By Oren Cass
Monday, June 05, 2017
Writing about climate change in the New York Times, Ross Douthat describes “lukewarmers” as those who:
accept that the earth is warming
and that our civilization’s ample CO2 emissions are a major cause. They doubt,
however, that climate change represents a crisis unique among the varied
challenges we face, or that the global regulatory schemes advanced to deal with
it will work as advertised. And they raise an eyebrow at the contrast between
the apocalyptic, absolutist rhetoric with which these schemes are regularly
defended and their actual details, which seem mostly designed to enable the
globe’s statesmen to greenwash the pursuit of economic and political
self-interest.
Douthat placed himself among the lukewarmers and very
graciously referred his readers to some of my recent work for a longer
discussion of those themes. But his column was also quite gracious in conceding
two problems with lukewarmism, which instead deserve rebuttal.
Douthat’s Problem
#1: “No less than alarmism, lukewarmism can be vulnerable to cherry-picking and
selection bias, reaching for any piece of evidence — and when you’re dealing
with long-term trends, there’s a lot of evidence to choose from — that supports
its non-catastrophic assumptions, even if the bulk of the data starts to point
the other way.”
This is a generic critique that might apply to any
position on any issue. School-choice advocacy is vulnerable to cherry-picking
and selection bias, as is support for universal pre-K. So are the claims that
Scandinavian-style welfare states are good or bad for innovation and economic
growth. And the claims that an interventionist U.S. foreign policy promotes or
harms our national interest. Highlighting such a complaint about lukewarmism
would make sense only if the position were uniquely reliant on such bad
behavior.
To the contrary, the key hypothesis (of my work, anyway)
is that even working from the mainstream
scientific and economic studies advanced by alarmists, the data do not
support a conclusion of catastrophe. That is, the effects identified by the
U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are serious but manageable.
The economic costs identified by the Obama administration’s Social Cost of
Carbon analysis are no larger than those associated with a variety of other
policy issues.
Of course, plenty of people cherry-pick this or that
study in an effort to undermine the mainstream conclusions of climate science.
But such analysis is unnecessary to a moderate view of climate change and, I
would argue, often counterproductive. Lukewarmism is, or should be, about
describing accurately the mainstream of climate research and then assessing how
well human society’s resilience and capacity for adaptation will allow it to
cope with the challenges we might face.
Douthat’s Problem
#2: “While lukewarmers may fancy ourselves serious interlocutors for liberals,
we’re actually just running interference on behalf of know-nothing and
do-nothingism, attacking flawed policies on behalf of a Republican Party that
will never, ever advance any policies of its own.”
This mistakes an argument about the nature of the climate
problem for one about the ideal solution. Lukewarmism is an effort to provide
much needed perspective and context on the climate debate. Importantly, it is a
corrective to the outlandish claims
of catastrophe, made by environmental activists, that bear no relationship to
mainstream research — they can hardly complain that others are taking the time
to point this out. If we want the public to interpret correctly the
implications of climate change, the correct interpretation should be given a
vigorous defense. Insisting that policy deliberations begin from an appropriate
policy definition does not worsen the quality of those deliberations and is not
“running interference.”
Further, climate policies are typically flawed in ways
that remain obvious regardless of how seriously one takes climate change.
Obama’s Clean Power Plan was costly, it was an illegitimate expansion of
federal power, and it would not have materially affected global temperatures.
The Paris Agreement was an absurd piece of political theater that disadvantaged
the United States and endorsed the developing world’s refusal to take serious
climate action. These observations hold equally well if one is ice cold,
lukewarm, or boiling mad.
But sometimes a firm grasp of the problem matters a lot,
and then the lukewarmer’s obligation is to apply his conclusions honestly. If
someone proposes truly radical solutions that might avert climate change at
unfathomable cost, lukewarmers should decry the overreaction. Likewise, if
someone rejects sensible policies that have concrete benefits by rejecting any
cause for concern, lukewarmers should insist they be serious. As I wrote for
Fox News when Trump signed his executive order on the topic, “Trump Is Wrong on
Climate Change”:
We should want government planners
at every level to take the best existing research into account as they make
public investments and set policy that will influence others. If farmers and
resort owners and mayors and naval planners all build with an eye toward how
the future might change, then those changes as they arrive won’t be so harmful
or expensive.
Yet, in addition to starting the
repeal of costly mitigation efforts like Obama’s Clean Power Plan, Trump’s
executive order entirely erases an Obama order aimed at “preparing the United
States for the impacts of Climate Change.” Many of the points in that program
still make sense. Perhaps the greatest mistake made by those who overinflate
the risk of climate change is to forget that our society has a tremendous
capacity to adapt and innovate. But it would also be a major mistake to forget
that public policy can either foster or hinder that process.
Certainly, that’s no comprehensive agenda. But it is a
message that the politicians and policymakers of both parties would benefit
from hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment