Samuelson's low opinion of his country

He would have us accept disaster 11

Robert Samuelson is fixated on pushing a simple point about global warming: we can't do anything about it.

Like so many pundits pushing right-wing talking points around economics, he pitches this stance as a kind of brave, hard-headed realism, in contrast to all those other deluded fools who think we can solve problems. Why anyone would want to spend his time on this planet explicitly and openly fighting progress on the biggest challenge humanity faces is beyond me, I'll confess. But to each his own.

I wrote about his defeatism in an earlier column, and now he's at it again. After some unsubstantiated bashing of the Stern report, he lists three reasons why the problem is hopeless.

With today's technologies, we don't know how to cut greenhouse gases in politically and economically acceptable ways.

This is ... what's the word? ... bullshit.

An argument could be made that we don't know how to cut GHGs enough in "acceptable" ways, but as phrased, this is just incorrect. There are literally hundreds of things we could start doing immediately to cut emissions in ways acceptable to the American public, from boosting efficiency standards for cars and appliances to investing in public transit infrastructure to upgrading the electricity grid to removing fossil-fuel subsidies. These things are "unacceptable" to certain narrow financial interests that have undue influence over the political process, but there's plenty of public support waiting for decent political leadership.

The bigger error is to conceive the limitations of what's currently politically and economically acceptable as fixed and immutable. Things change. Public opinion evolves. Political coalitions shift. Industries wax and wane. And oh yeah, the weather is changing. Does Samuelson really want us to accept that we have no choice but to passively trundle toward catastrophe because our political elites are too corrupt and cowardly to sack up?

In rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionally "enlightened" (read: "unrealistic") ways.

I guess he does want us to accept our fate with resignation. Our selfish short-sightedness is his lodestar -- all else revolves around it. What an exceptionally low estimation of America Samuelson must have.

Here's where the right-wing mind really reveals itself:

Even if rich countries cut emissions, it won't make much difference unless poor countries do likewise -- and so far, they've refused because that might jeopardize their economic growth and poverty-reduction efforts.

This is the pinched moral calculus of an adolescent. "I'll do the right thing if Billy will too." The world looks to America for leadership -- still, even today, even in our current state of moral and geopolitical rot. We can still lead. The American people crave it. They crave a goal larger than their own comfort. They crave purpose. They crave issues larger than the petty divisions in which we've all been mired for the whole of this wretched century.

Think Samuelson's argument through. Catastrophe is on the way -- enormous, historical suffering and economic loss. We could avoid the worst of it with wise action today. But Samuelson and his truculent ideological fellow travelers refuse to go first, even though we created the $%@! problem. Rather than let Billy get more candy than us, we're willing to drive over the cliff.

I don't get these people.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Tod Brilliant Posted 1:42 pm
    13 Nov 2006

    One thing we need. . .is to stop bashing "right-wing" people, Dave. Your partisan talk does nothing to help the cause. In fact, it only pushes us back. We simply cannot and will not succeed with only 50% of the population chipping in. You belittle right-wingers, yet your own party, the Democrats, are incredibly right-leaning and have done very, very little to advance the pro-environment agenda. Kyoto, anyone?
    Enough of the partisan talk. Grist should do better than this.



    " . . . because the world doesn't matter anymore if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar

    Permalink

  2. David Roberts's avatar

    David Roberts Posted 2:12 pm
    13 Nov 2006

    Tod,In the U.S., there's a set of familiar arguments, revealing of a familiar mindset, among a familiar set of people at a familiar point along the political spectrum as currently constituted. The arguments are, for the most part, factually incorrect, and certainly morally offensive. I don't see what is gained by pretending this is not the case.

    www.grist.org

    Permalink

  3. amazingdrx's avatar

    amazingdrx Posted 3:20 pm
    13 Nov 2006

    Swing todThe swing voters seem to have seen through the right wing corporate shillin' talking points.
    Do you resent that somehow?  Or now that the neoconmen  took a hit are we supposed to all forgive them and play nice?
    I think we need to go for the throat now.  Throttle this political obscenity like a recently unelected  GOP congressman throttling his mistress.  Hehey.
    Send Bill Kristol and his fellow lying traitors packing like Rummi,Wolfi and Dickie Pearl were.
    These corporatarians weild their think tankery in other areas than foreign policy, especially in the global climate/energy policy realm.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  4. caniscandida Posted 3:56 pm
    13 Nov 2006

    "corporatarians"I would not know who is sending Samuelson a check for every essay of his filled with such discouraging words -- the corporate libertarian bunch that Amazing is always warning us about?
    I always skip over his column in Newsweek.  What a Glummosaurus!
    Does he really have a following?  Ought I to be worried about that?

