Fiddling as the Planet Warms

Ten years ago I got caught unaware during a TV debate on global warming. Midway through the show, the industry funded science denier I was debating unveiled a new argument. It was so daft I mistook it for a joke, thus appearing disrespectful when I meant to be congenial; proof again you can't be too careful on TV.

The global warming debate was already a decade old then. In 1988 the UN had drawn worldwide attention to it by forming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC) Many scientists were skeptical but as data poured in the doubters dwindled to a lonely but well heeled band, mostly in the pay of the oil and gas crowd.

At first they claimed global warming wasn't real. Later they switched to saying it's real, but it isn't man made. By the time of our debate they were testing a bold, new pitch: Global warming -- it's real, it's man made... and it's good for you! As I said, the first time I heard it I laughed.

I still hear global warming may improve life for those shoveling too much snow; that it will cut heating bills and extend growing seasons. I wonder: when we achieve the world's longest growing season, will we be acing out Sudan or Chad? I love sunshine as much as the next guy, but it's a lot less useful absent water and topsoil.

The energy industry's most effective argument is that moving to renewable energy hurts our economy. It's a lie. The short term transition cost is well below even the medium term cost of our continued denial.

The move to sustainable economics is the greatest revolution since the industrial age, far surpassing the impact of the more celebrated information technology boom. We profited handsomely by leading the last change. We'll pay as dearly for lagging behind this one.

If you can't see the lost opportunity cost, then simply consider the rising price of oil or the potential price of terrorist attacks. This much must be clear: the fight against global warming and the fights for energy independence and national security are one fight.

By around 2000 the energy industry was running out of bad arguments. It must have seemed a real Deus ex Machina when the Supreme Court appointed George Bush president. Who but he -- and maybe Cheney -- had the courage to get to the root of their problem (the facts) by letting industry lobbyists rewrite science in official government reports?

All the propaganda and official deception has put the country in a trance. At the Stop and Shop recently a man told me only bureaucrats, not scientists, believe in global warming, and that he likes his truck. Nothing like an informed citizenry. I silently saluted Bush and Rush and Fox and Mobil for all their fine work.

In October the IPCC, along with Al Gore, won the Nobel Prize. In November it issued an urgent warning: To a 90% certainty, global warming is real and man made; it's happening faster than scientists predicted; its consequences include drought, vast flooding and the likely extinction of a fourth of all living species.

In response to this news, Democratic presidential candidates spent all of five minutes in their last debate discussing energy. Republican presidential candidates have only scorn for Gore, the UN, the Nobel Prize and science generally. And then there's Bush, the Nero of global warming.

Future generations, indeed the very next one, will ask why we didn't kick Bush out the moment we learned he let oil companies cook the science in order to cook the planet. Sound extreme? It won't then, not even to those who think his lying his way into Iraq was a good thing.

At least we know Bush's motives. The silence of Democrats is a mystery. With Gore on the sidelines you'd think at least one candidate would see an advantage in taking up his cause. Chris Dodd calls for a carbon tax. Dennis Kucinich, while less specific, says many of the right things. All have the phrases down pat. It isn't nearly enough.

We need a cabinet level Department of Sustainable Development. For a fraction of the cost of Bush's Homeland Security boondoggle we could have one. Why hasn't anyone proposed it? The model would be the opposite of the homeland security and intelligence reorganizations; in short, a small department wielding a very big stick over jurisdictions left otherwise undisturbed.

Dodd's carbon tax, like Gore's doomed 1993 proposal, shows courage. The necessity for it is a near article of faith among environmentalists. But we can accomplish as much through rule making as we can with taxes. For reasons of economics and governance, as well as politics, it makes more sense.

Democrats in Congress want cars to get 35 miles a gallon by 2020. The IPCC thinks the game may be over by then. Computer chips double in power every 18 months. Why can't we double fuel efficiency in five years?

Stores sell energy saving appliances and light bulbs. Why is it even legal to sell the ones that waste energy?

The most devastating short term threat of global warming is to water supply. How many states must go up in flames, how many communities must ration their tap water for Congress to interest itself in the topic in a serious way?

