The thing you really never hear 10

This column from Newsweek editor Evan Thomas is largely a witless recitation of conventional wisdom, but it does raise one point I want to make.

It seems to me that every mainstream media figure in the world is out there saying a) tackling global warming is going to be horrendously expensive, involving great sacrifice and hardship on the part of ordinary families, and b) no one else has the courage to say A.

But obviously everybody has the courage to say it. It's conventional wisdom. Like the "courageous" but equally false notion that Social Security is in crisis, it's one of these talismans Beltway types brandish at one another to vouchsafe their status as Serious People. It could not be a more safe, predictable theme.

What you almost never hear about is the horrendous costs that will come if we don't tackle global warming -- the rapidly spiraling costs of the status quo. That, not stasis, is the real alternative. When will someone in Thomas' cozy position start talking about that? It might even make for a column worth reading.

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

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Sean Casten's avatar

    Sean Casten Posted 4:05 am
    27 Apr 2008

    DavidThe thing you really never hear is that reducing fossil fuel use saves money.  Which is crazy, since you have to pay for it.
    The problem with this piece therefore isn't that they don't address the cost of climate change (lamentable as that is), but that it parrots the CW that GHG reduction costs money.
    Worse, they assert it as fact:
    "Making a serious dent in global warming would be hugely costly."
    Says who?  Says Evan Thomas, and every other journalist who parrots this meme without first doing a half second of logical thought.  Note that I'm not even suggesting they ought to do more research.  Just a few moments of quiet reflection is all it takes to realize what a bizzaro-assumption this is.  Every Btu of fossil fuel we don't burn is a couple bucks we save.  Which means that every efficiency investment, renewable investment or conservation investment (e.g, live closer to work) saves us money.  The only question is whether or not the initial cost required to save that fuel is big or small relative to the annual savings.  (e.g., how big is the return on that fuel-saving investment).  But even a 1% return on investment is an economic growth engine.  So what, praytell, is the basis for assuming that reducing that fuel use is costly?  There's only one way that's logical: if we make maximal use of every fossil Btu we take out of the ground.  There are no leaks.  There are no suboptimal economic decisions.  There are no subsidies.  There is no possibility to put thicker insulation in Evan Thomas' house.  Come on.  
    As my three year old daughter says, "stop goofin".

    Permalink

  2. The Groovy Mind Posted 5:20 am
    27 Apr 2008

    No Price to Pay - PricelessIt's just so typical of the average American, including the media, to consider our natural resources free and limitless, that so many years of overuse and abuse won't cost us anything. Capitalism at it's most defiant... It's not about substance or quality or a question of abundance (with respect to resources) but about how much profit you make. That's why there's a lot of bitching and moaning going on (fear of regulations and compliance)and a lot of false claims that we don't have to be concerned about the environment.
    The Groovy Mind

    Make a difference with your groovy mind!

    Permalink

  3. bigTom Posted 6:42 am
    27 Apr 2008

    Putting off the demise of fossil fuels.  This reminds me of cutting down the last old growth forest to preserve lumber mill jobs for a few months longer. Peal Oil, Peak Coal, Peak Gas will be upon us shortly, so we are arguing about taking the last tree to continue BAU just a bit longer.

    Permalink

  4. mike365 Posted 8:01 am
    27 Apr 2008

    Deferring the costThe initial cost associated with implementing cleaner technologies like solar or wind might be somewhat higher than old coal and natural gas, but any kind of carbon emission regulation will pretty much immediately drive the operating costs of fossil fuels way up.  And as you mentioned, doing nothing now and having to clean up our mess in the future would unquestionably dwarf the short-term costs.  Recent numbers put the cost at $9 trillion.  That's 20% of global GDP, and without doubt a cost of that magnitude would lead to a global recession.  
    The entire point of thinking about "green" issues is to change our point of view from the very short term to the somewhat longer-term.  Yet there is a perceived credibility behind people who argue about the short-term costs of preventing climate change.

    Permalink

  5. LGT Posted 4:45 pm
    27 Apr 2008

    Pluralistic IgnoranceWhat you almost never hear about is the horrendous costs that will come if we don't tackle global warming
    "social proof" is a deep-seated human urge to do the "right thing!"

    Permalink

  6. LGT Posted 4:47 pm
    27 Apr 2008

    I meant to add a link to... something I read recently:

    http://msrb.wordpress.com/selected-articles-and-links/dia ...

    Permalink

  7. socialscientist Posted 12:23 am
    28 Apr 2008

    Not mentioned...Sean, are you saying the emperor has no clothes?

    .

    .

    Another thing you won't hear. Public transportation. There is a blackout on this subject and almost all the major "environmentalist" groups are observing it.

    .

    .

    We should make urban public transit fare-free.

    .

    Permalink

  8. Sean Casten's avatar

    Sean Casten Posted 12:47 am
    28 Apr 2008

    SocialscientistsIt depends on who this proverbial emperor is... : )
    All I know for sure is that the GHG conversation is dominated by nudists who claim a royal pedigree.

    Permalink

  9. Baby Boomer Posted 1:32 am
    28 Apr 2008

    I'm too old-fashioned for thisOK, I looked at the Newsweek column, found the guy a little smug and presumptious and then read the comments.  Holy cow! I should stick with Grist!  I like reading the comments over here because there is discussion and different points of view and now I realize, I like the fact there's not a lot of name calling.
    I wanted to post and say Global Climate Change is a scary fact we must face, but I might have been called an elitist or Stalinist who wanted the government to force us into slave labor camps and make us give up our cars.  
    Hey, I'm an older, very middle class American with simple Christian viewpoints who happens to like to read and be up-to-date on issues.  I'm not in charge of anything, but I'm concerned about the condition of the earth and what my grandchildren will inherit.  I graduated from a state university in Georgia, worked my whole life, and sue me, I think a higher being wants us to take care of His/Her creation.  
    I don't feel elite or commie-pinko.  Why is there so much hating and labeling on blogs in general????
    Go Grist!

    Permalink

  10. GuillaumeMauger Posted 4:04 am
    28 Apr 2008

    Actually...Michael Pollan did so very eloquantly in the NYT green issue last week:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-lede-t. ...
    He made a strong case for the urgency of our predicament, and discussed the relative valor of individual action vs. legislative/policy changes.
    cheers,

    Guillaume

    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