The Reality of Climate Change
Dec 7, 2009 Corporatism, Politics
Climate Change seems to be under attack. I find the reactions to this interesting. There are two extremes in the political climate war. The issue is so polarizing that both sides have, through the process of reacting to one another, become extreme in an attempt to maintain a defense. We have the Rush Limbaugh supporters who want to tear the limbs off of small animals and burn down forests, and we have the Al Gore supporters who preach of the coming apocalypse with fear mongering doom and gloom. Now I realize there are many level headed individuals who lean one side or the other, but it seems the most vocal voices are the most extreme. The right is yelling Climategate, and the left is yelling crazy conservatives!
I always find the apocalyptic mindset to be kind of hard to swallow. Remember Y2K? For thousands of years the end of the world has been preached by many religions. The dead sea scrolls came from an apocalyptic sect of Judaism. On the other hand the conservative mindset tends to be limited, dismissing the turmoils and problems that others face. They tend to see their immediate world as the only reality that matters.
I believe there may be a danger to the environment. I do not believe however that this danger is as immediate as some say. Steps have been taken by private companies to go green. Innovative companies like Tesla motors are looking to the future of our consumption of fossil fuels.
The Cato Institute has pointed out that much of what the EPA releases as findings are sadly lacking in citations. Where does this all come from? Can something be peer reviewed if your peers do not know what to review? Even the peer review process used by the EPA for their findings is less than par. What we see is a selected group of “Sub-Specialists,” who are being selected by politicians, reviewing the findings. Those listed to review the findings are federal employees with previous involvement. Much of the data used is dated and tends to ignore recent scientific findings that have seriously challenged these older findings. We see a system of pick and choose. Yes, if I prove the existence of the Christian God by only seeking Christians as a source I will most likely find what I am looking for. By ignoring the atheists my findings will not be contested. This and more can be seen in depth in Cato Institutes’ publication:Scientific Shortcomings in the EPA’s Endangerment Finding from Greenhouse Gases by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger Click Here for the PDF.
I am almost certain that you will find similar issues on the other side. The climate change deniers have most likely taken part in similar practices.
I am not writing to say there is no effect on the environment from what we do. We can see many of those effects just by using a little common sense. What I wish to point out is that in our country, the largest polluter is in fact the United States Government. The major innovations have been made in the free market. Look at how many companies are turning green in response to the public demand. Why didn’t the government go green? As I pointed out back in April in response to the Cap and Trade, (Click Here) forced innovations will be stifled. As pointed out by Sallie James from the Cato Institute Free Trade is a boon to the environment (Click Here). She states:
Now, I do doubt the apocalyptic views. I do not doubt the damage to the environment. The extreme conservative view that nothing at all is wrong seems to be even more dangerous, and it also seems to be not accepted completely except for a few extremists.
The federal government seems to be bent on giving us the next thing to fear. We had our killer tomatoes and spinach and we have our H1N1 all exaggerated out of proportion. We had our terror alerts, and we have our end of the world scenario. They perceive their job as being “Protect The Paupers.” In turn these politicians seek out the next thing we should fear and build another expensive bureaucracy to capitalize off of your fear. In reality if there is a need a free market system will fill that need. The perception that people in governments are saints is a myth, they are driven by greed and profit. “A Conspiracy!” you say? No, not a conspiracy. This is just a simple case of misguided idealism. In the same way they use junk economics to ruin an economy in their attempt to save it, we see politicians chasing good intentions. These good intentions ignore many other realities blind-sighted by biases and an unwillingness to accept economic realities in their policies. They would rather embrace an keynesian fantasy that says they can do all things when the reality of markets and basic human interaction escapes them. The Cato institute once again points out that governments hinder advancements in a way by working against them. Stifiling Innovation by Subsidizing it
Only when we realize the limitations of a government and the damage government causes can these issues truly be addressed. All the resources spent lobbying and paying off legislators could be put to better use actually addressing the problems at hand. A government will never be able to eliminate the problem. This works against its interest. If the problem is eliminated the government finds it will not be able to perpetuate the myth of its necessity. It will need to keep symptoms controlled and regulated and the presence of the bureaucracy will always need to keep itself alive. The bureaucracy will need to keep the problem around so that it will also stay around dealing with it constantly.
Related posts:
