Global Warming: Sacrificing Conventional Wisdom

At least Charles Gibson asked a question about global warming at Saturday night's presidential candidate debate in New Hampshire, which is more than you can say for many of his colleagues in the political press corps according to the League of Conservation Voters.

But the way Gibson framed the question couldn't have been worse. Here is what he said:

...reversing or slowing global warming is going to take sacrifice. ...Al Gore favors a carbon tax. None of you have favored a carbon tax. Is it a bad idea, or is it just so politically unpalatable that you guys don't want to propose it?

I have addressed the cap v. tax issue in a previous post, but it's also worth noting that Al Gore supports a cap on global warming pollution. He has also suggested a carbon tax as a complementary measure. He does not "favor" a tax over a cap.

Most troubling is the premise, stated as an indisputable fact, that "slowing global warming is going to take sacrifice." The Greatest Generation made real sacrifices, in blood and treasure, to win World War II. Winning the fight against global warming will be a picnic in the park by comparison.

How much of a sacrifice will it really be to drive plug-in hybrid cars, powered mostly by wind and biofuels, that get 500 miles per gallon of gasoline? How much of a sacrifice will it be live in well-insulated homes and work in offices that have better quality light using one-quarter as much electricity? Not to mention the payoffs: preventing catastrophic global warming, cleaner air, and an end to our dependence on foreign oil.

This doesn't mean that slowing global warming won't require big changes. It will. According to McKinsey and Co. we will need to redirect more than $1 trillion of investment over the next 25 years, but savings from energy efficiency improvements created by this investment will roughly offset the incremental cost.

Consumers may face higher energy prices, but with the right policies most will see their bills go down. The valuable allowances created by a carbon cap will need to be allocated thoughtfully to ensure that low-income consumers, mineworkers and autoworkers are not left holding the bag.

Creating the new energy economy we need to slow global warming is a huge opportunity, not a sacrifice. It's time for the political press corps to dig a little deeper and challenge conventional wisdom, rather than simply repeat it.

Comments

[nowaterboardUSA]

Well whether you believe global warming is a serious issue or not oil and pollution are. Pollution is a bad problem world wide and we only have a FINITE supply of oil and coal. It took millions of years of various natural and geological processes to create the oil and coal that the world uses by the megatons daily and is running out even faster because of the industrialization of China & India. More fuel effiecient and alternative energy sources will become a must as the cost of the dwindling oil and coal rise.

[dave]

Until free market-capitalism is seen as a true enemy of the planet we won't make any progress on global warming.

[Pandu]

Why are we still talking about cars? Agriculture has more of an effect on global warming, and any meat-eater can easily reduce their impact by not eating meat. The difference would be greater than that of buying a hybrid car.

And since meat is so filthy-nasty-disgusting, quitting eating it is actually quite nice.

[elkabong]

Here's a car that runs on compressed air and can travel 125 miles on a $3 fill-up:

http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2008/01/this_is_awesome.html

Of course, the makers of gas guzzlers will allow it in the US over their dead bodies by Fisher.

[Boxorox]

Dan,

You obviously have not grasped the scale of the program that would be required in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the proposed 50 percent of 1990 levels (at least) as the campaign wants us all to accept. This kind of change is far more than a walk-instead-of-drive, change-your-lightbulbs proposition. It means a complete overhaul of our lifestyles to revolutionize our society, based on an ASSUMPTION (and a faulty one) that reducing CO2 emissions will influence natural climate behavior.
The fight global warming campaign is not really based on any sincere desire to save the world or to reverse perceived unnatural changes in our environment. Instead it is purely a program that is designed to undermine our modern society, curb industrial output, overturn capitalism and delivery absolute power to those who have designed this crisis and present themselves our saviors who claim to know how to solve this non-problem, non-crisis.
If I'm going to make sacrifices, I'm going to make them for something that counts, like solving pollution and putting my kids through college. A carbon tax will certainly undermine my ability to achieve the latter.

