National Review Online
Saturday, November 03, 2012
The case for climate change, formerly the case for global
warming, entails a series of propositions that begin with the unobjectionable
and escalate to the absurd: that the climate is changing, that these changes
are likely to be dangerous and destructive, that these changes are in the main
the result of human action, that carbon-dioxide emissions are the major factor,
that these changes can be forestalled or reversed by political means, that such
political actions are likely to be on the right side of the cost-benefit
analysis, etc. The least plausible claims are those holding that specific
events, such as the horrific damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy, are
attributable to specific U.S. public-policy decisions. That this lattermost
claim is absurd and stands in contravention of the best scientific analysis has
not stopped the most hysterical climate alarmists from making it, but then it
is the nature of hysterical alarmists to exceed the bounds of reason.
Among others, Chris Mooney of Mother Jones was sure
enough of himself to declare categorically of Sandy: “Climate change, a topic
embarrassingly ignored in the three recent presidential debates, made it
worse.” Bill McKibben of Democracy Now and others on the left made similar
statements, while Businessweek practically wet itself. There is little or no
evidence that this claim is true in any meaningful sense, and many climate
scientists believe that warming has resulted in fewer powerful hurricanes
striking the United States. As usual, the science is complex while the politics
are unfortunately simpleminded.
The conventional climate-change argument holds that
warmer oceans will lead to more intense hurricanes and other extreme weather
events. But Sandy was not an unprecedentedly powerful hurricane — it inflicted
such remarkable damage because it arrived at the confluence of a nor’easter and
a high-pressure system, and plowed into densely populated urban areas at high
tide. In fact, the arrival of powerful hurricanes on our shores is somewhat
diminished of late: The last Category 3 hurricane to make landfall was seven
years ago, the longest such interval in a century. As Professor Roger Pielke
Jr. of the University of Colorado points out, 1954–55 saw three back-to-back
hurricanes — two in the same month — more destructive than Sandy crashing onto
our shores.
It is true that the New York harbor is about a foot
higher than it was a century ago, though how much of that is the result of
anthropogenic global warming is uncertain. But that additional foot, even if it
were entirely the result of a failure to control carbon-dioxide emissions, was
a relatively small component in the monstrous storm tide that inundated New
York, New Jersey, and other coastal areas. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s projections, contrary to the alarmists, do not suggest that
future storm surges would be much worse as a result of global warming.
There were a great many institutional failures that made
Sandy worse than it had to be. In retrospect, Mayor Bloomberg should perhaps
have been worried more about the readiness of the city’s hospitals than the
salt content of its snack foods. His obsession with Big Gulps, in the context
of this destruction, is both hilarious and horrifying. Perhaps there was
nothing that could have been done to prevent the flooding of the tunnels and
the collapse of the electrical supply, but surely a great deal of capital and
energy that were directed toward trivial pursuits good for very little other
than generating headlines would have been better deployed toward the
unglamorous but necessary work of ensuring that low-lying coastal cities are
sufficiently inured to the threats posed by hurricanes and other common,
inevitable events. New York City is many things: over-engineered against
hurricanes is not one of them.
Resources are scarce. Even if we take at face value the
entirety of the anthropogenic-global-warming hypothesis, it is extraordinarily
unlikely that U.S. policies would succeed in halting or reversing that trend in
a world in which China, India, and the rest of the developing world have made
it plain that they will not reduce emissions under any foreseeable
circumstances. Global-warming hysteria is a fashion, and it is exciting to a
certain sort of person. Tunnel-improvement projects do not have the sex appeal
of a global climate crusade, but they represent a more prudent use of our
capital, both political and real. It would not be accurate to say that this
hysteria serves no one, but Al Gore’s fortune is not in obvious need of further
supplementation, and we did not believe Barack Obama’s promise of halting the
oceans’ rise the first time around.
No comments:
Post a Comment