FACT CHECK: Combating Global Warming Does Not Require ‘Economic Castration’
FACT CHECK: Combating Global Warming Does Not Require ‘Economic Castration’
There is a group of people who will say whatever it takes to cast doubt on global warming science. But if all else fails, their default position is that even if global warming is real and dangerous, trying to solve it wouldn’t be worth the economic cost. For example, here’s our old friend Jason Steorts in the National Review:
Even if warming is predominately the result of human activity, and even if its harms will outweigh its benefits, the question is whether it will be bad enough to justify the economic castration that significant greenhouse-gas reductions would require.
In today’s Washington Post, columnist Sebastian Mallaby efficiently dispenses with this argument:
In 2004, for example, the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration analyzed a carbon-cutting plan advanced by Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman, which aimed to stabilize greenhouse emissions. The energy administration estimated that reaching this target would cause U.S. GDP to be 0.4 percent less than it would otherwise have been in 2028. Since GDP was projected to grow by 90 percent between the time of the study and that year, this meant that the nation could address climate change and still experience growth of 89.6 percent over the period.
In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the most prestigious authority in the field, carried out a similar exercise . It calculated that stabilizing carbon emissions at an acceptable level — defined as slightly higher than today’s — would cause world GDP to be 4 percent lower than it would otherwise have been in 2050. Again, that is a modest cost — roughly one year of decent growth for the world economy.
Even on a global level, combating global warming is relatively affordable. Of course, what’s always missing from the analysis of those who insist that our climate policy should be determined by cost-benefit analysis is the cost of doing nothing. I wonder why?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hey, look…it’syet another piece on Global Warming!
By continuing to post articles about the Global Warming ‘controversy’, TP unwittingly perpetuates the fiction of a Global Warming ‘controversy’.
This issue is settled…let’s move on already.
July 24th, 2006 at 9:58 amIt’s beginning to look like Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rummy, et al, are planning a nuclear winter to solve the problem of global warming.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:04 amwhy is there so LITTLE info about the added jobs and industry that alternative energies could and WOULD provide to the economy? huh???
July 24th, 2006 at 10:04 amI think all liberals who actually believe in this hype, should stop driving their cars immediately. Let’s see them put their money where their lying ass mouths are. That should reduce enough emissions to actually see this thing turn around….don’t ya think? Something tells me I’m still gonna see those “Kerry/Edward” bumper stickers on the road. Battle cry of the left…”Blame everybody else because it’s not my fault.”
July 24th, 2006 at 10:06 amWe can’t really move on from global warming until we do something about it. There clearly not a consensus that we should do something about it among politicians/the public. Otherwise, we would have done something about it.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:07 amKevin:
None of the solutions involves not driving cars. It probably involves transferring to cars that are a little more fuel efficient and giving people who would prefer not to drive more options (i.e. public transportation.)
If you are confident in your position address the actual argument rather than a strawman.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:09 am‘ will be bad enough to justify the economic castration that significant greenhouse-gas reductions would require.’
July 24th, 2006 at 10:12 amJason, Bush has already castrated our country.
Between signing statements and virtually no policy besides eavesdropping and bogus
security measues we have all been collectivelly neutered.
How’s that grab you?
The irony is that we don’t even need oil. we have enough renewable energy resources to kick the oil addiction once and for all. over 70% of global warming greenhouse gases are created by automotive exhaust. It’s outdated 19th century technology that we don’t need. Here are some alternatives:
- Solar power and photovoltaics
- Wind power gas turbines
- Geothermal power
- hydroelectric power
- controlled thermonuclear fusion (do not confuse nuclear fusion with nuclear fission power. They are completely different. Take a look at the ITER project in France)
- Biomass and ethenol
- Hydrogen power
Remember, any heat gradient can be converted into electricity. How do you think thermal transducers work? The chemical energy stored in fossil fuels means nothing when we have a deuterium-tritium fusion reaction emmitting plenty of heat radiation right above us. With all the progress made in thermoelectric efficiency optimization, why not use some of it for electric power production (both stationary and propulsive).
Why switch to renewable energy?
