The New Abortion Politics
August 1st, 2008Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The deepest pathologies in the climate policy debate can been seen in this comment in today’s NYT column by Paul Krugman:
The only way we’re going to get action [on climate change], I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral.
This strategy of characterizing one’s political opponents as immoral is of course is part and parcel of the debate over abortion (which is why I call such politics “abortion politics” in The Honest Broker). In the climate debate the litmus test for having the proper morality (i.e., defined as not “standing in the way of action,” by being a “denier” or “delayer” or [insert derisive moral judgment here]) is by holding and expressing (and not questioning) certain acceptable beliefs, such as:
*Not questioning any consensus views of the IPCC (in any working group)
*Not supporting adaptation
*Not emphasizing the importance of significant technological innovation
*Not pointing out that policies to create higher priced energy are a certain losing strategy
Deviation for these beliefs is, blasphemy — heresy! Or as Paul Krugman recommends . . . immoral.
Climate change is the new locus of the U.S. culture wars. Unlike the abortion issue which was turned into a referendum on morality by the political right, the climate issue is fast becoming a referendum on morality by the political left. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 am
Roger, what you call the “deepest pathologies” in the climate policy debate is actually not only perfectly appropriate, it`s one of the key ways that a free society works to pressure firms to internalize externalities, as libertarian thinker/economist Gener Callahan has noted: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/08/01/gene-callahan-public-moral-opprobrium-is-an-appropriate-non-statist-lever-against-climate-change.aspx.
The “deepest pathology” is of course has been the willingness of those who export climate risks to to the rest of society at no cost to them, to continue to purchase relatively cheap political cover, the lack of interest by others to invest heavily in exercising a countervailing balance, and a desire by politicians to benefit by doling out favors. Classic public interest politics, as analyzed by Gordon Tullock and others decades ago.
Your list of climate change “beliefs” is an exercise who purpose and practice that I`m afraid I don`t understand:
- I see many who accept that adaptation is needed, and argue that it`s time to start.
- It`s easy to find “believers” who emphasize the importance of significant technological innovation, and who argue for carbon pricing, direct government expenditures and/or regulatory standards to incentivize such innovation.
- even Krugman, in the editorial you criticize, expresses concern that policies to create higher priced energy may be losing strategy. However, I`d disagree that carbon pricing is a “certain” losing strategy; in fact, rebated carbon taxes have elicited widespread support across industries and the political spectrum: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/27/top-demagogues-jim-hansen-florida-power-exxon-aei-margo-thoring-major-economists-george-will-prefer-rebated-carbon-taxes.aspx. A little honesty by politicians may do wonders.
But even more, what`s the point? Climate science and policy discussion are not – as some like Bret Stephens of the WSJ would have it – a simple matter of “belief” or “mass neurosis”, and disagreement surely not heresy or blasphemy: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/07/mind-games-bret-stephens-of-the-wall-street-journal-panders-to-quot-skeptics-quot-by-abjuring-science-and-declaring-himself-an-expert-on-quot-mass-neurosis-quot.aspx
I`m not sure why you feel that the ground for science and policy dispute are narrowing, at least in ways that you disagree with. The administration is now pointing out the need for adaptation, for example. But it does seem to me that painting the political and social discussion with a broad brush as divided between “believers” and “heretics” is a great way to encourage the oversimplification that you decry.
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:59 am
Roger, what you call the “deepest pathologies” in the climate policy debate is actually not only perfectly appropriate, it`s one of the key ways that a free society works to pressure firms to internalize externalities, as libertarian thinker/economist Gener Callahan has noted: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/08/01/gene-callahan-public-moral-opprobrium-is-an-appropriate-non-statist-lever-against-climate-change.aspx.
The “deepest pathology” is of course has been the willingness of those who export climate risks to to the rest of society at no cost to them, to continue to purchase relatively cheap political cover, the lack of interest by others to invest heavily in exercising a countervailing balance, and a desire by politicians to benefit by doling out favors. Classic public interest politics, as analyzed by Gordon Tullock and others decades ago.
Your list of climate change “beliefs” is an exercise who purpose and practice that I`m afraid I don`t understand:
- I see many who accept that adaptation is needed, and argue that it`s time to start.
- It`s easy to find “believers” who emphasize the importance of significant technological innovation, and who argue for carbon pricing, direct government expenditures and/or regulatory standards to incentivize such innovation.
- even Krugman, in the editorial you criticize, expresses concern that policies to create higher priced energy may be losing strategy. However, I`d disagree that carbon pricing is a “certain” losing strategy; in fact, rebated carbon taxes have elicited widespread support across industries and the political spectrum: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/27/top-demagogues-jim-hansen-florida-power-exxon-aei-margo-thoring-major-economists-george-will-prefer-rebated-carbon-taxes.aspx. A little honesty by politicians may do wonders.
But even more, what`s the point? Climate science and policy discussion are not – as some like Bret Stephens of the WSJ would have it – a simple matter of “belief” or “mass neurosis”, and disagreement surely not heresy or blasphemy: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/07/mind-games-bret-stephens-of-the-wall-street-journal-panders-to-quot-skeptics-quot-by-abjuring-science-and-declaring-himself-an-expert-on-quot-mass-neurosis-quot.aspx
I`m not sure why you feel that the ground for science and policy dispute are narrowing, at least in ways that you disagree with. The administration is now pointing out the need for adaptation, for example. But it does seem to me that painting the political and social discussion with a broad brush as divided between “believers” and “heretics” is a great way to encourage the oversimplification that you decry.