Sep 30 2008
Global Warming: The Al Gore (Non) Effect?
We’ve mused on public opinion before, since it (along with the ridiculous notion that there is complete consensus among scientists) is used to justify draconian and economically absurd global warming remedies. But check out this piece running in the LA Times from Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger:
As the election enters its endgame, Democrats and their environmental allies face a political challenge they could hardly have imagined just a few months ago. America’s growing dependence on fossil fuels, once viewed as a Democratic trump card held alongside the Iraq war and the deflating economy, has become a lodestone instead. Republicans stole the energy issue from Democrats by proposing expanded drilling — particularly lifting bans on offshore oil drilling — to bring down gasoline prices. Whereas Barack Obama told Americans to properly inflate their tires, Republicans at their convention gleefully chanted “Drill, baby, drill!” Obama’s point on conservation and efficiency was lost on an electorate eager for a solution to what they perceive as a supply crisis.
Democrats and greens ended up in this predicament because they believed their own press clippings — or, perhaps more accurately, Al Gore’s. After the release of the documentary film and book “An Inconvenient Truth,” greens convinced themselves that U.S. public opinion on climate change had shifted dramatically, despite having no empirical evidence that was the case. In fact, public concern about global warming was about the same before the movie — 65% told a Gallup poll in 2007 that global warming was a somewhat or very important concern in comparison to 63% in 1989. Global warming remains a low-priority issue, hovering near the bottom of the Pew Center for People and the Press’ top 20 priorities.
Of course, this is low down people’s agenda, especially at a time of such economic uncertainty and distress. I will be amazed if cap and trade passes even if Obama wins in November and the Dems continue to control Congress.
[…] editor over at the Chilling Effect website posted a great article yesterday which expounded on a write-up in the LA Times. There is […]
How much of Nordhaus and Schellenberger are you trying to sell us here? This part, too?
“A better approach is to make clean energy cheap through technology innovation funded directly by the federal government. In contrast to raising energy prices, investing somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion annually in technology R&D, infrastructure and transmission lines to bring power from windy and sunny places to cities is overwhelmingly popular with voters. Instead of embracing this big investment, greens and Democrats push instead for tiny tax credits for renewable energy — nothing approaching the national commitment that’s needed.”
And as for the “ridiculous notion that there is complete consensus among scientists,” why this ridiculous strawman? We always act on the basis of imperfect information, and a knowledge of risk is sufficient without certainty that can only come too late. That`s why INDUSTRY, from Exxon on down, supports action on climate change, and political leaders around the world - they they`d certainly prefer to have others shoulder the burden and get comparative advantages.
The Gore effect has receded as economic concerns have grown, but there`s very little surprise there. But contrary to N & S, the depth of our problems ironically makes it rather more certain that Dems will win the White House and greater control over Congress next month. We can only hope (and push) so that will govern more competently than Bush and the Republicans did.