1. Global Warming: Prevent the increasing threat of global warming which will not just have a devastating impact on human life, but all macroscopic life.
2. Job creation: All of the above mentioned potential power production industries will provide countless jobs to farmers/land owners, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, materials engineers, nuclear engineers, business administrators, accountants, software designers, janitors, etc.
3. A stonger economy: The average American spends over $35 a week on gasoline. Imagine what would happen to the economy if the average American could save that money and re-invest it into the economy. That’s a lot more money saved than what people are “saving†from Bush’s tax cuts.
4. Terrorism and war: Lets be honest, the war in Iraq is about oil. In fact, much of why middle eastern terrorism exists is because of oil. Why does Bin Laden hate us so much? Because we have military bases in Saudi Arabia! Why do we have bases there? To protect the oil refineries there. Remember, 7% of the Unites States economy comes from Saudi oil. We really shouldn’t be making such business deals with that sharia-law enforcing theocracy.
5. Oil’s invasion of American politics: Both Bush and Cheney are oil men. Oil has become so big and so corrupt that even those in office have become the same as the oil men that lobby them. If there were no big oil, we wouldnt have guys like Bush and Cheney sneaking their way into Washington and into power. Big oil has saturated our government. This is a government ruled by the people no more.
For a cleaner environment, a stronger economy, a more honest political system, a friendlier foreign policy, safer homeland security, and for the quest towards scientific progress we have to get off of oil! I urge all of you to write to your congressman and ask them what they are doing to make the switch to a greener energy source. Make yourselves heard and you will have the power to bring change to the way Americans look at automotive transportation.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:18 amKevin,
Nobody claims that anybody needs to completely give up a car to address the problems created by global warming. You are creating a false dichotomy in which only extreme solutions exist. This, by the way, is a typical rhetorical tactic employed by Republicans, used to complement their other favorite tactic, the straw man.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:20 amWorking to prevent global warming will help the economy!
July 24th, 2006 at 10:20 amKevin, do you like spending $35 a week on gasoline that you dont need? Do you get a thrill when exxon execs hold you upside down by the ankles and shake you until your money falls out of your pockets? The fact of the matter is that modern technological advancements are at a level right now where we dont need this 19th century technology. Get a clue, investing in renewable energy will not only help the environment (which is a responsibility that no one can ignore) but it will also create jobs, cause less of a demand for us to make business deals with the theocrats and terrorists in the middle east, will help us clean up washington so that it’s no longer run by oil men, and will also save average americans way more money on gas than they’ll ever save with bush’s tax cuts for the rich.
I designed and built my own car out of photovoltaic fuel cells. I dont have to spend any money on it for gas. How much money do you have to spend on gasoline? Let a liberal help you save some money.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:30 amKevin,
Your arguement makes as much sense as saying
“Well if Republicans hate terrorists so much lets blow up the entire planet”
and this nonsense arguement
Battle cry of the left…â€Blame everybody else because it’s not my fault.â€
applies more to you, GWB and your party than any liberal
lets see
No reposnse to 52 warings about 9/11 in Summer of 2001 not GWB fault
Iraq level of insurgency not GWB fault
Iraqtroop levels not GWB fault
High gas prices not GWB fault
Stagnant wages not GWB fault
Katrina not GWB fault
so stfu!!!
July 24th, 2006 at 10:34 amthe question is whether it will be bad enough to justify the economic castration that significant greenhouse-gas reductions would require.
I really dont understand this economic bullshit. Even if it was the biggest economic castration in history it is the right thing to do. How do we get to think that economic reasons are above environmental, social and even human reasons? Then we wonder why communists exist. THis economic system is UNSUSTAINABLE.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:55 am[...] This post inspired by this post on ThinkProgress. [...]
July 24th, 2006 at 10:59 amThe irony is that we don’t even need oil. we have enough renewable energy resources to kick the oil addiction once and for all.
Comment by neopro
Energy arriving from the sun (above atmosphere) is 13,000 times the energy that humans are producing for our needs. All said.
any heat gradient can be converted into electricity
Temperature gradient I guess is what you wanted to say.
- controlled thermonuclear fusion (do not confuse nuclear fusion with nuclear fission power. They are completely different. Take a look at the ITER project in France)
This technology is really expensive, dangerous and non-viable for III world countries. So I will discard that.
EXCELENT POST.
July 24th, 2006 at 11:06 am[...] CHECK: Combating Global Warming Does Not Require ‘Economic … FACT CHECK: Combating Global Warming Does Not Require ‘Economic … Think Progress – Washington,DC,USA There is a group of people who will say whatever it takes tocast doubt on global warming science. But if all else fails, their … [...]
July 24th, 2006 at 11:14 amI’m sure that I’m not the first to point this out, but if someone believes that the earth has only been around for 6000 years (or whatever), it would be against their belief system to accept the scientific evidence that the earth is the hottest now than it has been in hundreds of thousands of years. These are the ignorant dipshits who are ruining, oh i guess i meant running, the country.
July 24th, 2006 at 11:27 amThis is a great post! I also submit that these sorts of changes would also create new industries to help fasciliate switch-overs and clean-ups and will in the long run help the US economy since we will no longer be shelling over so much money to foreign entities for our energy needs. Who knows? Maybe we will eventually be able to EXPORT energy products if we are at the forefront of this!
July 24th, 2006 at 11:30 amThis I am interested in! Do you have a web page describing your project? Can this car be driven on standard roads and highways?
July 24th, 2006 at 11:33 amThis is a great post. This is the point that needs to be driven home with the right.
I seem to recall them also saying that fuel emission controls would also kill the economy. That didn’t happen, now did it?
July 24th, 2006 at 11:54 amSwearing off oil, so that China, India and Japan can buy it cheaper would put the US at a significant economic disadvantage. Moreover, since India and China do not have the pollution controls we do, every barrel of oil they consume creates more pollution than if the US consumed it. Energy is going to be a major economic and strategic concern, and the US is woefully behind in energy investments for the future – nuclear, hydro-electric, wind, solar ….
July 24th, 2006 at 12:02 pm#21 Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 24, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
That is the dumbest argument I’ve heard in a long time. How on earth is the US going to immediately “swear off” oil to a point that will drop prices for China, India, and Japan? The best case scenario involves gradually weening off oil. Oil is still a limited resource. It will still be costly for the other countries.
As we create a cheaper alternative energy infrastructure, we can start exporting this technology to China, India, and Japan. Cars running off hydrogen fuel cells (for example) will become the norm, since the USA and Europe (not to mention Japan, which for some reason you lumped in with 3rd world countries), the largest consumer base, will prefer them. This will gradually force China and India to follow suit if they wish to import those vehicles.
But either way, this is a dumb argument because it’s like saying “If everybody quit smoking it would become cheaper for other countries that don’t FILTER their cigarettes!” Since when do conservatives give a damn about anybody else in the world but themselves.
And why the heck are conservatives defending the oil companies!? If memory serves me, even Bill O’Reilly occassionally complains about high gas prices and whatnot. And I thought conservatives wanted to stop money going to the middle east because of fears of middle eastern terrorism? I mean get your story straight already!
July 24th, 2006 at 12:09 pm#15, assuming we can actually maintain a sustained magnetically confined deuterium-tritium fusion reaction, we wouldn’t need them in third world countries. The ITER project in France (if successful) alone should provide enough power for multiple countries. Just convert the heat energy to electricity and store it some sort of capacitor or battery and export them to third world countries. A single nuclear fusion reactor will go a long way. As far as the dangers go, its a lot safer than nuclear fission power (the reactor types that are being used now) because it produces virtually no radiation or nuclear waste (ohmic heating of a plasma in a tokamak replaces the irradiated water if a fission reactor which produces nuclear waste). It also won’t produce any nuclear waste as nuclear fission reactors do. You are correct about it being very expensive, but its still nickles and dimes compared to how much money we’ve invested in destroying Iraq.
