Jim Manzi is Wrong, Thank God
- Posted by ryan on June 18th, 2008 filed in Environment
Conservatives are going to win on climate change, says Jim Manzi. How? By repeating, ad infinitum, that emissions reductions aren’t possible/are too expensive. Now, it’s no doubt clear to all of you that I think Manzi is very much wrong on the economics, but I also think he’s absolutely wrong on the politics. For one thing, the cost-benefit, discount rate discussion is not going to be a political winner. That’s not how voters think, and that’s not going to be the kind of thing to get them impassioned.
The public would be likely to entertain an argument that emissions reductions will increase energy costs, but the problem here is that Republicans are not going to be able to reduce energy costs. No one will. So all Democrats have to say is that, look, these costs are going to continue to rise. Better then to make an effort to switch to renewable fuels that don’t involve massive emissions and massive transfers of wealth to fossil fuel exporting nations. The Republican position will also be very vulnerable to the (not inaccurate) charge that they’re primarily concerned about the bottom lines of big energy companies.
But to see why the GOP will ultimately have to join Democrats on this issue or face political disaster, all you have to do is pick up a newspaper, or talk about the news with anyone who doesn’t cover these issues for a living. The weather has been really freaky recently, and that’s not coincidental. It’s going to get worse. You’re going to see oddly intense storms, and stories about droughts and desertification, and heart-wrenching tales of cuddly animal extinctions. And then you’re going to see pictures of thousands of dead Bangladeshis and millions of climate refugees. And the GOP is going to win electoral victory forever by saying that all we need to do is build bigger levies.
No, Republicans will not win on this issue.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I was having a e-mail conversation with my uncle the other day. He’s a Republican, a Catholic and lives in Iowa. He also happens to be an oil industry lobbyist.
We don’t, obviously, agree on everything. He believes that global warming is being overstated. He’s an Iowan though, so not given to hysteria. However, we do agree on the need to change our thirsty oil habits. To drive more sensible cars, if at all. To increase bicycle and pedestrian access. To improve transit, especially inter-city rail (small midwest cities have been particularly hurt by cutbacks at airlines).
The GOP leadership is on the losing side here. They are completely out of touch with the way people are perceiving the ecology of their surroundings. The denial from the GOP leadership is almost comical.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“Better then to make an effort to switch to renewable fuels that don’t involve massive emissions and massive transfers of wealth to fossil fuel exporting nations.”
Yes, and…
Better to invest in more efficiency and work on smart techniques for reducing demand. So that we’ll use less energy and at the same time have a good quality of life.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
The denial from the GOP leadership is almost comical.
I’ve found that the attitudes of leadership tend not to stray far from that of their constituency. That goes for both sides of the aisle.
Next to compounded interest, the most powerful force in the universe is self-delusion. “This dress makes me look thin!” “I’m a great parent!” “Market forces can fix this!” “The government’s there to protect me!”
June 19th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Your analysis seems correct as long as the argument is regarding future pain. Would John Q. Citizen be willing to pay hypothetical dollars to save the planet? Sure. No problem.
However, if Democrats take power and impose real costs on the consumption of fossil fuels — and anything short of that would just be hot air — then Republicans should be able to get some traction asking whether the pain is really worth it.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/uah_may_08.png
You can adjust and massage the surface data all you want but the clock is ticking.
http://www.spaceweather.com
tick tock, tick tock, the cooling is coming. You better start salting your foot.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Amen and thank you for post on Jim Manzi.
The GOP is sadly unqualified for the job of managing the environment. I am not implying that it is impossible for the GOP or any conservative to manage the environment, but environmental issues cannot be negotiated to fit into a political ideology like conservatism. The issues are too broad and complex. For example, the current model of environmental management under the Presidency of George W. Bush is lacking and doesn’t work because its too self serving. Furthermore, the leaders are incompetent because they are unqualified.
Environmentalism as a think-tank and very broad mass movement has been hard at work to solve environmental issues RATIONALLY.
To their own detriment, conservatives have not been involved in the environmental debate. However, they are realizing they need to be part of the environmental discourse in order to be relevant. Unfortunately the conservative pundits and politicians that do get involved with the debate cannot resolve their own agenda and ideology with the reality of environmental degradation.
Additionally, green conservatism is a farce. Green conservatives have cherry picked and hijacked elements from environmentalism and sell these elements as their more rational solution. However, these elements cannot stand alone. For example, quota systems can work (as in some Alaska fisheries) but they cannot work voluntarily because there must be a regulatory body governing the process otherwise some people will cheat.
In my opinion, it is a classic example of too little too late. As time passes and the world population continues to grow no one can afford to be obtuse about environmental issues. Personally, I believe in preaching the laws of thermodynamics ad nauseum. Our world is so small and it is amazing we have arrived so far.
I am motivated as an environmentalist to protect that progress.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
And the GOP is going to win electoral victory forever by saying that all we need to do is build bigger levies.
Wait, I thought the GOP wants lower levies, even at the risk of incurring higher deficits.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
And then you’re going to see pictures of thousands of dead Bangladeshis and millions of climate refugees.
If you’re counting on such images to get people to spend more on gas, I think you’re likely to be disappointed. Historically Americans haven’t been willing to change their lifestyles based on the suffering of people a long way away.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Historically Americans haven’t been willing to change their lifestyles based on the suffering of people a long way away.
How about seeing American climate refugees? Hello New Orleans? Hello Iowa?
June 20th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
From what I’ve read above, most of you believe that the current weather patterns being experienced around the globe have never occurred before? And, you all have a reasonable idea of what “normal” weather is?
If we don’t increase our oil supply, what energy source will we use to develop the alternative energy sources? In the meantime, China will be using coal and oil to develop itself and perhaps eventually usurp the U.S.’s title as the only world superpower. CO2 emissions reduction may then become the least of our concerns.
PS- There appears to be sufficient scientific disagreement on the cause of global warming (which appears now to be moving toward global cooling) to warrant high-level public debate. Failure to do so may result in massive expenditures to cure a problem that doesn’t exist, i.e., CO2 is not the cause of GW.