In what is one of his saner opinion pieces, Washington Post writer Robert Samuelson notes a few interesting things
Climate change: We have no solution yet
It would be healthy — in the sense of promoting honesty — if every report warning of global warming and climate change (the two terms are interchangeable) came with the following disclaimer:
Despite our belief that global warming poses catastrophic threats to many of the world’s 7 billion inhabitants, we acknowledge that we now lack the technologies to stop it. The purpose of our analysis and policy proposals is to create the political and economic conditions that foster the needed technologies. But there is no assurance that this will happen, and much time and money may be invested in futile and wasteful efforts.
(Warmist blather)
It’s useful for environmental groups to have global warming “deniers†(and, of course, behind them the sinister oil companies) as foils. The subliminal message is that once the views of these Neanderthals are swept away, we can adopt sensible policies to “do something†about global warming.
The reality is otherwise. The central truth for public policy is: We have no solution.
Of course, what he recommends is typical
My own oft-stated preference is for policies that might dampen global warming but would also address other problems. The most obvious idea is a carbon tax to help finance government and stimulate energy-saving technologies and new forms of non-carbon energy. If these technologies went global, the gap between rich and poor countries would narrow.
And there you go: more taxation, more Big Government. Standard boilerplate from the Cult Of Hotcoldwetdry. But, wait, it gets better, because those evil third worlders
Worse, almost all the projected increases in global emissions come from poorer countries, half from China alone. By contrast, U.S. emissions (and those of most rich nations) are projected to stay stable over the three decades. Economic growth is slowing; energy efficiency is increasing; and, in Japan and some European countries, populations are declining. Because poor countries understandably won’t abandon their efforts to relieve poverty, any further U.S. emissions cuts would probably be offset by gains in China and elsewhere. This dims their political and environmental appeal.
And there is another typical Warmist trope: those in developing countries must be forced to continue living a third world shithole life. Warmists know they already have theirs, and now want to deny others. I know what my recommendation is: Warmists should live the lives they want Everyone Else to live.
