Treason Against the Planet

[FOTD]

Op-Ed Columnist
Betraying the Planet
PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 28, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1&hpw

"So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.


But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there's growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we're facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn't see people who've thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don't like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they've decided not to believe in it — and they'll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday's debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a "hoax" that has been "perpetrated out of the scientific community." I'd call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun's declaration was met with applause.

Given this contempt for hard science, I'm almost reluctant to mention the deniers' dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill's economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that's why it's unforgivable.

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an "existential threat" to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is. "

[FOTD]

Hey Bonehead Boner; it takes one to know one.

Boehner: Climate bill a 'pile of s--t'

"Further, officials with the House GOP's campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, confirm that they will run with paid media over recess in districts of conservative Dems who voted for the bill. The official would not reveal details on the ad buys at this time. "

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/boehner-climate-bill-a-pile-of-s--t-2009-06-27.html

[cannon_fodder]

I do not reject the notion of climate change.  I don't even reject the notion that humans could have something to do with it.  However, no one on the planet can say that anything in this bill will actually have a positive effect on any of the problems.

No one on the planet comprehends the totality of this bill.

No one was able to read the bill in its entirety before voting on it (aides, secretaries, let alone Congressmen).

There is no enforcement mechanism.  Just like no Kyoto members achieved the goals or made significant strides towards them, this will likely have very little influence in the manner it prescribes.

The "job creation" aspect of it is total fiction.  Taking private money and using to subsidize certain jobs results in a net loss of jobs.  It is in inefficient allocation of capital and each "job" costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to create and more to sustain.   In net, it can cost jobs (ask Spain).

The Federal Government now has a subset of the Department of Agriculture supervised by the Department of Energy responsible for monitoring, measuring, quantifying and regulating livestock flatulence and burps.  Limited government indeed.

Over the long run (CBO estimate of $175 per family was for early years of nearly no impact, it ratchets up as time goes on in line with the restriction) the cost to comply with the regulation will be nearly $530,000,000,000 per year to the economy as a whole (~5% of GDP).   So unless you ignore the fact that families make up the entirety of the economy, that's $6800 per family by 2030. 

I'm not comfortable with 5% of the economy being based on government mandated derivative trading.  Particularly when we don't know if it will do any good.   Or if that "good" is even actually good.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html



I agree with the goal of limiting pollution.  I agree with the need to reduce dependence on oil.  I agree that CO2 could pose a significant threat.   

But I disagree with jamming a mammoth bill through that has all sorts of unknowns in it and may very well do nothing to help with the underlying problems.  Particularly when other simpler solutions are available to try.  All that aside, this is a massive power grab by the Federal Government.

[Conan71]

But I disagree with jamming a mammoth bill through that has all sorts of unknowns in it and may very well do nothing to help with the underlying problems.  Particularly when other simpler solutions are available to try.  All that aside, this is a massive power grab by the Federal Government.

Ergo, this bill is a pile of sh!t.

[guido911]

Jim Inhofe slapping around the EPA:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/

Incidentally, he says that cap and tax is DOA in the Senate. GOOD!

[Conan71]

Jim Inhofe slapping around the EPA:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/

Incidentally, he says that cap and tax is DOA in the Senate. GOOD!

Gweedoedoe, that's from faux news.  I'm so embarrassed Inhofe is my Senator, etc. ad nauseum.

[nathanm]

I'm not comfortable with 5% of the economy being based on government mandated derivative trading.  Particularly when we don't know if it will do any good.   Or if that "good" is even actually good.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

But I disagree with jamming a mammoth bill through that has all sorts of unknowns in it and may very well do nothing to help with the underlying problems.  Particularly when other simpler solutions are available to try.  All that aside, this is a massive power grab by the Federal Government.

Maybe I'm dense, but the only thing I could glean from the WSJ opinion was that it would be "expensive." Obviously the WSJ is going to be against anything that causes costs to increase for any business anywhere. The job creation espoused by proponents of the bill is somewhat likely to happen. We have the know-how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly without altering industrial processes, yet nobody wants to fund the research needed to scale it up to power plant size because there's no cost to emitting all the CO2 a company desires to emit.

So those who are concerned about climate change go and formulate a plan that is as capitalist as can be, giving companies the option to choose between paying for their pollution in the form of carbon credits or investing in cleaner processes. Yet somehow this is painted as a bad thing by the cabal who refuses to look reality in the face.

As I've said on many occasions, it doesn't matter one iota whether the increase in CO2 is caused by man or by natural processes. Either way we need to stop it to ensure our continued relatively comfortable survival. Somehow that concept is beyond the ankle biters.

Another interesting thing opponents claim is that carbon credit prices will skyrocket. They seem to be ignoring the effect of their hallowed invisible hand of the free market, which will ensure that carbon credit costs don't go above a certain level, that is the level at which it costs less to clean up your act, which isn't all that expensive.

[cannon_fodder]

Maybe I'm dense, but the only thing I could glean from the WSJ opinion was that it would be "expensive." Obviously the WSJ is going to be against anything that causes costs to increase for any business anywhere.

Well that's just not true.  This measure will be a boom for some companies and destroy others.  Just like most government interference ends up doing.  The WSJ is generally against government interference int he markets, but not necessarily because it increases costs.

Moreover, look at the numbers given in the article.  5% of GDP invented by the government in a derivatives market trading government issued permits, including allotted cow farts.  That doesn't seem a little crazy?

The job creation espoused by proponents of the bill is somewhat likely to happen.

Spain instituted a green initiative and spends more money per capita than anywhere else to "create" green jobs.  A recent study concluded that for  for each job created by the government some $1.2 million was spend and 2.2 private jobs were lost (per an NPR report, sorry no link as I heard it on air.  Sure it is posted somewhere).  Which makes sense when considering how much each job "created" cost in the stimulus bill and consider that the government is NOT an efficient allocation of capital. 

Each dollar that is taken out of the economy by the government and spent on artificial initiatives is inefficiently allocated, which costs jobs in the long run.  I agree that a cap and trade system is better than other methods (handouts for this technology or that) as it at least allows the market to pick a direction or decide it is better to pay for the privilege of CO2 release . . . but it is still directing huge amounts of private capital. 

The ultimate government job program is one group of people digging holes, and another group filling them in.  It creates lots of work, but in the long run doesn't add to the economy.  I fear this will be similar in many ways, literally and figuratively.  For instance, a solar panel will not generate enough electricity in it's useful life to recoup the energy required for its creation.  Thus, a government subsidized "green" solar panel is a net loss of energy and very likely in pollution (since the energy to create it is probably from carbon sources) while encouraging inefficient allocation of capital in our economy.

Or paying people to trade in old cars for newly manufactured cars, while totally ignoring the environmental cost of manufacturing those new cars.  Which often negates any economical or environmental advantage of encouraging people to trade in their old cars.  Just keep people digging holes and we'll all have jobs!

and Finally, on this note, I suspect the 1200+ page bill contains the encouragements, tax credits, pork, and other crapola that a cap and trade system would otherwise allow the market to decide.  Essentially negating the only advantage the system would offer.    Argh.

We have the know-how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly without altering industrial processes, yet nobody wants to fund the research needed to scale it up to power plant size because there's no cost to emitting all the CO2 a company desires to emit.

So those who are concerned about climate change go and formulate a plan that is as capitalist as can be, giving companies the option to choose between paying for their pollution in the form of carbon credits or investing in cleaner processes. . . .

I agree that a cap and trade system is as capitalist way of handling the problem as may be possible.  If it had to be done, this is the way to do so.  The implementation of the plan concerns me above all else.

That and the actual consequences are unknown.  Worried about US manufacturing being globally competitive?  Individual energy bills.  Farm products.  Transportation.  Etc. etc. etc.  Why was this bill crammed through so fast?

Nonetheless, I appreciate your candid discussion.

[Conan71]

Carbon credits... new sucker born every minute

[FOTD]

Carbon credits... new sucker born every minute

You should know.

How else do you tame the corporation?

Your lack of understanding of a tax system to solve problems or give incentives derives directly from your rigid ideology.

[sauerkraut]

That's a real bad bill and it's also the largest tax increase bill ever passed in the Congress. There is a amendment in that bill that won't let you sell your home unless a EPA agent approves it for sale- Before you can sell your home it must pass inspection and have good window seals, good insulation, low electric use furnace a/c & refrig. If it does not those problems must be corrected before you can sell your home, even if the buyer & seller agree that those faults are not a problem- the home cannot be sold until it's approved. That seems unreal, I believe that was one of the amendments added at 3:09am in the last 300 pages of that bill. It's bad stuff folks.

[Cats Cats Cats]

That's a real bad bill and it's also the largest tax increase bill ever passed in the Congress. There is a amendment in that bill that won't let you sell your home unless a EPA agent approves it for sale- Before you can sell your home it must pass inspection and have good window seals, good insulation, low electric use furnace a/c & refrig. If it does not those problems must be corrected before you can sell your home, even if the buyer & seller agree that those faults are not a problem- the home cannot be sold until it's approved. That seems unreal, I believe that was one of the amendments added at 3:09am in the last 300 pages of that bill. It's bad stuff folks.

While I don't approve of the EPA forcing people to weatherproof a home.  I do believe it would be a good practice to take things like that into account when someone inspects a house.  And hopefully something will be done about it.  If somebody wants to leave their back door open and let their AC run all day and have all of the cold air go out the window.  Thats their dime.  However, we end up paying for it because now we have to build more power plants, etc etc.  There is a benefit to everybody when some can cut back on their electricity during peak times.

[nathanm]

Moreover, look at the numbers given in the article.  5% of GDP invented by the government in a derivatives market trading government issued permits, including allotted cow farts.  That doesn't seem a little crazy?

Sure, but it's an unsourced statement from a WSJ editorial, so I believe it less than I believe Wikipedia.

Most likely it's some Cato Institute smoke blowing that forgets to account for the fact that it will often be cheaper to clean up your act than buy carbon credits. Ideally, there would be zero trading, as all US companies would be below their caps.

Moreover, the private sector seems to regularly create huge derivatives markets with little or no connection to reality (one of which recently was a large factor in the failure of several major institutions and billions of dollars in bailouts), yet there is little complaint on that front. So pretty much I see it like I see the tea party folks. If there was concern other than ideology, they would express it regardless of who proffered the idea.

Another thing many seem to ignore is that it's already happening on a state level.

Now, this particular bill may be junk, I don't know, but most of the opposition seems to be with the concept, not the execution. Most of that opposition is either of the "cap and tax" misnomer or the climate change denial sort.

sauerkraut, do you have a source for that tripe about forced weatherization, or did you just make it up? I can't find anything on the interwebs to substantiate your claim, much less the 'largest tax' BS. 85% of the credits are to be given away to current emitters. I'm sure the wireless companies would love to have such favorable treatment.

[Hoss]

..snip..

sauerkraut, do you have a source for that tripe about forced weatherization, or did you just make it up? I can't find anything on the interwebs to substantiate your claim, much less the 'largest tax' BS. 85% of the credits are to be given away to current emitters. I'm sure the wireless companies would love to have such favorable treatment.

You do realize who you are asking that question of, right?

[nathanm]

You do realize who you are asking that question of, right?

Uses of the individual keys on my keyboard are nearly free, so I don't mind wasting keystrokes.