The University of East Anglia mail server was hacked earlier in the week and a string of private correspondences between esteemed climate scientists were published.  In addition to some juicy internecine gossip becoming embarrassingly public, a few of the messages seem to reveal doubts about the evidence for global warming and at least one refers to a statistical “trick” being used to hide lower-than-predicted surface temperatures in recent years.  James Delingpole dubs this “Climategate” and pronounces it “the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming.’”  Andrew Bolt calls it evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.  Michelle Malkin terms it “The global warming scandal of the century.”

Andrew Revkin of the NYT — himself a subject of some of the emails in question — summarizes the controversy:

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.

The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

Ronald Bailey, though, warns, “Before jumping to conclusions, remember that many of us write private emails that we might not want to see publicly distributed.”

Indeed, an unsigned post at the RealClimate blog (which I presume was written by NASA’s  Gavin Schmidt, given parallels with the Revkin story) argues,

Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Given what I know about academia, research, and science, this strikes me as eminently plausible.

Ed Morrissey sees evidence in the emails that the scientists in question are rejecting data that goes against the prevailing consensus and concludes, “That’s not science; it’s religious belief.”   But producing research findings that conclusively shatters the prevailing wisdom is the gold standard of science.  It’s the stuff of Nobel Prizes and eternal fame.  That’s how the handful of scientists known to every schoolboy (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc.) got there.

But one doesn’t want to publish findings claiming to shatter the consensus only to have one’s work revealed as shoddy.  So, scientists having a Eureka! finding are likely to test and test again before going public.  And, sadly for them, they’ll likely find that their novel finding was a not so novel error.

Climate change, while an important topic, is one that I follow only at the periphery.  Frankly, it’s an incredibly specialized field and I lack the time to keep up with the literature, the training to understand it, and the motivation to change either of those facts.   My biases and general impressions on the matter, however, are as follows:

• There’s overwhelming consensus among the experts on this subject

• Conspiracies involving hundreds of people over several decades are next to impossible to pull off

• There’s next to zero incentive to perpetrate this conspiracy on the part of scientists

• There are enormous incentives for people wanting to influence government to leap from the scientific data to grandiose public policy solutions

Because of the above and biases that spring from my academic training and political ideology,

• I tend to believe the vast preponderance of scientists who say the climate is changing and that human technology is a significant variable in said change

• I tend to be skeptical of radical government-mandated fixes

Story links via memeorandum.  Graphic via Green Irene.

“Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change,” blares a Spiegel op-ed by Christian Schwägerl.  The essay is another data point in the growing notion that the new American president’s aura is fading on the other side of the Atlantic.

But, as I argue in my New Atlanticist essay “Obama Disappoints Europe Ahead of Copenhagen,” this was all too predictable.  Indeed, Bob Manning and I both predicted it before Obama was inaugurated.   Obama is, like George W. Bush before him, president of the United States.  Our priorities are simply different from those in Western Europe.

Obama’s personal ideology on climate change and other environmental issues is much closer to that of the European leaders than was his predecessor’s.  But there’s simply no way that Obama is going to swim upstream on this one in the midst of two shooting wars, a global recession, and a major fight to reform the healthcare system.

[...]

Obama is a cautious, pragmatic politician.  This is a fight he can’t win.  He’ll therefore avoid entering the ring.

None of this will prevent Bruce McQuain and others from enjoying some well-deserved Schadenfraude.

Rush Limbaugh has gotten everyone from Media Matters to The Guardian to Andrew Sullivan to Paul Krugman to Raw Story to FireDogLake up in arms because he allegedly suggested that a NYT reporter kill himself.  Except that, to anyone familiar with either Limbaugh or the conventions of American English, it’s rather obvious he was illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

Here’s the actual quote, as supplied by Media Matters:

I think these militant environmentalists, these wackos, have so much in common with the jihad guys. Let me explain this. What do the jihad guys do? The jihad guys go to families under their control and they convince these families to strap explosives on who? Not them. On their kids. Grab your 3-year-old, grab your 4-year-old, grab your 6-year-old, and we’re gonna strap explosives on there, and then we’re going to send you on a bus, or we’re going to send you to a shopping center, and we’re gonna tell you when to pull the trigger, and you’re gonna blow up, and you’re gonna blow up everybody around you, and you’re gonna head up to wherever you’re going, 73 virgins are gonna be there. The little 3- or 4-year-old doesn’t have the presence of mind, so what about you? If it’s so great up there, why don’t you go? Why don’t you strap explosives on you — and their parents don’t have the guts to tell the jihad guys, “You do it! Why do you want my kid to go blow himself up?” The jihad guys will just shoot ‘em, ’cause the jihad guys have to maintain control.

The environmentalist wackos are the same way. This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?

Rather clearly, Limbaugh isn’t so angry about a silly blog post that he actually thinks Revkin deserves to die.  Rather, he thinks Revkin is an idiot with really screwed up priorities. Limbaugh is employing standard reductio ad absurdum logic here:

• Revkin argues that we should reduce the number of babies being born as a means of reducing CO2 emissions and thereby saving the planet.
• By that logic, “the planet” is more important than people
• Revkin should demonstrate his commitment by ending his own life.

Update (Alex Knapp): Actually, Rush Limbaugh’s big crime here isn’t “telling someone to off himself” — it’s plagarism. This is almost exactly the same joke that the late, great comedian Bill Hicks did in his act around 1991:

People pay lip service to saving the planet, but they don’t – they fail to make the big leap that if you want to save the planet, kill your fucking self. The planet will be saved without you. And what a delightful place it’ll be.

I’ll give Limbaugh credit: he’s stealing from possibly the best comedian of the 20th Century.

I periodically hear this during presidential campaigns and when various elected officials are trying to push a green policy, often in response to global warming.

Because of [insert environmental problem here] we need to pursue a policies that will promote [insert one or more alternative fuel/energy sources here]. And not only will it address [the environmental problem noted above], but it will also reduce our demand for foreign oil, which often goes to the terrorists, but it will also promote job growth.

I’ve always found this argument to be extremely annoying. Why? Because anyone who has sat through intermediate micro economics should know that it is just simply bunk.

Intermediate micro is where you are introduced to the concept of relative prices. Typically, it is in a “two good world”. This simplification allows the instructor to draw graphs of indifference curves and budget constraints. And the point of tangency between the budget constraint and (highest possible) indifference curve is the point where people consume various amounts of the two goods. This point of tangency is where the ratio of the prices is equal the ratio of marginal utility for each of the two goods. Change the prices and you’ll move to a new point of tangency and a new allocation of goods.

What the above argument is saying (implicitly) is that we’ll change the price ratio by subsidizing whatever green energy/fuel source they prefer, be it switch grass, tar sands, or solar power. However, we can also change the price ratio in another way: taxing the offending energy/fuel source. In most cases it is going to be a petroleum product like gasoline or maybe coal or even both. If we subsidize, for example switch grass based energy production we are in effect lowering the price of energy derived from switch grass relative to all other sources of energy.

Now, why do I say the above claim about jobs is baloney? Because we can get the same change in relative prices by taxing the offending sources of energy, but this option is never discussed. Why? Because nobody thinks raising the tax on gasoline by $5/gallon is a good way to stimulate the economy. Thus, the jobs claim is just not true. Or to put it differently, sure, you’ll get more jobs in producing energy from switch grass, tar sands and the like. But you’ll also lose jobs in the market for the offending energy source. The citing of the gross number of jobs created in the alternative energy source markets is not sufficient. The true measure is the number of net jobs created or lost. But politicians never tell you that.

Further, you’ll get an immediate price response by taxing the offending energy source so it will work even better at reducing the negative environmental impact. In short the most obvious and direct solution is never, ever discussed. This is the main reason why I scoff at people who are hysterical about global warming. If it is really the dire threat they say it is, then a tax on gasoline and other petroleum products should be the way to go. Instead of trying to jury rig up some stupid carbon credit trading scheme which in actual practice has turned out to be nothing more than corporate welfare they should be arguing for a tax on the offending energy source. But they don’t.

Note: This isn’t to say that global warming is not a problem or that we should ignore it.

Amusing but smart:

Like many things in Japan, the message is subtle. At least Japan’s All Nippon Airways (ANA) hopes it is, now that the nation’s second largest airline has started quietly asking passengers in Japanese to use the bathroom before boarding 38 domestic flights and four international flights between Tokyo and Singapore. The request is part of the airline’s “ecological flight” program, now in its fourth year, to reduce its carbon footprint by lightening planes’ loads and reducing fuel consumption. Through the month of October, ANA aims to reduce as much as 4.2 tons from going into the atmosphere by asking passengers to pack — and board — lighter.

[...]

ANA has apparently decided to spare its non-Japanese-speaking customers the potential embarrassment of pre-boarding potty talk. Though the Japanese-language announcement video at the gate for domestic departures politely advises travelers to use the bathroom before boarding, the English announcement makes no such suggestion. The English video does encourage passengers to “think about the earth and the sky above,” saying that a lighter aircraft means less carbon dioxide emissions, but stops short of suggested a pre-boarding run to the loo.

ANA spokeswoman Megumi Tezuka says she’s surprised by the attention the program has received in recent days, since the program was announced in a press release on Sept. 10. Why isn’t made to international travelers? “We didn’t think [telling people to use the restroom] was a very important point of the program,” says Tezuka. “We didn’t think there would be such big news about it.” Others of ANA’s 12 programs include recycling plastic bottles and paper cups, using lighter items in the cabin (such as plastic bottles for wine instead of glass ones) and providing chopsticks made from the wood of thinned domestic forests.

Airlines could help themselves along these lines without embarrassing announcements if they could figure out how to board and de-board passengers without trapping us aboard on the ground for 30-45 minutes on both ends of the flight.

In a classic Seinfeld episode, a phenomenon known as “shrinkage” was attributed to cold water. Now, a study finds that European fish have been shrinking owing to warm water.

Go figure.

As Waxman-Markey goes up to the Senate, I think it’s worth reminding people that there’s more at stake to cutting CO2 emissions than climate. There is also the more pressing issue of ocean acidification (which I’ve written about previously on OTB here). The science behind acidification is simple. As the oceans dissolve more carbon dioxide, the ocean becomes more acidic. This poses real, catastrophic problems for the ocean, as Randy Repass and Sally-Christine Rodgers point out:

Ocean Acidification is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels. When carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ends up in the ocean it changes the pH, making the sea acidic and less hospitable to life. Over time, C02 reduces calcium carbonate, which prevents creatures from forming shells and building reefs. In fact, existing shells will start to dissolve. Oysters and mussels will not be able to build shells. Crabs and lobsters? Your great-grandchildren may wonder what they tasted like.

Carbon dioxide concentrated in the oceans is making seawater acidic. Many of the zooplankton, small animals at the base of the food web, have skeletons that won’t form in these conditions, and sea-life further up the food chain – fish, mammals and seabirds that rely on zooplankton for food will also perish. No food – no life. One billion people rely on seafood for their primary source of protein. Many scientific reports document that worldwide, humans are already consuming more food than is being produced. The implications are obvious.

This is not complex, and while the ocean does have a natural buffer system, that system is slowly being overwhelmed by the increasing acidity of the ocean. Since 1750, the pH of the oceans has dropped by 0.1–an appxoimate 25% increase in the acidity of ocean water. It’s also worth mentioning that as a consequence of overwhelming the buffer system, the decreasing pH of the ocean is now happening faster than previously predicted–ten times faster than predicted.

The increased acidity of the ocean is not being caused by solar cycles or volcanoes, but rather by the simple increase of dissolved carbon dioxide in water. The data sets are not based on satellite measurments, but by direct tests of ocean water. The mathematics behind the modeling are much simpler and based on clear-cut principles of chemistry that you can demonstrate for less than $10 spent at your local grocery store.

Now, Waxman-Markey is insufficient to solve the problem. Granted. But it’s a start and right now it’s the only emissions reduction scheme on the table, which is why it has my support.

Matt Yglesias has an interesting suggestion for a preachy movie revival:

[W]hat the new rebooted Trek really needs is a re-do of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home but dealing with a more contemporary environmental threat than the need to save humpback whales from extinction. For example, The Enterprise could travel back in time to try to urge the Senate to pass strong climate change legislation. I’m sure Spock would have some choice words for the illogical nature of the filibuster rule. Or maybe Scottie could teach us about some dilithium-based sources of clean energy, spurring a green jobs boom.

If Gene Roddenberry taught us anything, it’s that smart, determined people like the fictional Commander Scott are far more likely to effectively respond to emergencies than government agencies.  If we’re going to come up with clean energy sources and drastically reduce our CO2 emissions, I’d bet that the solution will be much more like dilithium crystals than anything currently being debated on the Hill.

The Congressional Budget Office, the “nonpartisan” arbiter of the cost of various proposals and plans for the legislature, comes in handy sometimes. Other times, not so much.

So House Democrats are discovering anew. Just five days ago Speaker Pelosi vented her frustration with the CBO for its sky high projection for health care reform:

“The CBO will always give you the worst-case scenario on one initiative and never a best case,” she told reporters on June 18, referring to the nonpartisan budget committee, whose cost projections may make or break the legislation.

As such, she would rather the debate use the more tractable OMB’s numbers. But in Monday, however, they were only too happy to tout the CBO report that found “modest” cost hikes for citizens from the Democrats’ greenhouse gas bill:

“This analysis underscores that this legislation is effective and affordable,” Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., one of the climate bill’s chief sponsors, said Monday.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., also a leading co-sponsor, compared the cost to “a postage stamp a day” and not the economic catastrophe suggested by the bill’s opponents.

It helps their argument that they’re passing over the near-term projections and focusing on the projections for 2020, a projection so far into the future that no-one seriously believes it means anything.

The real truth is that CBO estimates are simply one set of educated guesses. They certainly aren’t holy writ, nor extraordinarily accurate. At best they provide a reasonably consistent benchmark against which to measure programs that are actually put into place. As such, if we’re going to use them at all, we should use them even when their results aren’t to our liking.

Richard Florida reports the results of a poll of what should be done with the 2000+ car dealerships being shuttered as a result of the bankruptcy reorganizations of Chrysler and GM:

• Ask the local residents about what the community needs (222 votes)
• Urban gardens (200 votes)
• Create walkable, vibrant places and improve current communities (138 votes)
• Farmers’ markets and local events (126 votes)
• Solar and wind energy park/vehicle charging stations (102 votes)

Odd, no, that the main concern of the respondents doesn’t involve the owners turning the space into something that will generate profits and enable them to continue to employ dozens of people per location?  One supposes that farmers markets and vehicle charging stations could replace some of the lost jobs; not so much “urban gardens” and “walkable, vibrant places.”

For that matter, the “planetizens” seem to have an odd sense of spacial relationships.  Aside from perhaps a handful of megastores, few car lots are big enough to turn into enjoyable parks, let alone put up enough wind turbines to make up a useful energy production facility.

Photo by Flickr user themarina under Creative Commons license.

Shelly’s poem Ozymandias is forced to mind when reading this piece from the Herald-Tribune of Sarasota, Florida. It makes perfect economic sense—cheap, useful cars with good gas mileage—but does it ever speak volumes about the inevitability of change…

Indian car company readies Sarasota showroom
Toni Whitt

SARASOTA COUNTY – While working for General Motors in the 1980s and early 1990s, Pawan Goenka discovered Americans’ passion for trucks and SUVs.

As president of the automotive sector for Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., based in Mumbai, India, Goenka is using that knowledge to bring India’s first trucks to the United States this year.

But Mahindra is not off-loading the stereotypical gas guzzler. The Mahindra trucks benefit from advanced emissions technology, making them more environmentally friendly. They also run on diesel and get about 30 miles per gallon.

A new brand — coming out just as GM struggles with solvency and Chrysler declares bankruptcy — and that new technology should create enough excitement to overcome dealers’ problems selling trucks and sports utility vehicles amid a recession and on the heels of last year’s gasoline spike, Goenka said.
…

Michael Barone (via Glenn Reynolds) argues that elites are “out of touch” on climate change and gun control:

Many years ago, political scientists came up with a theory that elites lead public opinion. And on some issues, they clearly do. But on some issues, they don’t. Two examples of the latter phenomenon are conspicuous at a time when Barack Obama enjoys the approval of more than 60 percent of Americans and Democrats have won thumping majorities in two elections in a row. One is global warming. The other is gun control. On both issues, the elites of academe, the media and big business have been solidly on one side for years. But on both, the American public has been moving in the other direction.

One could argue that these are cases where counter-elites are exceedingly well organized and have fought back with counter-propaganda. Regardless, they’re obviously cases where the elites have failed to dominate the debate.

Over the past decade, the Gallup organization has been asking Americans whether the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated or generally correct. From 1998 to 2007, except for the run-up to the 2004 election, they said it was generally serious by roughly a 2-1 margin — 66 to 30 percent in 2006, for example. But in March 2009, that margin slipped to only 57 to 41 percent, with two-thirds of Republicans and nearly half of independents saying concern is exaggerated.

Actually, this is a rather bizarre cherry picking of the data. What the March poll tells us is that people are more concerned about the economy than they are about the environment during the worst economic crisis in generations.  Indeed, Frank Newport’s report is titled “Americans: Economy Takes Precedence Over Environment – First time majority has supported economy in 25 years of asking question.”

Still, as Newport’s April 2008 report makes clear, the overall concern about global warming has been essentially static for two decades.

This, not the bogus comparison in relative intensity, is a much better indication that the elites have failed to win this battle.  On the other hand, a related question shows the people who think global warming “will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime” has increased from 25 percent to 40 percent over that period.

The difference is even more stark on guns, as Gallup’s various trendlines show.  The most relevant question has seen a steady decline since 1991:

Furthermore, gun ownership has fluctuated considerably since 1960, starting from a high of 49 percent, going as low as 34 percent in 2000, but is back to 42 percent today.

Responding to Kevin Drum’s observation that no-phosphate dishwashing detergent suddenly became possible when regulation demanded it, proving that theretofore “The industry just didn’t feel like doing it,” Megan McArdle retorts, “when I look back at almost every ‘environmentally friendly’ alternative product I’ve seen being widely touted as a cost-free way to lower our footprint, held back only by the indecent vermin at ‘industry’ who don’t care about the environment, I notice a common theme: the replacement good has really really sucked compared to the old, inefficient version.”  She offers several examples, ranging from low flush toilets to ‘energy efficient’ clothes driers.

She concedes — as do I — that these tradeoffs may in fact be worthwhile if the “good” existing product is truly dangerous to our habitat.  But it’s important to at least weigh the costs and benefits and not treat the “green” alternatives as a cost-free exchange.

Photo by Flickr user sassiecat under Creative Commons license.

Via Randall Parker, it appears that global sea levels are rising faster than previously predicted.

The global sea level looks set to rise far higher than forecast because of changes in the polar ice-sheets, a team of researchers has suggested.

Scientists at a climate change summit in Copenhagen said earlier UN estimates were too low and that sea levels could rise by a metre or more by 2100.

[...]

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, had said that the maximum rise in sea level would be in the region of 59cm.

Professor Konrad Steffen from the University of Colorado, speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, highlighted new studies into ice loss in Greenland, showing it has accelerated over the last decade.

Professor Steffen, who has studied the Arctic ice for the past 35 years, told me: “I would predict sea level rise by 2100 in the order of one metre; it could be 1.2m or 0.9m.

Yes, yes, I know. Don’t believe the findings of climate scientists. Blah blah blah it’s all a hoax blah blah blah sunspots blah blah blah excuse to raise taxes blah blah blah Newsweek said cooling in the 70s blah blah blah. No doubt it’s true that the oceans increase in acidity is all made up, too. Oh, and oxygen deprived “dead zones” in the water? They’re because of volcanoes. Or something…

Image of Greenland Glacier Melting. Credit: John Kirriemuir

Kevin Drum seconds my concerns about conservative public intellectuals and offers two example where the Right isn’t offering useful policy alternatives.

Conservatives on Global Warming

Take global warming. Here’s the rough conservative reaction to it starting in the early 90s:

1. It doesn’t exist.
2. It exists but it isn’t manmade.
3. It’s manmade, but it’s too expensive to do anything about.

Even this is a generous assessment. A lot of conservatives are still stuck at #2, and sizeable chunk at #1. What this means is that they’re basically shut out of the conversation entirely. Which is too bad, because I’d actually be sort of interested to hear a conservative take on how to address global warming that accepts both its reality and the necessity of doing something about it. If we really are facing a global environmental catastrophe, what shape would a conservative solution take? I don’t think anyone knows.

On the first, I’d note that John McCain made quite a bit of noise about being a Teddy Roosevelt Republican and the need to do something about the problem.  He launched a set of policies he dubbed the “Lexington Initiative” and mentioned it quite frequently.  It was, however, not at all a centerpiece of his campaign.  Newt Gingrich has been touting the need to adopt a sensible strategy on global warming for nearly two years now and included some interesting market-based suggestions in his book A Contract with the Earth.  There was even a group blog called Terra Rossa, to which I was a very occasional contributor, that tried to suss out a center-right approach to energy and climate issues.

None of these initiatives took off.

In my own case, it’s just not a topic I’m particularly interested in at a wonkish level.  I’m pretty sure global warming is happening and that human technology is a contributor to it and even think we’ll need government — indeed, intergovernmental — solutions.   I just don’t have the scientific interest to get excited beyond the margins.

More generally, though, I think conservatives were skeptical of the motives of the environmental movement and this particular aspect of it and always viewed it as a backdoor attack on business and progress.  That, combined with a general conservative faith in free markets to solve problems and lack of same in government, explains the general dearth of useful discussion of the issue on right-of-center blogs.

Presumably, though, there are conservatives who take the issue seriously.  Presumably, too, their solutions involve market-based incentives.  What are they?  Who’s talking about these issues?  Why am I not seeing it on the center-right blogs?

Conservatives on Wage Inequality

Kevin continues:

Likewise, conservative reaction to wage stagnation and growing income inequality has gone down a similar road:

1. It doesn’t exist.
2. It exists, but consumption inequality is what really matters.
3. ???

Again, conservatives are dubious of motives here, as well as means.  The Left generally hasn’t been helpful here, framing the problem as one of a handful of rich people making obscene amounts of money (Why, the CEO of Acme Corporation makes 10 gazillion times what the guy who mops the floors in the executive washrooms makes.  It’s an outrage!) rather than figuring out to make people at the low end of the wage scale more competitive.

Second, most of us do in fact think absolute living standards matter much more than the distribution of income.   Bill Gates’ lifestyle is of little interest to me; that of me and my family is of great interest.   If our real purchasing power goes up a third and his triples, I’m pretty pleased.

That said, it’s important for a variety of reasons that there be a huge middle class rather than a division of haves and have-nots.   We’ve still got that — we live in bigger houses and have more stuff than our parents did at comparable points in their lives — but it’s taking two incomes, constantly changing jobs, and 24/7 connection to the office to do it.

What’s the solution to that?   The hackneyed consensus solution for decades has been “Education!”  I’m not sure that’s sustainable anymore as an answer, given the diminishing returns on college degrees.  If it takes an MBA to get a job flipping burgers, we’re not making much progress.

Just as surely, though, the answer isn’t some sort of salary cap on what executives can make — although I’m amenable to reforms on how executive compensation is set, given the incestuousness of corporate governance — or an arbitrary minimum wage that’s not related to a worker’s value to the firm.

I don’t have the answer.  What are the smart folks on the center-right who actually focus on these issues (one presumes there are in fact people who fit that description)offering up as solutions?