Using conservation and efficiency we have shrunk our CO2 to less than 1990 levels, but I question if this is enough.
BTW, we are a municipal, it is not about profits, it is adding value to the community.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:38 am
06 Jul 2006
The far right (which has become a large part of the mainstream conservative movement) see environmentalism as a threat to two of their cherished beliefs.
First, it is a threat to their view of humans as competitive individualistic creatures. Environmentalists, while willing to turn to the market, often rely on rules and cooperation to achieve their ends. Since the far right hates the thought of anyone being able to make "rules" that restrict them, they hate environmentalism. They see it as a whole bunch of new rules. And they see it as "caring" about something other than themselves (which is also something they hate).
Secondly, some of the far right Christians have a clear view of humans as having "dominion" over the earth. Since environmentalists tend to preach such concepts as "harmony" and valuing all life equally (not all environmentalists), they see them as a threat to their view.
The reason they call environmentalists "tree-huggers" is that it represents the idea of loving trees and nature. They view this idea as the antithesis of their belief that people should rule and dominate (and use) nature.
Their world view makes it impossible for them to ever "embrace" environmentalism. Any attempts to try to win them over are a waste of time.
Please note, that this is one (very large now) strain of conservatism. There are others. We need to figue out who is who, and spend time and energy (if we decide it is worthwile) on winning over those conservatives who do not have basic world views that must reject environmental concerns.
patrick
Permalink
Rufus Posted 10:59 am
06 Jul 2006
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:35 am
06 Jul 2006
For advanced 70% energy efficiency I recommend contracting Amory Lovins at rmi.org for analysis and consulting.
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 11:51 am
06 Jul 2006
I appreciate you recognizing his vision
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:25 pm
06 Jul 2006
During the 90 degree heat wave last week the thermal mass house only gained 0.2 degrees F per day. The temperature varies between 71 to 73 degrees all year. Very comfortable.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:55 pm
06 Jul 2006
At some point we will have to choose: Do we want capitalism and America, or a livable planet? How would conservatives choose?
Is conservative hatred of global warming activism animated by hatred of a livable planet?
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:22 pm
06 Jul 2006
I am talking with some of those conservatives. Political differences pale compared to our common problem.
Conservatives see a choice between shutting it all down or developing carbon-neutral energy. "Shutting it all down is unacceptable."
Solving our carbon dilemma will require unprecedented cooperation from all, including natural political enemies.
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 2:42 pm
06 Jul 2006
We all deal from our own environments. It is hard for me to understand the far right that Patrick speaks of as I don't know such people in my day to day life. I also don't understand people who think we can ignore global warming and that it is acceptable to not do anything. For the most part we are beyond the argument and it is not important who won because we are ready to take action.
Having had some time to consider this issue strategically I trust David. If we turn from the debate too soon the differences between the two positions will be less clear. It is better to keep the debate going on these issues, issues that in my little environment are very clear, but probably are not nearly so clear in other parts of the country, yet. I actually do like it when others deny that global warming even exists, that position is sounding dumb to more and more.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 11:43 pm
06 Jul 2006
What happens when they are given the choice between a) choosing the cheapest possible substitute for an 85-million barrel-a-day oil habit, in line with the iron laws of bottom-line capitalist competition and b) creating a society that doesn't need so much energy?
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:21 am
07 Jul 2006
The narcissistic do not give up and commit suicide so expect strong support from wealthy conservatives in a carbon constrained business environment.
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 2:02 am
07 Jul 2006
But sheer volume of fact (very apparent to hunters and fisherman, as a recent Field and Stream poll showed) and Western water managers (just talk to them) and firefighters (as a new study showed) is beginning to get through to moderates and responsible people in positions of powers, including some Republicans.
I detect a lot of nervousness among these folks about global warming, a "what if this could be true?" realization. Al Gore is doing a hell of a job of putting across the facts, but how can we help him? I think embracing and encouraging moderates and conservatives to come forward and speak out is another step that could help, especially in the so-called "heartland" states.
Probably this marks me as a hopeless idealist, but that's my story and I'm sticking with it.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 2:09 am
07 Jul 2006
Good for them!
Now let's imagine an application of the consumerist logic graciously illustrated by sunflower here. This is where it gets tricky.
Here in southern California, as in much of the US, the economy depends upon cheap energy so that consumers can drive to shopping malls to buy consumer goods. The bigger shopping malls, moreover, are further dependent upon cheap energy. For the most part, they are indoors, and either air conditioned for hot or space-heated for cold weather.
Now let's raise the energy costs on these shopping mall economies. To a certain extent, one will see felicitous changes. More carpooling to the malls might occur, for instance. Or solar panels on the mall ceilings themselves.
But there might also be some not-so-felicitous changes. Fewer people shopping at malls. Fewer people buying things, because more people are spending more money on energy and not on buying things. Conservatives will not like these changes. They may say that they like high energy taxes now, and then look at their balance sheets and decide they don't like high energy taxes because it costs too much to pay for them.
Some malls may have to shut down altogether because the costs of operating them (and the costs of bringing consumers to them) will have become too high. Ordinarily, when malls shut down, the conservatives attribute these events to the "free market." If you're not "competitive," you lose. This is ostensibly normal business, though you and I know that capitalist business has depended upon government support from Day One.
However, when a big mall shuts down in the political climate created by high energy taxes, the "free market" pretext for failure disappears. The rich mall owners will then blame "big government" for their tragic business plights, and crank up the media machine to support their propaganda efforts.
Conservatives are not supposed to like "big government." The idea that "free enterprise" is being impeded by "regulations" tugs at their heartstrings.
All of a sudden, in the midst of any significant big business failure, you will see a movement to lower those energy costs again, by reducing those evil energy taxes. Oh, sure, the taxes sounded good to the conservatives when the liberals were in their ears talking about global warming. But something more important than Planet Earth is at stake here: free enterprise.
Now, "free enterprise" can mean a lot of things. But, in this era of dying capitalism, it means defending Bill Gates's right to own as much, alone, as do the bottom 40% of American wage-earners own combined. It means defending the rich, who own the big businesses. Never mind that Bill Gates owes most of his wealth to manipulations of property law, or that Archer Daniels Midland is America's biggest welfare bum; free enterprise means defending big business. Some of these big businesses, by the way, use a lot of fossil-fuel energy. Can you imagine the energy costs of heating or cooling the Mall of America, in suburban Minnesota? They run a roller coaster inside that thing! Can you imagine the families who will hate us when we raise the energy taxes on it?
At some point, when a few big businesses have seen their profit margins dip for whatever reason, or even if they haven't (!), the heavy campaign donors (through their dummy organizations) and the corporate mass media (owned by the wealthy) will speak with one voice: high energy taxes are "bad for the economy." Who will buy it first? The conservatives. This is why I imagine the "alliance with conservatives," on the conceptual grounds of high-tax energy economics, to be for nought.
Now here is my main point. With the tax debate, we are trapped in what economists call marginalist economic thinking. Everything in this line of thought depends upon the consumer's marginal propensity to consume. Higher energy taxes are an attempt to make alternative energies more "competitive," by making fossil-fuel energy less attractive than alternative energy for the consumer with a dollar to spare. But what about the dollars that the consumer can't spare, the dollars that are "locked into" the high-energy-consumption infrastructure?
Marginalist economics has nothing to say about a system that depends upon cheap energy so shoppers can buy products at shopping malls; it only debates which products they can buy, or whether they travel there individually or carpool. It accepts such a system as it is; it cannot be bothered to question reality. It will not provide us with the wiggle-room we need to specify alternatives to mere "adaptation" to global warming. We need to be thinking bigger.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink