Pages

Advertising

Paul Krugman on the "policy issue of our time"

Monday, July 13, 2009

Paul Krugman is always worth reading, and today's column, "Boiling the Frog," is no exception. I particularly liked - well, not "liked" exactly, but agreed with - the part on global warming.
...the consensus of the climate experts is utterly terrifying. At this point, the central forecast of leading climate models — not the worst-case scenario but the most likely outcome — is utter catastrophe, a rise in temperatures that will totally disrupt life as we know it, if we continue along our present path. How to head off that catastrophe should be the dominant policy issue of our time.

But it isn’t, because climate change is a creeping threat rather than an attention-grabbing crisis. The full dimensions of the catastrophe won’t be apparent for decades, perhaps generations. In fact, it will probably be many years before the upward trend in temperatures is so obvious to casual observers that it silences the skeptics. Unfortunately, if we wait to act until the climate crisis is that obvious, catastrophe will already have become inevitable.

And while a major environmental bill has passed the House, which was an amazing and inspiring political achievement, the bill fell well short of what the planet really needs — and despite this faces steep odds in the Senate.
The question at this point, to be blunt about it, is whether human beings are any more intelligent than a frog in a pot of hot water. After watching the nearly monolithic votes by House Republicans against the Waxman/Markey energy and climate change bill on June 26, I've pretty much concluded that Eric Cantor and his merry band of flat earthers are no smarter than an amphibian. But what to think of Democrats who voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act? Are they stupid, ignorant, or "merely" cowards (political, moral, you name it) on an "the dominant policy issue of our time?"

Along these lines, I was talking to a friend yesterday about Glenn Nye's vote against ACES, and how (supposedly) sentiment in his district is strongly against taking action on clean energy and global warming. What amazes me is that this is a district that has everything to gain and almost nothing to lose from passing a bill like this. There's no coal production in the district (unlike the 9th, where Rick Boucher voted for the bill; heck, even Dominion Power supports this bill!). There's no oil production in the district (and no, I don't buy the b.s. about huge offshore oil potential there). There aren't a lot of energy-intensive industries (e.g., steel manufacturing, heavy industry, petrochemicals) in the district. In addition, this is a coastal district that is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, as rising sea levels harm the Chesapeake Bay and also threaten naval bases in the region.

As if all that is not enough reason for the representative from this district to vote for ACES, there's also the vast economic potential of offshore wind power off the Virginia Beach coast. In sum, ACES is a huge net economic positive for a district like Virginia's 2nd, with almost no conceivable downside. If a Democratic representative from a district like that can't muster up the political cojones to vote for ACES, it raises a fundamental question about our political system's - and mankind's more broadly - ability to deal with major, long-term challenges (and opportunities). It also raises numerous questions about said Democratic representative's priorities and mindset, but that's a topic for a separate diary.

In the end, I'm not optimistic about our political system's ability to take forceful action on a problem that, although extremely severe, is long term (certainly beyond the 2- or 4-year cycles most of these people think in) and a bit abstract (what does a temperature rise of several degrees over 30, 40, 50 years mean exactly to the average person struggling to get by and feed their family these days?). True, the science on this is powerful and essentially unanimous, with the only serious disagreement being over how bad things will get and how urgently we need to act (pitifully, there are many Republicans who simply reject basic science - evolution, climate science, you name it - and actually believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, with dinosaurs and humans apparently roaming the earth simultaneously). At the same time, a tremendous energy-economic revolution awaits the nation that seizes the opportunity. If it's not America, it will be China, Japan, Germany, etc. In fact, we're already falling behind those countries. Yet that doesn't seem to be sufficient for the vast majority of Republicans, as well as for a few Democrats, to do the correct thing here.

All of which is why, in the final analysis, I'm with Paul Krugman, "thinking about boiling frogs" metaphors with regard to this "policy issue of our time." Sigh.