An Inconvenient Price

Enter Your Comment

For an essay which purports to be a cost-benefit analysis (as per, say, the first sentence), it would be refreshing to see actual analysis of the benefits or the costs. Much of the essay is little more than a defense of apathy with regards to this issue, several points of which are ridiculous ("increasing species richness" in the Arctic, and that global warming is about deaths from extreme heat and cold rather than much more widespread climatic effects. The possibility that there might exist sane, moderate steps to combat AGW that would have other benefits as well (reduced energy consumption, pollution, and dependence on foreign energy supplies; attaining a position of leadership in green technologies which will become necessary someday regardless of the severity of global warming) does not even appear to be considered. And as for the costs... there is absolutely no serious attempt to assess the costs of attempting to combat AGW. Mr. Will takes a free kick at farm subsidies by way of dismissing global impact on agriculture and then asserts that the costs of fighting AGW have nothing to do with any specific proposed policy and apparently everything to do with a vast left-wing conspiracy to destroy capitalism. Any possible effort to reduce human impact on climate change in likened to slowing all commerce and transportation to walking speed. That is not analysis -- that is as rigidly dogmatic and hyperbolic a statement as anything environmentalists are accused of for daring to suggest that maybe we should actually consider what effect we might be having on the world's climate.

I should not that I am not what one would call a "zealot" and I have no interest in saying conservatives "eat babies" or some such. It is sad that such is the quality of current discourse on the internet that I cannot blame someone of any political persuasion for immediately assuming an ad hominem attack is imminent. I am a left of center Democrat (former Republican), and I would say the energy independence argument vis a vis Mid-East oil is equally as powerful as the climate change argument when it comes to the need to engage in an aggressive program to change the energy economy. Consistent lefties should have no interest in funding governments like the one in Saudi Arabia and Syria (and, dare I say, Iran), which stand for everything that American liberals are supposed to be against. I am still friends with a great many conservatives, and none of them "eats babies." However, even though I'm a capitalist (or perhaps BECAUSE I am), I'm wary of any corporation that has an interest in preserving the status quo against new potential competitors (the modern energy industry as opposed to new alternative energy industries.) Even Eisenhower warned us against the influence of corporations with a financial stake in the outcome when it comes to making policy decisions for the good of the country.

I should not that I am not what one would call a "zealot" and I have no interest in saying conservatives "eat babies" or some such. It is sad that such is the quality of current discourse on the internet that I cannot blame someone of any political persuasion for immediately assuming an ad hominem attack is imminent. I am a left of center Democrat (former Republican), and I would say the energy independence argument vis a vis Mid-East oil is equally as powerful as the climate change argument when it comes to the need to engage in an aggressive program to change the energy economy. Consistent lefties should have no interest in funding governments like the one in Saudi Arabia and Syria (and, dare I say, Iran), which stand for everything that American liberals are supposed to be against. I am still friends with a great many conservatives, and none of them "eats babies." However, even though I'm a capitalist (or perhaps BECAUSE I am), I'm wary of any corporation that has an interest in preserving the status quo against new potential competitors (the modern energy industry as opposed to new alternative energy industries.) Even Eisenhower warned us against the influence of corporations with a financial stake in the outcome when it comes to making policy decisions for the good of the country.

philmon: It's "poorly researched" because it's a book report, essentially, that follows Lomborg's work uncritically. Some of the points are laughable -- warming increases Arctic biodiversity only in the sense that the Arctic will be increasingly crowded with cold-weather populations squeezing into the shrinking cold climatic zone. It's hypocritical in that Mr. Will says environmentalists are ridiculous for ignoring the possible financial costs of fighting AGW and using hyperbole to make their case -- and then he goes on to ignore the environmental costs (uncritically accepting a single source) and uses hyperbole to make his own point (by saying that fighting AGW will be more or less economically the same as applying a 5mph world speed limit). It's a shame to print this essay not because it opposes my view, but because it is based on lousy research and hypocrisy. And because an issue as potentially portentious as global warming deserves something serious. If Mr. Will wanted to cite something other than one book to credibly challenge the major cornerstones of AGW research, or if he had done any kind of reasonable back-of-the-envelope cost-benefit analysis instead of flippantly saying fighting global warming is the same as forcing the world to operate at walking speed, I might have been able to respect his position, even if I didn't agree with it. Not this.