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

  5. ffletcher Posted 9:38 pm
    13 Nov 2006

    Realistic LiberalI am a liberal and I believe that the task before us in reducing GHG in sufficient amounts as to stop the increase in greenhouse gases in the atomsphere is perhaps the largest objective the species has faced.  The electricity supply can not now run on photovoltaic, wind, and cogeneration because those facilities are not in place and putting them in place will take time, money, and leadership.  Further, those resources can not operate when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, yet the need for electricity is continual.  Our transportation resources will require massive amounts of money and leadership and of course time to implement the mass transist systems we will need for passengers and freight as well as personal transport devices.
    These limits of which I write are not political.  These are limits associated with implementation after we have agreement to provide the necessary resources.
    It will be an issue to bring the gap countries into the solution, but that will only be possible after we have shown the leadership to cut fossil fuel consumption and improve our quality of life for ourselves.
    Yes, we might fail.  The tipping points could begin to fall and in so doing damage our economy sufficiently that we will not have the resources to make the necessary infrastructure improvements for our people.  That would be a sad state of affairs.  We must not let it come to that.
    The election in 2008 will be critical.  The country is getting older and as a result many will exhibit the defeatist attitudes that many people develop as they age and experience dissappointments over the years.  People carry baggage from wrongs they experienced in the past and those experiences carry over into collective views, they cloud the vision.  Writers of defeat will find readers among those who are ready for defeat.
    I say let's move on and see those for the poor souls which they are, but I am not going to be so naive as to think this work before us is not daunting.

    Permalink

  6. jscorse Posted 2:33 am
    14 Nov 2006

    i too disagree with samuelson here..but he's actually a decent economist- he's just a cynical old curmudgeon that's all

    J.S.



    htt://voicesofreason.info

    Permalink

  7. Kit Stolz's avatar

    Kit Stolz Posted 11:03 am
    14 Nov 2006

    I don't get this, eitherWhy is it that enviros who bring to light serious problems facing all of humanity are criticized for "gloom and doom"--even though we want to act to avoid making matters much worse--when establishment types like Samuelson ignore countless obvious solutions such as simply using much less gas and that is called "conventional wisdom?!?"

    Permalink

  8. swozniak Posted 3:00 pm
    14 Nov 2006

    Bullshit indeedOne such solution is anaerobic digesters. Methane from animal dung (especially cows) in this country is one of the largest (and most underrated) contributors to GHGs. Digesters, whether on-farm or community, as in Europe, are a viable alternative.

    Permalink

  9. amazingdrx's avatar

    amazingdrx Posted 3:00 am
    16 Nov 2006

    Digesters! Yep swoz.All that biogas run through fuel cell/turbines at 75% efficiency, then the cO2 from the fuel cell run through algae biofuel growing solar systems.  To make more fuel for the fuel cell.  With a huge amount of biodiesel as the byproduct.
    Digesters are the missing link in the fuel cell/algae energy system.  By using biogas through fuel cells to provide the extra cO2 needed for accelerated algae growth, the use of coal fired power plant emissions can eventually be rendered unecessary.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  10. amazingdrx's avatar

    amazingdrx Posted 3:45 am
    16 Nov 2006

    "he's actually a decent economist"And as we have seen here before, that does not necessarily make one an environmentalist or capable of avoiding sophistry.  Hehey.
    Sorry J, too good a straight line!
    Economics pretends to be scientific, but the major chaotic element introduced in the equation, humanity itself, makes it mainly speculation.
    How does that greewashy Dow commercial put it?  We work with elements and compounds. But the main element in our business is "Hu".

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  11. kmp Posted 4:54 am
    16 Nov 2006

    Glummosaurus!gets my vote for Word of the Week.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement