Well, in the "Global Warming
Bubble" Rich Lowry certainly advances suitable views to his existing in a particular framework. But trying to cut through all the superfluous sociopolitical code (
e.g. "U.N.-certified-expert hand-wringing" as in "you know, the opinion of those who we have chosen to portray as a conveniently lasting negation to our own interdependence") perhaps his notions can yet be approached on an attempted general concern basis.
"
First, those gas prices." The author makes an argument that since the pain at the pump is already causing economic hardship, nothing should drive the price higher. Well, on that regard any carbon trading/capping measure has already missed the boat, big time: Supply, inventory and demand only indicate costs that by themselves should easily justify using alternatives to "fossil" gas already and even more so in the future. Besides, carbon trading also produces income (
and not only "indirect tax") to those who can sell their lack of CO2 emissions to others. To say that the cost-benefit analysis of this is never going to make sense to Americans is to suggest that the US will forever more be dependent on a finite foreign resource that leaves the country's trade at a permanent imbalance, i.e. debt. This will suit the profit margins of those oil companies which are unwilling to further invest in infrastructure any more for a couple of decades, of course. Direct foreign aid is a drop in the ocean compared to this, to my knowledge Americans spend as much on porn each year.
As a general notion, any attempt to trade in CO2 emissions should face the utmost of scrutiny of course - where this has already been in practice, energy companies have on occasion incurred huge profits from "reducing" emissions that weren't going to happen anyway. My personal view is that the trade itself is pretty straightforward, whereas the "cap" part is where it can all go desperately wrong and where I'd like to see more transparency and innovation. Also, how does the trading work if we do reach an atmospheric concentration equilibrium, for example?
"
Second, there's China." There it indeed is, and despite the portrayal of Asia's largest tiger as completely indifferent to Global forces beyond its borders, the very economic change and success they enjoy is nothing but dependent on the US. So dependent, in fact, that last year alone US's trade balance with them was $256.206.700.000 "in the red" (
a quite befitting expression indeed). The US is thus actually in part subsidising China's own imports of oil, which they need to further grow their export based economy. So not only do China and the US share the same strategic weakness in energy infrastructure, but in competing with each other for the same resource the real profits from the traded goods actually increasingly go to oil producers. What better common incentive for the two to jointly seek to shed the "oil habit" and grow both economies without the risk of debt?
Also, China's infrastructure and energy production remain very inefficient which is completely at odds with their supposed attractiveness as an export base - a base US companies have embraced without hesitation. The current market realities seem unable to reflect this and perhaps CO2 emissions trading could level the field here also. The US could even do this unilaterally within its borders, as physical imports have to hit the shores eventually. If Chinese subsidiaries cannot be made to pay for their (
likely) disparate emissions for the services they provide for a US consumer, its US parent company or importer can. Whatever the billing address, foreign outsourcing to low energy efficiency, high emissions countries would soon become much less attractive and for good reason.
"
Finally, there's the global-cooling spell." The article goes on to recognise that after a decade, the pace of warming will pick up again; why this should equal us sitting on our hands for that time I don't quite understand. And anyway, the CO2 emissions are set to keep rising meanwhile. More so without investing in fossil gas alternatives. Beyond this, phenomena like permafrost potentially releasing methane, salinity changes weakening or altering ocean currents (
heat pumps, essentially), rising CO2 concentrations (
most conclusively documented) changing the acidity of water resulting in unforeseen changes in the viability of algae and plankton etc. should keep us occupied meanwhile.
The atmosphere liquefied is approximately the same volume as the Mediterranean, I'm being told; imagine 6 billion people (
and then some) collectively going over to sh*t in that pond. That's not a lot of matter for the whole Humanity to tamper with. We've got to try and function in relation to the resources we have, it's as simple as that.
Curiously, despite the differences in opinion above, I do agree with Lowry's conclusions: In preparing for, understanding and mitigating climate change the schemes shouldn't be costly. In fact, as logic would have it, this activity is in fact profitable. CO2 emissions trading is one attempt to establish this and I'm by no means disappointed if someone comes up with a better solution yet. Equally, "Global warming" isn't the most critical issue of our time as Sen. Harry Reid contends; I suspect we'll need to be humble enough to leave that determination to the historians and treat every issue with according respect.
Carlin have some world fame when he was fired in 2003 from MGM Hotels when he fought with his audience in Las Vegas. He said into the audience things like "People who go to Las Vegas, you've got to question their --- intellect to start with. Traveling hundreds and thousands of miles to essentially give your money to a large corporation is kind of --- moronic. That's what I'm always getting here is these kind of --- people with very limited intellects."
