As Of Yet Untitled

Alexander Draine’s most recent column in Draine On Society entitled “Carbon-based Lifestyles” opened up the debate on climate change and HR2454 (“Waxman & Markey”) from a perspective which had hitherto not been discussed on the Johnsonville. In approaching the issue from the angle of population growth—and consequent economic expansion—Mr. Draine hits upon the key issue that, in my opinion, is driving the debate. Mr. Draine’s argument follows thusly:

1. Global warming, resultant from anthropogenic (human-produced) carbon emissions, will likely lead to unpredictable climate changes in the not-too-distant future.

2. Prices for fossil fuel consumption have been kept artificially low, essentially hiding the true cost of the industrial lifestyle.

3. Oil and other fossil fuels are in finite supply (non-renewable), while current infrastructure and lifestyle in America and other industrialized nations is designed to accommodate fossil fuel consumption.

4. Therefore, it behooves our nation to push forwards with initiatives that result in decreased dependency, not only on foreign oil, but oil itself. Doing so will give America a head start in the march towards a future capable of accommodating even current levels of productivity, let alone increases.

I agree with much of what Mr. Draine has to say on this issue. His conclusions make use of good logic, and are supported by several factors, even some which he does not mention here. Even so, I’d like to begin my commentary with a few minor nitpicks I had about the article itself. Then I’ll proceed to discuss in some detail a few extended features of this issue. But let’s get the nitpicks out of the way first.

Mr. Draine says “It is ludicrous that a gallon of gasoline, refined from petroleum that is found in finite supplies, is cheaper than a gallon of milk, which can be produced as long as we have cows.” This argument has a lot of intuitive merit; but I think it may be an essentially flawed one. The demand for milk in America far exceeds the number of resident cows. Since our country can really only afford to accommodate so many cows, the only way to make milk supply to the American public in line with demand is the burning of fossil fuels associated with transporting, feeding and upkeeping cows and the milk they produce. In other words, if gas prices were NOT as low as they are, milk prices in America would not adhere to a national standard, and much of the demand would decrease drastically. Even so, the point is well taken.

Mr. Draine also states, “We appear to have already passed peak global oil production – supply will be going downhill from here on.” I would only like to say that the question of whether we have reached peak oil yet is debatable; some studies report that peak oil might not be reached for several decades yet. In particular, this becomes more believable considering the resultant drop in production the global economic crisis is likely to produce. And yet, it seems in relatively little doubt that the oil supply will inevitably dwindle, along with other fossil fuel reserves, in this century, making preparedness for an end to fossil fuel consumption essential to the preservation of society as we know it (and the avoidance of a second Feudal Age). Clearly, there is a desirable advantage to be had here, one any nation should strive for.

So much for the nits. Next, I’d like to address Mr. Draine’s argument, as outlined above. Point (1) sent me researching global warming as a theory. I’ve cited below a list of videos I found useful and informative,[1] I found that the debate was two sided, but ultimately, I was forced to conclude the following: that global warming has direct links to anthropogenic carbon emissions, and that warming in the years ahead is expected. This I considered unfortunate, as I have a distinct distaste for all-things-Gore. But Mr. Draine and I agree on one essential thing: that climate change as it will occur in the near future will be the result of and directly analogous anthropogenic carbon emissions.

However, Mr. Draine’s article neglects one particular nuance of the global warming debate. One major point of contention over climate change derives from the fact that, in the past, temperature increases on earth have largely preceded the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; historically, higher atmospheric CO2 levels have been the result of higher temperatures on Earth, not the cause. But in fact, industrialization has produced an unprecedented cause of rising CO2 levels, without the impetus of natural warming, in the human burning of fossil fuels. This leads us to a crucial point: that the effects of man-made global warming cannot be viewed by looking at the historical record; in fact, what the results of this unprecedented situation literally cannot be known before they occur. We are dealing with a wholly new animal here, and this accounts for the real heart of meaningful controversy over global warming: the wide disparity between predictions about the future consequences of climate change. Knowledge of these consequences as they will effect populations and societies is essential to taking the right course of action now. But in fact, while consensus on the necessity of climate change in general is broad, no such unity exists on what specific climate changes can be expected. Since such knowledge is in fact uncertain, political will to act in any number of ways is dispersed.

What this means is that, in order to pass a major piece of legislation capable of having an effect, one must convince a majority of the Congress that such actions are necessary. Waxman & Markey is just such a bill, if only by the slimmest of margins. The sort of political compromise entailed in Waxman & Markey has many activists, including those at Greenpeace, upset that measures don’t go far enough in attacking global warming and potentially inhibit future possibilities, as told in a recent New York Times article.[2]

As to Points (2) and (3) of Mr. Draine’s argument, I am in complete agreement that energy prices must necessarily in the near future, and that unsustainable carbon emitting fuel sources are in finite supply. In light of these facts, the question is raised as to whether Waxman & Markey is the kind of bill that we need to incentivize renewable, sustainable society in America. The bill is sweeping in the reforms it provides for. From the strategic planting of trees to the market regulation of carbon credits to the updating of infrastructure to the carbon sequestering subsidies, Waxman & Markey seeks to promote the green move by means of government regulation, central planning, and intrusion. Now, some will say this is not a failing point of the legislation, perhaps government insentivisation and administration of green tech will be a good thing. I submit that my faith in the ability of government to successfully administer anything beyond social policy is limited. But even so, I feel it is in this specific instance relatively unnecessary. Here’s why.

Mr. Draine and I, as I have said, are in perfect agreement as to the reality of the fossil fuel situation. As the supply inevitably diminishes, demand will necessarily rise, and with it price (unless controlled by means of military and economic hegemony, as in the past). But this is the true process by which incentivisation of alternative energies will occur; not the expensive set of incentives provided in Waxman & Markey. On the other hand, the measures that Waxman & Markey do call for are going to cost quite a bit of money, largely at the expense of the consumer; for this reason, many have correctly referred to this as the Cap & Trade tax. Now, it seems to me that if the incentives required for businesses and citizens to turn over towards renewable energies are already present as a result of the free market system, why should we contribute to that the government regulation of the process by which the turn over takes place? What incentive do we have to let the government administer the change over? I myself prefer the organic development of free market incentives to the costly and inefficient procedures of government oversight.

Mr. Draine concludes that the nation which gets a head start on such greening initiatives will be better placed in the geopolitical world than those that took long. But I submit that it is really not the nations at all that will win or lose out in the future, but the companies that catch on to the inevitable death of oil early. The companies, not the country, will market the products. Is it likely that American factories will produce these technologies in future? Not particularly, considering that computer parts used in the states are predominantly of Asian manufacture. So I think that argument fails to constitute a legitimate justification for Waxman & Markey.

Of course, the climate change argument provides, in the end, the only argument for acting immediately. For surely, energy consumption issues could be dealt with in good time, over a matter of a year or two, rather than immediately. But supposedly, the fight against global warming can’t wait that long. If unsuccessful, the bill could potentially seriously degrade the ability of the United States economy to recover from the recession into which it has sunken. Some activists have posited the idea of comparing economic catastrophe to environmental catastrophe to be ridiculous, for instance, Al Gore in his Inconvenient Truth and Paul Krugman in a recent New York Times article “Boiling the Frog”.[3] Surely, such voices say, the economic catastrophe is infinitely better than the environmental. I contest that this comparison is a false one. In fact, if economic catastrophe occurs, the likes of which is yet to be seen, our ability as a nation to do anything about global warming will have been completely obliterated.

A better solution to the climate crisis would be to allow the free market to function, by disentangling fossil fuel prices from their artificial price controls. If American military spending was drastically reduced, massive savings to the people and the US government would ensue, which could be utilized to ease the effects of free market fossil fuel prices. Immediately business would have an incentive to go as green as possible, and these industries would proceed organically, with unfettered, unlimited potential. Even a carbon tax would be rendered unnecessary. In any event, I do not look forwards to the extremely hot, expensive days ahead.