Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Keep your friends close ...

Some unwitting climate change advice from the National Review

Posted by Adam Stein (Guest Contributor) at 2:25 PM on 29 Aug 2007

Hey, did anyone here read that recent article on political strategies for action on climate change? You know, the one published in the National Review?

[crickets chirping]

OK, I generally don't recommend the National Review on environmental policy, but I couldn't help peeking at the recent article [PDF] by Jim Manzi. Various writers of the more thoughtful right-of-center blogs have alternatively described it as "brilliant" and "a taste of how a wised-up, heads-out-of-the-sand Right could kick [liberals'] ass on the issue" of global warming. I hadn't realized that climate change was a game of flag football, but there you go.

From where I sit, it's hard to see the brilliance of Manzi's article. He understands that the scientific evidence for man-made global warming is strong, and further realizes that blatant obstructionism is, in the long term, a losing proposition.

But his proposed political strategy for addressing the problem is to downplay the likely effects of climate change while telling blue collar workers that environmentalists want to steal their jobs. Simultaneously, he wants to launch an alternative set of lower-cost, inadequate programs to address the problem.

So he's basically proposing the most obvious political strategy imaginable for obstructionists, once denialism fully runs its course. "Global warming can be the first wedge issue of the 21st century," he gloats.

Nevertheless, I'm not writing about Manzi's article for the snark value. I'm writing about it because I think the article, almost in spite of itself, offers some food for thought. After all, if you set aside the noxious partisanship, the theme of Manzi's article is how to sell climate change as a winning issue to a part of the electorate that is presently indifferent or openly hostile:

Global warming is a manageable risk, not an existential crisis, and we should get on with the job of managing it. Conservatives should propose policies that are appropriately optimistic, science-based, and low-cost. This should be an attractive political program: It is an often-caricatured, but very healthy, reality that Americans usually respond well to the conversion of political issues into technical problems. After all, we're very good at solving the latter.

Substitute "environmentalists" for "conservatives" in this paragraph, and you have something to chew on. The conventional approach in the green community is to hammer on the scientific and moral urgency of the problem in order to whip up enthusiasm for change. What if this is entirely the wrong prescription for reaching the mainstream?

I'm not really ready to get on board this train yet, but I will say this: after reading the article, I'm pretty optimistic that the wedge politics of climate change will fail. The simple truth is that Manzi's message, if effective, is just way too easy to co-opt.

Can Do or Hair Do?

Well, shoot, everybody wants to fix the problem at lowest cost. The question is, are you actually going to fix the problem, or are you going to make a lot of overhyped, ineffectual gestures designed mainly for corporate PR and political spin?

After all, it's relatively easy to measure whether or not we are fixing the problem. We already have a pretty solid idea of how much GHG we emit. If and when sequestration technologies get commercialized, those CO2 flows should be verifiable.

Going to a decarbonized economy won't fix the problem. It will only stop making the problem worse. Fixing the problem means reducing atmospheric CO2 -- down to levels where natural processes can restore balance.

 

Ped Shed Blog

Good luck on reverse. Slowing down?

I am watching the technicals and they won't wash politically.  The technologies could be there, even cost effective, even for sequestration.  But scale up from the top-down is too time intensive.  

Shut down coal (politics) and diverse energy industries (technologies) will scale, from down-up, fast, starting with natural gas.

Watch out for endless top-down discussion about what to do about coal, while actually doing nothing, for years and years, until its too late.

"There is no solution...

...because there is no problem."

--Marcel Duchamp

The entire history of Global Warming since 1820 has been one of nature's bounty showering us with more energy and increasing the prosperity of the human race.

Why should it suddenly change in 2007?

http://fusionanomaly.net/marcelduchamp.html

a little is good, more is always better?

The same could be said of many things, that there is not a problem.    Like Dr. Freud thought that cocaine use was great for people.   I think I read that he felt everybody should take it.   A little might do a person good.   But just because something is good for a little while, doesn't mean that a whole bunch of it is better.  

The number of examples of a little being good and a lot being bad is huge.   which of course doesn't mean that more wouldn't be better, but that's the thing isn't it, who to go with.

Whether Global Warming is a problem is more complicated than "it's been good so far, how could it ever be bad."   And it is not 2007 that some are worried about but 2037 and beyond.   It might be argued to not worry about them, let somebody else fix it, but fixing it now in many cases can make for a better world for us now.

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks