More Hot Air

Al Gore comes forth now with the carbon pledge. (Conveniently, it arrives on a web site enabling the faithful to purchase various Al Gore products with a simple mouse click)

But there’s nothing particularly wrong with doing well while doing good. And let’s leave aside the inconvenient truth that Gore lives in a home the size of a small country with a carbon footprint approaching that of West Virginia, and deal with his pledge.

1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;
2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"
3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;
4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;
5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;
6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,
7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st
century.

Let us consider:

1. What would such a treaty say? How would we effect its implementation? At what cost? If, as many have persuasively argued, the costs of managing global warming (or the human contribution thereto) pale in comparison to the costs of trying to eliminate it, would not the former be a better idea?

Like most hysterics, Gore simply ignores the costs and offers precisely no solutions.

2. Ah, like, for instance, not living in a huge house, with 8 bathrooms, a (heated) pool, a guest house, etc.? (Sorry, I promised I wouldn’t play the hypocrisy card.)

Again, if there is a specific proposal therein, it seems to have escaped my attention.

3. And replace them with ... what? Curiously, Gore simply can’t seem to make his lips form the word "nuclear".

4. OK, I’ll give him this one; good idea. But, again, how?

5. "Laws" and "policies" are not the same thing. The difficulty with "renewable" is that it’s synonymous with "hugely expensive". Solar panels on one’s home cost, in many cases, as much as the home itself. (At the same time that the NJ Legislature passed a global warming "response", it adopted a budget which redirected $10 million away from a renewable energy fund – designed to help subsidize solar energy installations – to shore up our bloated state budget. Rats, again with the hypocrisy card...)

6. A debate exists respecting whether "preserving" forests helps or hurts, if, by "preserving", one means leaving same forever intact without logging. New growth, some aver, removes substantially more carbon than old growth. Especially given the substantial carbon release which occurs when nature takes man’s neglect into its own hands via massive fires, would not a careful management plan, logging older forests (which, presumably, will store the carbon contain in the wood as housing products, etc., for a considerable period of time) and replacing them with new growth, make sense?

7. His commitment? Puh-lease. (Back to the hypocrisy card again; sorry.)

OK, so we shouldn’t insist upon saints, lest we, as a society, have neither politicians or priests. But we might, at least, expect intelligent discussion from those who purport to oppose an "Assault on Reason".

Any policy must start with one basic philosophy: provide the best possible standard of living for the most number of people, at the lowest cost, while preserving maximum amounts of individual freedom.

Confining myself, for the moment, to my own milieu, what might the State do to affirmatively advance the fight against man-made global warming?

And the answer is, a lot of little things, which tend to encourage people to act responsibly. That is, we can help people make good environmental choices by making it worth their while.

Consider: we could eliminate the sales tax on all high mileage vehicles. Instantly, everyone gets a $2000 price break on a Prius. (‘Course, this means Uncle Jon has to do without a few hundred million a year, but it’s for a good cause). Eliminate the tax on ethanol, rendering it more competitive. Aggressively promote the solar energy fund, and provide income tax credits for those who convert their homes. Amend building codes (if necessary) to provide for better solar alignment of homes and installation of energy saving devices, such as "geothermal", radiant heating/cooling systems. IMMEDIATELY CEASE all efforts to deny relicensing of Oyster Creek and, indeed, encourage more nuclear plant construction, both in NJ and regionally. Encourage use of personal wind turbines, where practicable, by exempting them from zoning regulations. Link heavy rail with light surface rail and ultra-light surface rail (exempt construction thereof from cost-generating rules like prevailing wage), eliminate parking fees at stations, and cut transit fares. Explore opportunities for additional hydroelectric generation along smaller rivers, and, if we think big, perhaps even exploring reinvigorating projects like Tocks Island.

(Now, NONE of these projects can be undertaken without offsetting disadvantages. Nukes inevitably tick off the technophobes among the lefties and do, in fact, present potential targets for terrorists. (But, then again, so do schools, and we’re not shutting them down) Every program produces other consequences. Consider the more toward compact fluorescent lights. Sure, they consume less energy, but they’re made with mercury, and we just banned thermometers which contain mercury out of fear of contamination. Just WAIT until these bulbs start hitting landfills.)

If we’re serious about addressing global warming, without either ceding control over our lives to an increasingly omnipotent government or living in wigwams, using nothing but our bodies for warmth, we must understand the need to make trade-offs. Which, for instance, presents a greater threat: the possibility of terrorism or the certainty of carbon-related warming? Which is worse: discommoding some fish in the Delaware, or melting the polar ice caps?

The problem with charlatans like Gore rests in their unwillingness to present credible plans for achieving their goals. Leave aside the patent absurdity of taking environmental advice from a man with a 20 room mansion (ooops) who contends that we should adopt "his commitment". The real difficulty lies in the fact that many of the same folks who are all hot about global warming oppose just about every method of addressing it – consistent with any semblance of a comfortable, modern lifestyle. Almost uniformly, their sole response to any problem is "conservation". Usually mandatory, governmentally enforced "conservation".

We most certainly SHOULD tread lightly. As lightly as possible, anyway, so as to "conserve" resources, like any good conservative should. Given that all of human existence requires environmental tradeoffs, the question is always the same: how best to maintain and improve our lives while treading as lightly as possible upon the planet our posterity with inherit?

So, global warming is a problem? Fine. Build nukes. Build dams. Build windmills. Build railroads. Buy more efficient cars. Stop raiding dedicated solar energy funds. Them what can afford it – and, giving Gore his due, he’s apparently been shamed into spending some portion of his massive fortune on installing solar panels and other very environmentally sensitive devices in his megahome – should lead by example. But, also, be honest.

Gore’s pledge says precisely nothing about alternatives. It offers up a picture of a better future, without ever bothering to mention how that future might be brought into existence. Treaties, laws, policies, rules and regulations all require one essential element: massive government. THAT would be a disaster. The trick lies in finding someone with the vision to implement a broad, well considered, freedom-respecting environmental policy.