It is not about warming, it is about change. Things change, and each change comes with a price. Those who don't understand it, can't deal with it, or directly suffer from it get screwed by it. Are we doomed? Depends upon who 'we' might be, but not me.

You couldn't be more wrong about how we conservatives feel about the "can-do" spirit and the capability, ambition, and resolve of the American people. We don't have laser eyes, either. ;-)

George is talking about the AGW theory and the associated pontificating and fear mongering that seems to go along with it. Lomborg and Will are pointing out that if you try to legislate it away, or treaty it away, you'll either get ignored treaties or people will have to make sacrifices far beyond canvas shopping bags, buying a hybrid, and changing your light bulbs to compact flourescents (that last one I've done, by the way, even though they contain toxic mercury. It's cheaper and I have confidence we'll be going to LED or mercury-free flourescents soon. There's some of that confidence in our ambition and resolve.)

It's got nothing to do with my opinion on the AGW theory, but frankly, I want us off of fossil fuels, at least foreign ones -- especially middle eastern ones --and no, it's not because I'm "racist" or "hate" middle easterners. I know that's the liberal narrative. Conservatives "hate", are "racist facists" (or nazis, depending on the mood of the liberal at the time) and we don't love the planet and like killing little babies. It's nonsense. We're your neighbors and co-workers. We're quite normal human beings, honest. We tend to be a bit quieter than our liberal counterparts, holding our tounges to avoid being shouted down by some zealot. So you don't always know who we are.

But when it comes to talking about AGW -- it's got nothing to do with whether or not I support the fossil fuel industry, it has to do with whether or not the theory is correct. Tying questions and doubts about its validity with whether or not we have faith and a work ethic is folly. The fact of the matter is we have very bright people working on these relatively new technologies, but they just aren't up to matching energy demand yet. People in general have no idea how much energy they use and what it takes to produce it. But we will get there whether we run out of oil or not. As one Saudi Prince said years ago, "the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones."

Mr. Will, and many others, have fallen prey to the false dichotomy that has been foisted upon us by those with an financial interest in maintaining the fossil fuel economy. It is a logical fallacy to assert some kind of adversarial relationship must exist between environmentalism on the one hand and economic growth on the other. It is not as though alternative energy sources will be free. The last I checked, one still must pay for the services of power companies that derive energy from hydroelectric and nuclear sources. The same will be true of hydrogen combustion, hydrogen fuel cell, advanced solar and other new energy sources. It will be a new energy economy, not the end of an energy economy, not the destruction of the energy economy. My real question for Mr. Will is as follows: Where is the "can-do" American spirit he and his fellow conservatives continually go on about? Where is his faith in the American ethic that produced rural electrification, that built a massive interestate transportation system, that performed the "industrial miracle" in WWII, all in a stunningly short amount of time? I still believe we have that kind of capability, ambition, and resolve. Apparently, Mr. Will and his fellow conservatives do not.

Mr. Will, and many others, have fallen prey to the false dichotomy that has been foisted upon us by those with an financial interest in maintaining the fossil fuel economy. It is a logical fallacy to assert some kind of adversarial relationship must exist between environmentalism on the one hand and economic growth on the other. It is not as though alternative energy sources will be free. The last I checked, one still must pay for the services of power companies that derive energy from hydroelectric and nuclear sources. The same will be true of hydrogen combustion, hydrogen fuel cell, advanced solar and other new energy sources. It will be a new energy economy, not the end of an energy economy, not the destruction of the energy economy. My real question for Mr. Will is as follows: Where is the "can-do" American spirit he and his fellow conservatives continually go on about? Where is his faith in the American ethic that produced rural electrification, that built a massive interestate transportation system, that performed the "industrial miracle" in WWII, all in a stunningly short amount of time? I still believe we have that kind of capability, ambition, and resolve. Apparently, Mr. Will and his fellow conservatives do not.

Oh, and "shame on Newsweek" for printing an opinion piece? What, some impressionable mind might read the blasphemy and become a non-believer? "Free Speech! (but only if I approve)".

