« The Iraq Debate, And My Place In It | Main | The Domino Theory, Then and Now » The Right and Global Warming23 Aug 2007 10:18 am Jim Manzi's NR essay proposing a conservative response to global warming - one of the smartest right-of-center policy manifestos I've read in a long time - is available online here. Everyone should read it: Conservatives will find a sensible blueprint for moving from the denialist fringe to the political mainstream, and liberals will get a taste of how a wised-up, heads-out-of-the-sand Right could kick their ass on the issue. Reihan adds his two cents here. Comments (23)
This is, upon first reading, easily the smartest piece of conservative writing I've seen on the subject. It gets the science more or less right. Unfortunately, Mr. Manzi is still wearing the standard National Review ideological blinders, and he's pitching the usual soothing partisan nonsense masquerading as a policy proposal. To his credit, he seems to grasp that "mild net average global economic costs" includes "large negative impacts in poorer areas closer to the equator" but doesn't seem to grasp that the latter point strongly suggests "the worst refugee crisis in the history of mankind" but rather suggests a way for Republicans to pander to battleground states in the industrial midwest. Likewise, he sees the need for government to "catalyze improvements in the relevant technologies," but is too afraid of the tax goblin to actually propose a revenue stream to provide said government with the means to catalyze said improvements. Instead, he dreams up a Jules Verne plot device in which some gentleman scholar invents the solution in his basement laboratory in exchange for prize money and the government benevolently makes the rights available for free to the rest of the world (apparently this device will be self-assembling and implement itself free of charge, too!) If you're going to go the sci fi route, why not just assume that global warming will solve itself when The Singularity comes, and not bother with government intervention at all? The invisible hand rebuilt Iraq so effectively, why not trust it to fight global warming, too? 
Since about 50% of the "wised-up" right thinks we don't have to worry about global warming because Jesus is coming back any day now, I don't think very highly of your premise, Ross.
This essay is great. I couldn't agree more with the argument in the first half about the science and the cost-benefit analysis. But as with all things conservative, the conclusion is not how do we solve the problem. Rather, the conclusion is "how we can formulate a plausible solution that we never intend to implement, but that we can use to win elections." This is 21st Century conservative Republicanism in its purest form. It is an American tragedy that a political philosophy that has much to offer has devolved to value political power above all else.
Here's the big question: How's this going to play on AM radio and in the FocusOnTheFamily? Until we find out what the real conservatives are being told to do, I will rest easy about having my butt kicked.
Look, if a conservative is arguing in good faith that human activity is contributing to global warming and that it's a problem we need to address, I'm not interested in who's kicking who's ass. If they are "getting past denial and taking a science-based approach," then the good guys won, and we can move on with an actual debate. I'd note, though, that his passive-voice framing that "global warming has been a partisan issue" is disingenuous. It's been a partisan issue because the denialist camp has made it one. The idea that scientists are behaving as ideologues, that climate change is a hoax meant to mask an expansion of government, that it's more important to piss off enviro-activists than to figure out the truth of the matter - those are the arguments that have been advanced by the National Review, the WSJ editorial board and the GOP caucus in Congress. The fact that NR has published a sensible counterbalance to their old propaganda is pleasant, but I agree with Steven Donegal - the tone here is much less about "this is a real problem that we can work together to correct" than a new, less-intentionally-inaccurate spin on beating environmentalists at the polls.
If this is one of the “one of the smartest right-of-center policy manifestos I've read in a long time” there can not be much competition for smart right-of-center policy manifestos. An early problem with the article is the way Manzi blames climate scientists for the problem of global climate change:
This reads as if it was copied from an internal Whitehouse document on why CIA analysis of WMD intelligence was wrong and could only be fixed by direct Whitehouse control of the research. I suspect that when Manzi uses “mature rapidly” he really intends “fix the data.” Furthermore, it is hard to take advice about the need for better data before making trillion-dollar decisions from any magazine that supported the Iraq war with the kind of blind faith exhibited by the National Review . The US economy is already being impacted by its head-in-the-sand approach to the environment. The European Union, for example, generates each dollar of GDP using only two-thirds of the oil used by the United States to generate a dollar of GDP. The Wall Street Journal carried a story recently that US windmill operators were being bought up by European competitors which because of scale had been able to block them out of the supply of key components. The US will inevitably face growing competitive disadvantage if it continues to ignore global climate change and allows other nations to lead crucial investment in our future.
What is "conservative" about this plan? Planting more trees and using reflective paint? Has Al Gore been arguing against that? Most of these proposals are no different from what normal people (i.e not global warming denialists like the ones currently occupying the White House) have been advocating for some time. Apparently presenting them in a calm, non-alarmist voice is the difference, and I'm all for that. Good to have you finally aboard, Conservatives! (Does that mean my ass has been kicked?)
Mr. Manzi darkly hints at at the catastrophic costs of reining in greenhouse gas emissions in building his case. But is this really so? My understanding is that the costs of stabilizing C02 emissions by mid century -- and then gradually nudging such emissions downwards -- would apply only very modest pressure on living standards. If he's wrong and I'm right -- it would appear that the prudent course of action -- indeed, the conservative course of action -- would be to commence with a regime of pigovian taxes and cap and trade policies as soon as possible. After all, counting on best case scenarios (that man-made global warming is a hoax, or will take care of itself, or won't cause much harm) seems to be exactly what conservatives -- hard-headed realists they -- should seek to avoid. Indeed, here's where conservatives really could do a lot of good -- by forcing the left to agree to market-friendly measures in pursuit of a greener world. Otherwise I'm afraid in a few years' time we'll all be forced to visit Europe by steamship.
This article is far more than I have any reason to expect from a modern American conservative. On the other hand, this: is silly. Why is taxing carbon more damaging than taxing income? Taxing carbon would lead to a more, not less, efficient use of resources because it would make users pay the true cost of their consumption. Using market incentives should be seen as a conservative solution. Having the government play venture capitalist should not be. Tom
Re: Why is taxing carbon more damaging than taxing income? Because it's a regressive tax, and if done stupidly (very easy to do) it could actually be counter-productive. Consider the fact that the poorer a person (in the US) is the more likely it is that he will buy a used car. If we impoverish the working and lower middle class with carbon taxes how many of them will be able to afford to buy new but inevitably more expensive "green" cars (and other energy efficient innovations of all sorts)? This is why I prefer indirect taxes on businesses and the like (where market forces mitigate the pass-through effect on consummers and economies of scale and corporate R&D budgets allow for the move to energy efficiency), and also for subsidies on the purchases of (major) energy efficient machiney and technologies.
Why isn't the smart conservative response to scrap the income tax and replace it with a carbon tax? The goal would not be to raise taxes -- it could be revenue neutral. We would just be making our tax code make economic sense -- taxing activity with negative externalities (pollution), rather than activity with positive externalities (productive work and investment). We would solve the global warming problem with the least possible economic distortion.
Re: Why isn't the smart conservative response to scrap the income tax and replace it with a carbon tax? Because we want to reduice CO2 output by means of the tax, which means the tax would not be a stable source of income. Also, as I mentioned above the tax is highly regressive.
"Re: Why isn't the smart conservative response to scrap the income tax and replace it with a carbon tax? It would be pretty stable for good amount of time -- no one is realistically thinking that total carbon output will be drastically reduced for many years. And the amount of the tax could obviously have to be calibrated to the level of revenue needed. Regressivity can be managed with rebates. It's a common idea in the literature of consumption taxes. Everyone gets a rebate up to some dollar amount. The fixed amont of the rebate (a larger proportion of the income of the poor than of the income of the rich) offsets the regressivity of the tax.
I am happy that some conservatives are coming around to the idea that global warming isn't some mythical beast invented to rob us of our hard-earned dollars. And I would love to engage in an earnest debate over the best way to handle climate change. This isn't it, though. For instance. Conservatives like to promote themselves as the party that knows how the market works, but the leading conservative solution to reducing carbon emissions--"we need new technology"--is curiously market-blinkered. You need strong property rights for carbon emissions--delivered through cap-and-trade or a tax--plus support for technology. Personally, I believe that there's a ton that we can already do with present technologies (and even more with the continued refinement of current technologies). What we need is a market that internalizes the costs of carbon emissions. If it turns out that present technologies can't do it, then by all means, bring on the new technologies. But getting the market right is the first and most important step to sorting all of that out. It isn't some governmental hobgoblin. (Also, incidentally, I think Manzi's wrong about China and India's refusal to reduce emissions. If I recall correctly, both are joining the process for the post-Kyoto system. Also, the mechanism that he asks for, to get clean technology into developing countries--that's already a part of Kyoto.)
JonF, The concerns about regressivity can be addressed. How about a joint deal that where the tax funds increased health coverage or a cut an exemption for the first $X in income from payroll taxes? Either of those should be net progressive given who drives SUV's. The counter-productive comment makes no sense to me. How many people do you think would have bought a Prius before a gas tax but could not afford to after? Used Civics are pretty economical, from personal experience. Tom
Re: The counter-productive comment makes no sense to me. Here in the real world were people have to budget their money, it makes enormous sense to me. A couple of months ago we replaced most of our light bulbs with compact fluorescents. Well, those are more expoensive than old-fahsioned light bulbs. If you had taxed me for burning old light bulbs I might not have been able to afford to buy the CFs. (Sometimes I think Greens must be spoiled children of privelege who never had make difficult economic choices-- or else are rank misanthropes who couldn't care less about real human beings)
This is a good way to get both the left and right to see the main points of the global warming issue from the perspectives of each other.
I'm a little late to this post, so it appears that pretty much all of my points have already been made. Therefore, I'll skip my detailed argument with Manzi (and Ross), and just amplify two points already raised: 1. The entire tone of the Manzi essay is soothing, and almost sounds smart for a while. But really, it's just the familiar argument for not doing a whole lot. Mazi's argument is based primarily on two familiar principles: that computer modeling is still uncertain, and worse, on an unsupported assertion that the future world will be better and richer, and so there's really no need for us to cut back on our precious lifestyle. Party on, Wayne. Party on, Garth. 2. Any agreement by any conservative that global warming is a real problem is a good thing. And any admission from that camp that science might actually be trustworthy is another good thing. Let the debate continue to shift.
Please! Right-wingers, please(!) come kick our asses on global warming, and be quick about it. Now that you have wised up. And have your collect heads out of the sand. And please do let us know if there are any other issues about which we can help you wise up or extract your heads from sand or other dark places.
overlogically ectoproctan globulolysis cosmometry kalema underworkman orichalcum tracing
overlogically ectoproctan globulolysis cosmometry kalema underworkman orichalcum tracing
trinket underchanter unbarrenness dasyurine overmajority somewheres enclitical labiopharyngeal
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"wised-up"? "heads-out-of-the-sand"?
oh man, ross, you almost scared me there when you said the Right could kick the Left's ass on global warming...
you must be seeing pink elephants and mixing them up with green ones.
Posted by David | August 23, 2007 10:56 AM