Google
 
Web Osi Speaks!

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Climate Change: Time for the GOP to Shift the Debate

Foreign Policy has an interesting story on climate change. It seems that some are convinced that climate change is now irreversible and that countries should shift their policies: Policy makers in the [U.S.] and elsewhere must start hedging their bets and prepare us to live in this new world. This emphatically does not mean giving up on efforts to slow climate change, which could still measurably reduce the costs of protecting the people and infrastructure most vulnerable to higher temperatures and new weather patterns. Nor should it suggest that the task of adaptation will be easy or cheap. World leaders will face many of the same dilemmas that complicate the current debate: Developed countries, which have produced most of the human-origin carbon dioxide in the air, will be in the best position to cope with climate change and developing countries will want them to bear a disproportionate financial burden for its consequences.

Republicans ignore the scientific and public consensus at their peril. Global warming, at least in the minds of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, and more importantly, in the minds of the public at large, is happening. But rather than trying to deny this, there’s a better way to approach the debate which has the potential to derail our economy. As I said back in February, beating the environmentalist chicken littles requires first acknowledging that global warming is real. As I said then: In order to combat further attempts to initiate a Kyoto-like, carbon-restriction, regulatory regime, the right in America must be equipped to take on the enviro-chicken littles on the left. This requires a nuanced understanding of the problem and a message that resonates with the American people. Trying to convince voters that what they’re convinced is happening, really isn’t, makes for a weak approach. Trying to convince them that what’s happening is survivable and that the costs of tacking climate change is too great, just might work.

And it’s not just me; folks much smarter than me (and 99% of the rest of the world, in my opinion) like Newt Gingrich have adopted a more defensible position on global warming.

Bottom line: there’s defendible ground in this debate. The hilltop sanctuaries of adaptation and the cure’s-worse-than-the-headache are still open. So why are we occupying the low ground and getting the hell shot out of ourselves?

Labels: , ,

3 Comments:

Blogger KYJurisDoctor said...

Excellent article, Cyberone. I like your statement that "Republicans ignore the scientific and public consensus at their peril."

But you know why they ignore the evidence -- even if it is to their peril? BIG businesses insist they do!

PATHETIC, isn't it?

10:42 PM  
Blogger Matt Bogard said...

The economist William Nordhaus of Yale university provides support to your more defensible position on global warming.

While ackowledging the existence of global warming, he strongly criticises the recommendations of the much touted Stern Report. Nordhaus remarks that the costs of the drastic reductions in CO2 that it calls for far outweigh the slight benefits they will provide in relation to mitigating global warming.

AS a side note, Big Businesses like Enron, Wal-MArt, and the auto industry were strong early supporters of the KYOTO agreement. Enron stood to make billions in the carbon markets that would have been implemented as a result. We live in a rent seeking society that pays for democrats and republicans alike, at the expense of citizens and taxpaers.

4:06 PM  
Blogger KYJurisDoctor said...

Thanks, agEconomist, for your insight.

I believe it all comes down to your sensible conclusion:

"We live in a rent seeking society that pays for democrats and republicans alike, at the expense of citizens and taxpaers (sic)."

7:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home