Thank you for one of the most reasoned, understandable commentaries I've read in a long time. I'm so tired of this being an us against them, a right versus left, a rich against the poor argument. It should be and hasn't been a scientific issue. Now that politics has taken over, because of a politician, the science no longer matters. And that's a sad day for everyone.

This is one of the smirkiest, short-sighted, ill-researched, don't-touch-my-stock-dividends, apathy-rationalizing dismissals of a global problem I have ever read. I understand that Newsweek feels the need to carry both liberal and conservative commentary on current issues, but this "analysis" is such a joke that it should be embarrassing even to conservatives and environmental skeptics. Does George Will really believe that the effects of global warming will be limited to how many people will be killed by extreme cold and extreme heat? Are the full extent of the meteorological and agricultural impact utterly lost and to be swept aside out of hand?

In a fit of hypocrisy, Mr. Will accuses environmentalists about gross hyperbole about the dangers of global warming and neglect of any economic impact... and then presents actual hyperbole about the dangers of 5mph "global slowing," arguing that the economic impact of fighting global warming would be similarly catastrophic without presesnting a shred of evidence, all while neglecting or dismissing the potential impact of warming.

A real, conservative, cost-benefit analysis opinion piece might have bothered to look at the actual projected costs of both likely warming scenarios and proposed mitigation policies, rather than merely taking refuge in the same sort of hyperbole Mr. Will accuses his opponents of. Newsweek should be ashamed -- not for printing a conservative viewpoint on a current hot topic -- but for printing such a poorly researched and poorly considered piece, particularly on an issue that could reach far, far beyond the political peccadillos of the day.

Newsweek, a new high...the amount of logical fallacies in this article is at an all time high. Agrumentum ad absurdum, The classic straw man, argumentum ad homenum, I could go on ...the problem is the people who understand what i am talking about already agree, and the people who have no idea what i just said are too busy stuffing their faces to care

I honestly hope this is Mr. Will's last word. He has read, or at least cited, only one, 1, source and now considers himself expert enough to chastise not only (I assume) Mr. Gore and the Nobel committee, but every person who cares about the earth. He is the ultimate spin doctor. Now I can buy an SUV the size of a hotel and smack on a bumper sticker about how I spew carbon into the air because I care. Oil companies are now earth's saviors. The only thing that scares me more than Mr. Will actually printing this middle school level book summary (very poorly cited as he pretends to have researched the topic; no recess for you, Mr. Will), is that people will read it. I can't bear the thought of some GFW jr. reciting this article to me as scientific fact. What ever happened to integrity? Mr. Wills must have left his at the high tide line, just before the rising sea took it away.

This is an idiot's attempt at down-playing a global problem! I hope the audience this author was trying to reach was the un-educated and gullable, because anyone who has read anything of scientific literature would tell you this is a bunch of crap. Warm the earth up to save lives?! As someone who has been actively involved in Artic and Antarctic travel, and also one with a science degree and years of experience I can tell you that the author of this article has dollar signs in his agenda and not the well being the the modern world. 2-5 degrees would be enough to destroy the polar ice caps in time, and if they go that would mean that all weather as we know it would go, likely driving us right back into another ice age. Maybe if Mr. Author had done any sort of research he would have been smart enough to not discuss a subject he knows nothing about.

Without a doubt George Will has neither read the UN's IPCC report nor studied climate change. Isn't it about time Mr. Will apologized to us about just how wrong he's been in the past about climate change, Iraq and the Bush administration? Do you actually pay him money to write this stuff? Perhaps he should consider a nice little retirement home in Darfur and then come back and tell us climate change has its perks.

Enter Your Comment

So this is the new tactic of the right. Having fail to convince Americans that Global Warming was a hoax. Now, George is trying to convince Americans that global warming is real but a 2 to 5 degree temperature increase will not only be benefical but it is too costly to try and change it. What he doesn't say but implies is that global warming will stop at a 2 to 5 temperature rise rather then continually to rise exponentially. What scientists are finding is that globally warming is increasing faster than anticipated. There is the ice caps that reflected rays melted that now leave the oceans to warm faster, the permafrost and ice release carbon that was previously trapped, and methane below the oceans that could blow the doors off temperature increase. And this is the first three year string of category five hurricanes. George is morally wrong try and mislead Americans.

Enter Your Comment