GOPideas... ideas done right

The demands of soundbite politics combined with the manufactured sensationalism required to break through the media clutter have obscured the real debate that needs to occur so the world can effectively manage global environmental issues, specifically, climate change. On one side are the hysterics,  led by Al Gore, James Hansen and others who claim that climate change will have a cataclysmic effect on the world. On the other are Sen. James Inhofe, who claims that global warming is a hoax. Both side make news, both sides make noise, both have ardent supporters --- and both are doing a disservice. Their disservice is not in adhering to their beliefs, but rather a failure to argue the issue from an intellectually honest perspective.

The root of this dishonesty is that the potential impacts of climate change are, by definition, not fully known (we have not lived through it, so we don’t know, exactly, what will happen). Therefore, the question is inherently probabilistic, not deterministic. In essence, the potential outcomes are vast, running the gamut from total cataclysm to no effect. Thus, the argument should be focused on a.) what are the probabilities attached to each potential outcome and b.) what are the costs associated with each of those outcomes.

After Hurricane Katrina, I was watching a joint interview with Hansen and Gore, when Gore linked Katrina with climate change and Hansen echoed NOAAs prediction that the 2006 hurricane season would be also very active --- (insert hand wringing here) --- due to climate change. Long story short, 2006 was one of the lightest hurricane seasons. In other words, the scientist who is held out as the leader on climate change and its effects was wrong on his predictions. The opponents are right to point this out because the policies that Hansen and Gore propose would cost trillions in lost efficiency and we should not base our future economic prosperity on the someone who is proven to be an inaccurate predictor of future climate events.

Or so the story goes. Hansen and Gore should not be skewered for advocating for reductions in greenhouse gases. They should be skewered for attempting to use discreet events to intone a pattern which, in turn, would scare people into agreeing with their position. Predicting a hurricane season is a probabilistic event: the factors that cause hurricanes are so varied, exogenous and interdependent that no one can predict with any certainty the final outcome --- they can only examine the data and provide a best guess. And let’s be clear, predicting the weather is exactly that: a guess. And making drastic policy choices based on guesses is foolhardy.

But equally foolhardy is understanding that credible evidence exists that a global calamity *could* occur and doing nothing to stem its (potential) tide. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere. We have seen high global temperatures more frequently in the last two decades than in the past centuries. Ice sheets have shrunk. These are observable facts and blithely concluding that this is just a natural fluctuation is willful ignorance.

More Republicans seem to be to populate this end of the spectrum, so here is the question for them: what insurance premium would you be willing to pay to prevent/forestall a global calamity. If one believes that a calamity is within the realm of possibility (and, it is), this number MUST be greater than zero. The issue is not if steps should be taken, but how much should be spent on taking those steps and who should pay.

Thus, the formula is simple, what is the shape and distribution of the probability curve of potential temperature, what are the resulting effects and what are the costs associated with ameliorating those effects. If you are Al Gore, you believe that the probability is high that temperatures will increase, the effects will be significant and the associated costs large. If you are a Sen. Inhofe, you believe the probability is low and any costs would be small.

However, Republicans should be willing to place an environmental “put” on the table: a willingness to spend small amounts to mitigate those effects that could be most devastating.  If a Republican President can find $700 billion for a financial services industry, Congressional Republicans should be able to find a few billion for clean coal, subsidized alternative energy, renewing alternative energy tax credits and then licensing the best technology around the world. Second, all policymakers should aceede to using social marketing to encourage more conservation and more efficiency. (Many of the best ideas can be seen in Nudge --- co-authored by an Obama appointee.)

Spending a little now is not only good policy, but also good politics --- although the Obama/Waxman energy plan is a terrible idea for a predictable reason: the left’s inability to disaggregate what they wish to occur with basic logic and history.

Comments are welcome, but for the comment to post to the public, you must supply an email address (this is to avoid spam comments). The email address will not be posted publicly and your email address will not be shared, sold or disclosed.