January: Bye Bye Ambrose, Fall: Bye Bye Conservatives
See ya Rona.Right now, with daily stories of Artic, Antarctic and Greenland ice shelfs falling into the oceans, and Gore's Inconvenient Truth reaching even more on DVD, there is no doubt that Green Politics, is Good Politics.
So the Clean Air 'We'll get to it in 50 years' Act didn't quite get the job done. In steps Mr. John Baird to symbolically hold the green paddle, too little, too late, as the boat rushes down the river of melting ice and over the cliff into a fall election.
posted by Brad @ Thursday, January 04, 2007
Comments: 7
7 Comments:
I'm not entirely persuaded by your assertion that "there is no doubt that Green Politics, is Good Politics."
Admittedly, I'm somewhat perplexed by what you mean though. Do you mean that targetting environmental policies is good politicking in the vote maximizing sense? Or do you mean that practicing green politics yields some notion of "public goodness"?
I'll assume you meant some variant of both.
I agree with the former definition, especially in light of the fear-mongering claims made by many--most recently by Nicholas Stern and Al Gore.
However, I'm skeptical about the latter definition. Here's one reason why. Another relates to priorities--or the lack there of. Bjorn Lomborg alerts us to more pressing concerns that are not environmentally related--namely, trade restrictions, world poverty, and communicable diseases like HIV Aids.
(Note: That is not to say that climate change is not occurring.)
Lomborg suggests that addressing these global issues should be higher priorities on the world's "to-do-list" than climate change because the incremental return on each dollar spent would be greater (when future benefits are discounted according to an adequate rate).
Since ExxonMobil donates to the Fraser Institute for "climate change" work, obviously the claims made by the Fraser Institute in this area ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
As far as the 'priorities' argument goes, those of us who want to get an accurate assessment of the dangerousness of climate change will consult scientists, not economists. We are not going to lobby our government to work on reducing trade restrictions rather than global warming because trade restrictions are not going to lead to rising sea levels, increased extreme weather events, and the expansion of the range of tropical diseases. There isn't the same problem of passing by the window of opportunity to solve the problem.
In the end, the 'priorities' discussion is probably a little silly, because it isn't an either/or situation; the government could work on all of the issues that you brought up.
We can't saddle our children and grandchildren with the effects of global warming because we decided to be willfully blind to the scientific consensus on the issue, and instead latched on to a tiny minority opinion which may have short-term economic benefits for some; like, for instance, ExxonMobil.
Whether the argument is an economic one about cost-benefit and priorities, or a junk-science argument stating that more research must be done before we know that global warming exists, the result is the same: a reckless call for timidity. Thankfully, the majority of Canadians know that the time for timidity on global warming has long since passed.
Green Politics is both good Politicking, as the oft-ignored environmental portfolio's of all the parties, have becoming increasingly 'top of mind'
and good goodness politics.
As Rob suggests, the arguments against reducing greenhouse emissions should not be 'the priority list' nor 'don't believe the science'.
The argument should be HOW BEST, instead of YES or NO.
Also, I found the usage of the phrase 'fear-mongering claims' to be laughable in describing those who would speak of the current climate change crisis.
I had thought that was simply impossible. As we all know, 'Fear-mongering' has been monopolized by Republicans and big business' scrambling to keep their wallets full and the military industrial complex going 'full steam ahead' - throw another clumb of coal on the fire!
Since ExxonMobil donates to the Fraser Institute for "climate change" work, obviously the claims made by the Fraser Institute in this area ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
This is a familiar tactic--that is, it avoids the issue by questioning the source rather than referring to (or conducting) any analyses.
Similarly, one could question the work of an organization like the Suzuki Foundation...since its funders may be ardent environmentalists?
Bottom-line: All research ought to be taken with a healthly serving of salt although doing so does not justify arbitrary dismissals that are not based on content.
those of us who want to get an accurate assessment of the dangerousness of climate change will consult scientists, not economists.
Note that Sir Nicholas Stern is an economist and Al Gore a law-shool dropout with a bachelor's in government studies. I single them out because they are mainly responsible for the recent environmental buzz.
(Recall: Dion was Environment Minister and did nothing with the portfolio. And now, after the aformentioned scary stories, environmental initiatives seem to be priority one (or "top of mind"). Coincidence, I think not.)
We are not going to lobby our government to work on reducing trade restrictions rather than global warming because trade restrictions are not going to lead to rising sea levels, increased extreme weather events, and the expansion of the range of tropical diseases.
True, but trade restrictions, poverty, and communicable diseases are currently leading to thousands of avoidable deaths per day. Are you willing to forego resources which are scarce that could be devoted to helping millions of people today (with certainty)?
The magnitude of the effects of poverty and disease are unambiguous. For instance, one measure can be the number of related deaths. Global warming, however, does not lend itself to equally accurate measurement.
Again, this is where the discount rate argument is so critical. I thought the piece did an excellent job explaining this...maybe I was wrong. You did read it, right?
