Into the fray
After skulking around nytimes.com message forums and reading exasperating commenters on The Atlantic, I decided to enter the “argument-by-comment” war on climate change by posting a comment on a Jim Manzi’s current meta-discussion of the climate debate. Typically, when I read these things the particular discussion is either so out-of-date or so dominated by nutjobs that I don’t feel like it’s worth contributing.
I don’t really know anything about Jim Manzi. But on this particular blog the level of discourse was pretty high and the latest post was fewer than four hours old. Plus I had just attended the Gordon Research Conference on Industrial Ecology (about which I can tell you nothing or I’d have to kill you– well, let’s say, “sequester” you). So I felt both qualified and compelled to respond.
I used my real name and linked to my blog, so I decided I had better go ahead and own up.
Here are my comments, which stand alone pretty well:
A lack of understanding of an incredibly complex system (in this case, we’re talking about the whole and entire actual world) is not a legitimate argument against prudent action. In fact, it is precisely the opposite— an urgent call to action. You talk about “what a reasonable and informed person would believe to be a legitimate danger;” I counter, while you may be reasonable, you are not informed. Like it or not, climate change is not a social issue. The welfare of the world’s poor does not enter into the question. It is a physical issue, and the tools we use to understand the physical world are scientific tools.
The modern economy depends on ultraspecialization of knowledge, and the vast array of intelligent people critically studying climate have converged on what is essentially an unassailable consensus. Media-savvy crackpots notwithstanding, the people who have dedicated their lives to understanding biogeochemistry don’t have a doubt in their minds. CO2 emissions now exceed the IPCC’s 2001 worst-case scenario; ocean pH is measurably falling; and entire ecosystems depend on the integrity of coral reefs. These are not projections, they are facts.
We are effecting change on a massive scale and CANNOT predict its effect. The only responsible answer is to change our behavior. To pretend to hem and haw over the “economic costs” of changing our behavior is asinine. It adds hubris to irresponsibility. Moreover, to sugarcoat rationalizations about doing nothing with talk of the world’s poor (which don’t figure into any economic calculation by any fossil fuel user in the developed world) is as disingenuous as it is self-serving. It’s worth mentioning that SOx emissions were cut at a fraction of the projected costs; and anyway economic models are far more uncertain than physical models. So why let the economic models call the shots?
In a free world, the only way to effect change while preserving liberty is with economic force. This is a market problem with a market solution: a price on carbon. Why is that so hard to understand?
In retrospect, I don’t think I particularly raised the tone of the debate. Rather, I’m kind of shrill and whiny. The conclusion, which can be paraphrased as “why are you so stupid?” is clearly obnoxious. It’s also deliberately simplistic, as I reject economic arguments, which goes directly against some very good advice delivered at the above-mentioned conference. I do use complex sentence structures, though, which is true to form. I should probably have sat on the post for an hour or so and re-read it. But now it’s done.
Eh. Welcome to real life.