At Master Resource, Jim Manzi synthesizes several objections he’s aired to comprehensive greenhouse gas regulations in one easy-to-read Thomas Friedman take-down. I find this stuff pretty persuasive, but it’s worth noting that there’s real tension between objections to cap-and-trade grounded in rigorous cost-benefit analysis and objections to cap-and-trade grounded in, well, Senator Inhofe’s belief that “global warming is the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people.”

At its core, Manzi’s argument hinges on accepting the scientific consensus with respect to both the existence of global climate change and its probable impact. He uses the UN’s own projections to argue the economic costs of regulation outweigh the likelihood of catastrophic warming. On the other end of the conservative spectrum, we have people like Rick Santorum, whose recent op-ed helpfully compares  anthropogenic global warming to other well-known examples of crank science like The Theory of Evolution.

Aside from lazily gesturing at the uncertainty of scientific knowledge and repeating “ClimateGate” over and over again, Santorum doesn’t really have an argument against the existence of climate change. Unfortunately, this outlook seems to be the dominant strain of thought on the American Right (granted, the leaked CRU emails didn’t help matters). The problem with this approach is that straightfoward denialism is totally inconsistent with any attempt to grapple with the real costs of emissions controls – if there’s no danger from unregulated greenhouse gasses, why bother to see if the actual science of global warming demands immediate action?

Straightforward denialism allows those who favor aggressive emissions controls to shape the public’s perception of climate science. Instead of sober cost-benefit analysis, people who basically accept the existence of global warming (read: most of the voting public) are now more likely to think that climate change is catastrophic rather than incremental. The longer the right’s response to anthropogenic warming is dominated by the likes of Inhofe and Santorum, the longer this perception will linger, which doesn’t bode well for efforts to stop monstrously expensive cap-and-trade legislation.

Here’s an interesting back and forth from the combox to ED’s post on climate change. (Found in comment thread #1).

Kyle writes:

I think – to some degree – you’re conflating two theories that don’t have the relationship you’re purporting them to have.

Theory 1 – climate change, Theory 2 – markets and fuel.

You’re right that economic principles will, at some point, force an increase in the price of certain fossil fuels as they become scarcer (a combination of supply and demand changes) and higher energy prices will result in behavioral changes for consumers and changes to the type and number of producers in energy markets. If we assume climate change to be exacerbated by man-made activity, it’s still entirely unclear that by the time fuel scarcity prompts a mitigating change in human caused carbon emissions, there will still be time and resources enough to either reverse the shift or dampen its effects on the biosphere.

Shorter, mother nature knows no free market, only her own rules and timetables. e.g. The Dust Bowl

ED responds:

The Dust Bowl is certainly a good cautionary tale of improper agricultural techniques. I’m not sure it lines up exactly with climate change, however. Just as it’s entirely uncertain that fuel scarcity will prompt a mitigating change in human caused carbon emissions, it’s also entirely uncertain that it won’t, and even more uncertain that cap and trade will do anything whatsoever to curb emissions or slow climate change especially so long as China and India remain out of play.   (my italics)

On ED’s  last point—i.e. cap and trade has to be implemented across the globe or we are in prisoner’s dilemma territory and likely China and India (and Brazil) won’t go for it–I agree (and so does Kyle).

But I don’t really understand what ED is saying in that portion I italicized.  I’ll loop back to this point in a second, but first I’ll start by putting my cards on the table and saying that (as a layman in this field) I basically accept the (so-named) consensus scientific opinion that 350 parts per million is an acceptable level of carbon in the atmosphere. Beyond that we are in danger territory.  That level was passed in 1990.

I’m open to debate on the degree of danger and the best way to deal with that danger while still taking into account the current reality of poverty and disease.  But even there I mostly hold that what should be done is what is being called for by say a climate action network group. (pdf)

I also know politically there is no way what they call for is ever going to happen.

e.g. (from page 3 of the pdf):

“Industrialized countries as a group must take a target of 40% reduction of CO2 by 1990 levels by 2020.”

This statement goes under the “ambitious” category of the threefold “fair, ambitious, and binding.”

In contrast, the Waxman-Markey House Bill and the Kerry-Boxer Senate Bill are calling for 17-20% reduction from 2005 levels.

That bill is going to have one helluva time passing the Senate.  But it’s not even close to what is needed, if we are to accept the policy proposal of the Climate Action Network (which again in rough outlines I do). [Read more →]

Remember that big chart Al Gore used in his documentary?  If not, here it is:

This chart shows the correlation of high global temperatures and high CO2 levels (though some have argued that if you look closely, you’ll see that temperature actually rises before CO2 levels rise, but we’ll leave that for another day.)  More interesting to me is the presentation of the data itself, and particularly the x axis which includes the present year all the way back to 650,000 years ago.

Now, compared to the life of a human being, 650,000 years is a long time.  In fact, modern humans have only been on earth for about 200,000 years, so not even a third of that chart includes human life. [Read more →]

I have been pondering the issue of global warming lately.  I generally take a cautious position when it comes to climate change.  I am first of all uncertain as to what portion of climate change can be attributed to human activity, but also cautious about assuming that simply doing nothing is the proper course.  If we can take measures that ease the effects of global warming – anthropogenic or no – then I think we should, but we should be wary that legislation doesn’t inadvertently harm the poorest among us and across the globe, or end up creating such a drag on the economy that the ill-effects outweigh the benefits.  Jim Manzi has written a great deal along these lines. [Read more →]