It all comes down to belief. The craziest case Bush makes is that we can't act unless we're 100% certain; crazy because we ought to make these changes anyway; crazy because nothing in life is 100% certain. Must global warming be the one thing we're absolutely sure of before we lift a finger to save ourselves?

It's the same ploy Bush uses to avoid every inconvenient scientific truth, from the age of the universe to the genetic component of sexual identity. His arguments are laughable, which may explain why none was ever properly rebutted.

Assume all the manifest benefits of sustainable economics are illusory. Then assume the world's scientists are so far off on global warming that its risks and consequences are only half as great as they say. Then weigh the cost of action against the costs of inaction. Under the most conservative assumptions it's still clear: The present debate is insane.

Comments

[demockracy]

Former World Bank economist Herman Daly writes about sustainability, and what we do now doesn't even come close. Sustainability isn't on the U.S.'s public policy radar.

One of his most telling arguments is that we are bamboozled by the kinds of economists who know the price of everything, but not the value of the environment. Do I hear "Milton Friedman"?

The measurement of economic progress is particularly corrupt. Compare googles of "GDP" and "ISEW" for one example.

The way we measure oil production is another occasion for such crookedness, says Daly.

Conventional accounting calls oil production "income" when it is more accurately a withdrawl of natural capital.

If you think this is mere semantics, try applying for a loan sometime, and telling the loan officer that the content of your savings account (capital) is what you want to use as qualifying income. Be prepared to be escorted from the building by security as an insane person.

...but that's literally how we count our oil "wealth."

A little perspective: U.S. domestic oil production peaked in 1971 (price: $1.75/barrel, and only 30% of domestic consumption was imported). Currently the U.S. imports 70% of its oil consumption at $90+/barrel.

Despite the letters to the editor you'll read from hard-core right-wingers saying that "if only the enviros would let us drill, then we'd have plenty!" even if we ignored global warming and got all the oil in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge and all the sensitive offshore areas where environmentalists have prevented drilling, we would NEVER return to that peak of 1971.

This is completely non-controversial. Consult the American Petroleum Institute (api.org) -- that's the oil lobby, or Daniel Yergin's history of the industry ("The Prize"). Yergin is no tree hugger, having written in praise of Reagan/Thatcher.

Finally, the local solution: Stop developing sprawl. We must build pedestrian­-friendly, mixed-use, mixed-density cities. We don't now.

The Federal component of sprawl loan underwriting standards that don't require development of pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods (essential for transit), but there's plenty to do locally, too.

[joebaggadonuts]

rest of my post after cut-off...

So instead of building for a safe and clean world, we have destruction of mountaintops for coal, destruction of habitat, flouting of every safety and health regulation on the books with the active support of the heads of the agencies which should be expected to protect citizens from such behaviors.

Until the wheels come completely off, no one will pay for this damage and the criminal element will remain in control. Frankly, even after the wheels come off, I wonder if we can once again control our government, so wanton, widespread and entrenched have been its enablers. The mindset of the American public has been enfeebled by the misreading of reality which Ayn Rand and her followers have inculcated, and by the deep resort to hot button religious hatreds and fears abused by politicians trying to maintain power, and by the infusion of Hobbesian thought which has so completely cut off each citizen from his natural tendency to care about other citizens and even neighbor's welfare that it seems unlikely we will rise to the environmental challenge this time.

Even though the facts clearly show that the time of repair and reckoning which we went through because of these laws made America strong and invincible once, and the economic powerhouse of the Earth, the people of this nation somehow have been made to believe that it will destroy the economy if they even think about rising to this challenge.

Idiots.

[joebaggadonuts]

Bill, Thanks for all you do.

It seems that in the 1970s the people of the United States cared enough about their environment and cared enough about their government that we got things done... CAFE standards, Clean Air and Water laws, Endangered Species law, Superfund clean-up law, etc. As these laws cleaned up the obvious problems (not being able to breathe on a typical day in Los Angeles, for example), and as we started to believe that Government would do its job, something went horribly wrong. The deposed criminal government of Nixon got pardoned. The people forgot how hard it was to get rid of him and thought that the defeat of Nixon was enough to keep the criminals in check. It was not. They are now in control and the control is firmer and more dangerous than it was back then. They control the media, the money, the Constitutional and the UnConstitutional armed forces, the courts, the administrative agencies and even Congress to a large extent. They control the DoJ. Now they also have a TSA and HSA which they did not have back then. Could you imagine them putting Teddy Kennedy on a no-fly list back then? They did it under this regime and it took a while for even him to get off.

--350 word limit, see reply...

[Javani]

Point at Bush, put words he didn't say into his mouth, point at the oil industry, don't talk about the nuke and financial services/carbon marketeers pushing and paying for CO2 AGW "science."

Ho hum. The Global Warming craze will burst its bubble in a few years, inadvertantly validating by association all the anti-environmental tripe from the Limbaugh-types.

[Dalicious]

Every time political activists pretend to know something about science it scares me -- ever since my first anti-nuclear protest, when I found out none of my fellow protesters knew what radioactivity was. When you Dems try to tell me the debate is closed, that's when I know there is still much to be learned. But not by you! Your mind is already closed!

[Fez]

I attended the Wind Energy Applications Training Symposium sponsored by the National Renewable Energy Lab in Boulder last August. What was most striking to me about this 4-day course was the hard evidence in numerous presentations that wind energy is now CHEAPER than all other energy produced in this country except for "old" coal (power produced from older coal-fired powerplants where the costs of the mine and plant have already been paid). There was also much discussion about how the only impediment to building more wind towers across the country is utility companies that are already making a fortune on "dirty" pwerplants and have no incentive to switch to wind or solar energy. Even Warren Buffet has invested heavily in a company that is developing wind energy in the midwest. As usual it is the vested interests who are standing in the way of progress. Just know this... wind energy could produce 25% of the power in this country in 10 years with no increase in utility bills IF the state and federal governments provide minor financial incentives and force the utilities to include 15-25% of their power from renewable sources.

[MikeDu]

Global warming real, global warming's now, global warming's going to be a 10,000 year roller coaster ride for the planet (best case scenario).

Unfortunately, the way the world runs these days shifting *food* crops to biofuel may be another disaster in the making. Money-driven Big Agri appears to be perfectly willing to let most of the world starve or bankrupt itself feeding itself as Agribusiness shifts its worldwide corn crop over to producing some small percent of the worlds fuel needs. At least consider sugar cane and sugar beets. Both are infinitely more efficient at producing biofuel and have the adventage of not being staple food crops.

Nobody seems to talk about a crash program of CONSERVATION because there's no clear this-quarter corporate profits in conservation.

[certainot]

the GOP talk radio monopoly may have the largest overall succcess in global warming denial. it's part of limbaugh's daily routine. the GOP lies are blasted to 50-70MIL with little or no chance to challenge- unless you want to picket or boycott the local radio station.

[UtahLiberal435]

Whenever dealing with big, powerful, dinosaur industries, the stick is much more effective than the carrot. In addition to providing for the health of its citizenry, and an appropriate (not hysterical)level of national defence, corporate regulation is the highest and most important purpose of government.

Unfortunately, ever since Reagan, government has been the lap dog of unapologetically amoral corporate warlords.

[dchavern]

I am afraid that the issue is much worse than the writer is willing to admit. Candidates on both sides of the aisle have been shying away from energy and global warming -- not because of the power of corporate interests or "science deniers" or anyone else that is easy to demonize. They are staying away from it because their polling is telling them that the issuer is a loser with the voting public. Talking about the problem is easy -- talking about solutions is hard. Does the public "care" about the threat of global warming? You bet. Is the public willing to pay an extra 25 cents per gallon of gas to help address it? No way. We are getting to the dollars and sense part of the conversation and with a few exceptions (Dodd) politicians don't like to talk about things costing the public money.

You want presidential candidates to responsibly address thsi issue -- find a way to get the public to want to address it.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Wanna 'go green'? It's fiendishly simple.
Briskly walk over to your circuit breaker
panel, and push all the little lever thingies
over to the 'off' position. Congratulations,
you're no longer an electricity consumer.
If it happens to be daytime when you do this,
then you can turn the switch back on for the
refrigerator, if not, well, fumble around
in the dark until you find a clue and a flashlight...

Parking your car and not driving/idling needlessly is Another Great Way to Go Green.
What it comes down to is bringing cognitive
thought back into the daily process of living.
If you follow the money trail from the
watered-down gas pump to the multi-bill­ion-dollar overseas paradise on the sand dunes,
and the little trail of our representatives
that lie along that path, it becomes fairly
evident that it's Really Important to
consider how we use what we use, and to
use less of it. Not necessarily for the Varmint,
but to ensure that you've got enough fuel
to get to work next week. There's allll kinds
of little 'fun' going on these days with our
Con Me, as clearly illustrated by all the
mortgage B.S., and the ecopoltix(financed by
WHOM) that tells us we can't produce our
own energy locally, oh yes, what an ugly
mess the entire thing is, but that's what
professional politicians are good at,
tying the country in knots and then accusing
people of all kinds of things when they start
asking questions. Keep that Occam's Razor
nice and sharp, and don't take any wooden
nickels with Bush's face on em...waitaminute...
this one says 'made in China' on it...

[Chris]

Since global wamring is is near catastrophic why are many liberals against the wind farm off the Cape and in the moutnians of Northwestern Maine?

[sheila]

PLEASE! It is so much worse than you think!!!

not only do we NOT have a "Department of Sustainability" but thanks to Kenny Boy Lay and Dickhead Cheney, we have the 2005 "Energy Policy Act" which is BARRELING FORWARD to INCREASE wasteful, destructive and incredibly dangerous "remote generation and transmission" projects (massively profitable for utilities) and to DISPLACE LOCAL GENERATION OF RENEWABLES (like residential solar.

if we do not INSIST on a paradigm shift to LOCAL generation of renewables and away from the INSANITY of the spin-doctors' "strengthening the grid" crap, we are all doomed, even if there is some "too little too late" baloney about 20% "green power" - at the cost of 50,000 acres of pristine wilderness being destroyed to build it.

it is exactly this "remote generation" brainwashing that got us into this mess. grid/supply manipulation is not only possible, it is inevitable (see CA for examples). Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Conservation and LOCAL "green" generation are the only things that will save us.

this large-scale environmental destruction is underway NOW, so we have no time to lose!!! please help us stop LADWP before they turn the Joshua Tree area into the next Owens Valley:

www.stopgreenpath.com

[nagamaki]

It is not some pipe dream that someday there will be an automobile that runs on hydrogen emitting only water out the tailpipe. Or, lower cost higher efficiency solar panels, that can help power our homes and businesses. Those things are here today. Yet, we see this overwhelming corporate and governmental resistance to this type of change, that can only be explained by greed and ignorance. In order for this chain of corporate resistance to be broken a first domino must fall, and that is the for profit corporate lobbyists in Washington that promote resistance to change through their corrupt corporate money and government puppets on both sides of the aisle, and especially in the White house, must go.
We often think the energy and auto companies are the main culprits standing in the way of governmental action towards a greener future and they are, but the banking industry is holding their hand all the way.

[RobLewis]

Old marketing axiom: never present your product as the solution to a problem that is too horrible to contemplate.

I think Democrats have decided the issue is a loser, because it's so easy for Republicans to taunt them "They want to take your SUV away!" They may be right. But I sense that the mood of the public is shifting. The lack of leadership by both parties is pathetic and unconscionable, though. As someone said, why is averting a global catastrophe a partisan issue? Because the "economic Republicans" (i.e., wealthy) have hoodwinked the "values Republicans" into believing that it's all a librul plot and they can zing liberals by resisting action on climate change. How utterly sad.

Hey, I've got the answer: it's a slight variation of Bush's message after 9/11: it's your patriotic duty to go shopping. This time, it's energy-efficient products you need to shop for.