[TellingTruth2Kooks]

Global Warming is a Hoax, and CO2 is not the Driver. In the last 100,000 yrs, the Earth's climate has been stable, flucuating about 5C, with 2.5C above & below the Mean Average temperature. Currently we are +1C, and that means we could rise another 1.5C and still be considered in the Normal Range of Global Climate.
AGW is nothing more than a Globalization Tax Scheme, that wants to spend some 36 Trillion dollars, to try and save 12 Trillion dollars of Infrastructure, as if we are all too stupid to get out of raising water, should that even happen anyway. All Science is Provisional, and since we don't have Hardcore data to back up the Science, we have to use "Proxies" (Guesses) to fill in the Blanks.
Air Pollution is truly a Common Health hazard, but CO2 is not, and Considering that we 300 million americans out of 6.5 BILLION People worldwide, we only make a small fraction of the Earth's population but they want us to pay most of the Costs, to try and do something that will never work, and is NOT A THREAT!!!
If you truly want to fight CO2, plant a Tree!

[FearlessFreep]

One word: rationing.

[veracitatus]

Sorry Dan.

You are a dreamer and haven't got the first idea of how, for example, alternative energies are going to replace fossil fuels.

No sacrifice huh? Better go back and do the math my friend. There will be sacrifice aplenty.

It is the business-as-usual crowd, the neocons, and the neo-classical economists who are selling this story about a rosy future. Physicists take a very different view. Which side are you on? Primrose laners or hardnosed realists.

V.

[eddiestardust]

BTW,

Al Gore did not run because we are not ready to meet the challenge yet of Global Warming.

[KevinPuppos]

OVERTHROW Government !
DESTROY Law !
USE FORCE ! !

[dgscol]

There is very little to do about global warming when our industrial sector is practically nonexistent. How can we build more efficient cars when they are being made in China?

[Namtillaku]

BTW, for those who care. There is a great interview with James Hansen (NASA Climate Scientist) on Fresh Air today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13

[Namtillaku]

The 'we' Gibson is speaking about are oil companies, and short sighted ones like car companies that are resistant to change.

[sheila]

GAH! NRDC IS SUCH A BIG PART OF THE "LACK OF VISION" PROBLEM!!!!

When are you going to finally get the point that there is an enormous, enormous difference between so-called "renewable" energy which dynamites, bulldozes and paves over "green power killing fields" which PERMANENTLY destroy entire ecosystems (helllooo Mojave!), and TRULY green power which is generated entirely on PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND?

What's worse is that NRDC shouts down smaller, more intelligent environmental groups to spew their own totally destructive, short-term and wasteful version of "green power," which is a total giveaway to Big Utilities and Friends, or should i say "relatives?" (helllooooo Citizen's Energy!).

Evidence of destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of fragile wilderness is swept under the rug by the hired help while your buddies smugly congratulate themselves at "green networking" events hosted in their 10,000+ square foot "eco-mcmansions." Makes me want to puke on your hemp Prada sneakers.

I for one, totally oppose your pro-annihilation stance when it comes to killing wilderness to save a few bucks for utilities, and i will keep shouting it until everyone hears me.

Remote generation and transmission which harms wilderness cannot, under any definition, be "Green," so face the facts and change your policy. You can't kill entire ecosystems directly in order to protect them from being killed indirectly by greenhouse gases, so knock it off.

[davidly]

From the perspective of city dwellers who still refuse to give up their cars, as well as all of those who can't seem to ease up on the whipping around the corner to pick up a few things, and all of those folks driving ALONE in their SUVs, who outnumber, by the way, the number of people they speed past waiting for the bus at the corner of Belmont and Lake Shore Drive in Chicago every morning, it would be a pretty darn HUGE sacrifice.

When are all of these big changes gonna take place?

[realitytrumpsbull]

As far as I'm concerned, Larry Niven hit this one out of the park a long time ago, in his book "Fallen Angels"
http://www.baen.com/library/067172052X/067172052X.htm
It's a great read!