In the end, the 'priorities' discussion is probably a little silly, because it isn't an either/or situation; the government could work on all of the issues that you brought up.
Your ambitious assertion would be ideal in a world without constraints. Unfortunately, such a world does not exist and people (including bureaucrats) make trade-offs everyday. Accordingly, decisions with the highest net expected benefits should be pursued. (I realize this sounds vaguely utilitarian...but it isn't. Let's leave moral philosophy for a separate discussion.)
We can't saddle our children and grandchildren with the effects of global warming because we decided to be willfully blind to the scientific consensus on the issue...
The only "scientific consensus" is that climate change is occurring. The extent of which that can be attributed to GHEs (human activity) is where the debate begins. In any climate change model, the challenge has been and continues to be the difficulty in isolating the relevant explanatory variables in a manner that allows for causal conclusions. Please consult the literature on this...if you haven't already.
A second challenge relates to assessing the expected damage of changes in climate. (Enter the discount rate yet again.) In addition to the problem of choosing an acceptable rate, one must predict human responses and adjustments to any climate-induced changes which is next to impossible. Holding human ingenuity constant is absurd and unrealistic.
This is a familiar tactic--that is, it avoids the issue by questioning the source rather than referring to (or conducting) any analyses.
Fair point. I thought that as I wrote it. I should have added that the piece is of little consequence, since it essentially argues that one guy once may have exagerrated some of the future costs of climate change, but not necessarily to the extent that his conclusions are rendered false. Yawn.
Similarly, one could question the work of an organization like the Suzuki Foundation
You must have giggled at the absurdity of this comment as you wrote it. I'm sure you recognize that trying to equate an organization of people trying to save the environment with an organization trying to provide the intellectual arguments to those who would have us destroy it is a little silly.
Note that Sir Nicholas Stern is an economist and Al Gore a law-shool dropout with a bachelor's in government studies.
Gore quotes the scientific consensus ad nauseum to make his points. These are scientific arguments rather than economic ones, which, as I argued, are the appropriate arguments to make in this context. Trying to fit every problem into an economic framework leaves out important elements of the issue, in this case the most important elements.
Recall: Dion was Environment Minister and did nothing with the portfolio. And now, after the aformentioned scary stories, environmental initiatives seem to be priority one
Your inaccuracies here are shocking considering how intelligent you are. I will chalk them up to "echo chamber syndrome" (my term).
Dion is the most successful environmental minister in the history of the country.
Dion helped develop the greenest budget since Confederation, and won international agreement to extend the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012, in only 17 months as Environmental minister.
From Elizabeth May: "If they try to say he was anything other than a very strong environment minister, they're making it up."
The Sierra Club, Climate Action Network, and the David Suzuki Foundation have all praised Dion as well.
Secondly, Dion propelled the environment into an election issue, he didn't come to the issue after it already became a legitimate election issue.
I thought the piece did an excellent job explaining this...maybe I was wrong.
I agree that the author did a great job of clearly explaining his point, but he did not properly factor in the unique urgency of global warming, as I mentioned in my last post.
Your ambitious assertion would be ideal in a world without constraints.
I'm not arguing that there aren't constraints, and Canada can't solve any of these issues alone.
The only "scientific consensus" is that climate change is occurring. The extent of which that can be attributed to GHEs (human activity) is where the debate begins. In any climate change model, the challenge has been and continues to be the difficulty in isolating the relevant explanatory variables in a manner that allows for causal conclusions. Please consult the literature on this...if you haven't already.
You consult the literature. The vast majority of the scientific community agrees that the time for action on global warming is now. Those who argue for timidity like to latch on to a diminishing and discredited minority opinion propped up by the same companies that generally prop up the Fraser Institute; it is junk science, and as disingenuous as it is dangerous.
Holding human ingenuity constant is absurd and unrealistic.
Holding out for a magical scientific cure in the future that allows us to ignore the problem in the present is absurd and potentially very dangerous.
This post has been removed by the author.
I’ll end with two clarifying points:
1. To presume that the organization in question encourages environmental destruction is not only silly but illustrates ignorance to what it actually does. I am being charitable with this comment. Here's a chapter about air pollution from an upcoming book on envirionmental policy for your interest (warning: large pdf).
2. Climatologists, ecologists, anthropologists, etc are so-called “experts” in the field of environmental science. Conventional wisdom in that community maintains that climate change is not illusory. I do not challenge that conclusion per se.
Economists, however, have a comparative advantage in allocating scarce resources so as to minimize economic disruptions and to maximize expected benefits. Evaluating climate change abatement methods is necessarily an intertemporal allocation problem. (Of course, these multi-period decisions depend on the expert's prediction of the severity of the problem.)
Incidentally, the famous wager between Paul Ehrlich (scientist) and Julian Simon (economist) shows that economists are pretty good scientists as well ;-)
FYI - Some light-hearted commentaries by way of the blogosphere:
More on the discount rate from Megan McArdle.
A post you might like--minus the eloquent language.
Post a Comment
<< Home