#19, I worked on the solar powered car with a group of other engineering students at my university a while back. We didn’t design it to drive on the highway, but it very well could go that fast if we altered the design specifications. Since then I have built another one on my own using mostly the same technology (added some actuators to convert some of the mechanical energy produced by breaking and gear motion to electrical energy which is later converted to mechanical energy again for more thrust power). You can find fuel cell technology anywhere on the web. I heard that a bus was built to run entirely on fuel cell power. Honda has also built a prototype hydrogen fuel cell car which i hear can go just as fast as any other car on the road (exhaust is water so it doesn’t pollute or require gasoline).
Talk to your congressmen and senators, greener and cleaner technology is available!
July 24th, 2006 at 12:11 pmNote to my previous post: The comments about “hydrogen fuel cells” is PURE speculation. It’s too early to tell which technology will become the future “standard.”
July 24th, 2006 at 12:11 pmWell, by actuators, i meant actuators coupled with force transducors :)
July 24th, 2006 at 12:13 pmWouldn’t the “harms” that “outweigh the benefits” be economic castration?
That needs to be the counterpoint.
The ills of global warming will be economic.
That’ll shut up naysayers and neuter their arguments.
We can either pay a little now or a lot more later.
July 24th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#24, i thik there will be many different types renewable energy utilized in the future. There won’t be a standard as there is now. Think of it like a “country kitchen buffet”. There will be some hydrogen power, some solar power, some nuclear (hopefully fusion and not fission) power, some geothermal power, some biomass power….all of these will be utilized. It will be many markets, not just one. Most power plants will use an amalgam of different power sources at once. You know what that means to have multiple renewable energy power sources and not just one standard one? MORE JOBS!
July 24th, 2006 at 12:26 pmWhat’s really funny to consider is that the Global Warming Reality Deniers, unless they have their own infinitely self-sustaining escape pods for use in outer space, are NOT immune from the consequences of their clear idiocy
This is one issue where ignorance, actually, willful ignorance, is not bliss, and all the money in the world won’t keep the weather from turning nasty no matter where the Oil Leviathan CEO’s-or their dwindling number of lackeys/trolls/sheeple-live
By God, if I have to suffer climate change because of adherence to profits over science, then as petty and doomed as it is, I’ll enjoy watching those money-driven slugs go down as well with their own ship of fools
Soirry Global Warming Deniers, on this issue, you do NOT win by everyone else losing, on this issue, YOU LOSE AS WELL
The ultimate zero-sum gain for science haters
July 24th, 2006 at 1:20 pm#27, neopro, i think you are right, i was mainly trying to get to my point quick without iterating through all the dozens of alternatives since it’s up in the air which ones will “catch on.” :-)
And AMEN on the more jobs. That’s my big thing. Imagine the USA as the future biggest clean energy exporter of the world! This is a market we can lead and dominate if we start getting really really serious NOW before other nations beat us to it! And that will have a huge impact on the amount of money we are currently spending on foreign interests that may affect national security… You’d think the neocons would LOVE to stop sending money to the OPEC nations. Oh but wait, they are heavily invested in them and are secretly good friends with them. But shhh, they are the enemy so we can rally our base! What a bunch of hypocrites.
July 24th, 2006 at 1:22 pmIf you take a look at Honda and Toyota, the two automotive companies that are investing the most money and research into greener more eco-friendly cars, you’ll notice that their profits are kicking the shit out of their competators like Ford, BMW, etc. Al Gore actually points this out in his movie, which I highly recommend watching. The automotve companies that have been investing more money in green technology are making record-breaking profits. Seriously, renewable energy is a goldmine waiting to be tapped and used. Its crazy that so many things are tied to big oil right now: terrorism, war, political corruption, global warming, corporate scandal (enron was an energy industry), the list goes on.
This needs to be a bipartisan issue. The only reason conservative repugnant-cans havent endorsed this yet is because big oil bought them. However, there are emerging evangelical environmentalists groups who also have been pushing renewable energy. I say we should ally with them. We should use this to try to get Bush’s religious right wing base to turn on him. If we can meet them on the issues of the environment, maybe we can get them to turn against the jerry falwells and pat robertsons. We need to seriously start a revolution here and lobby everyone we can of all political creeds to get behind renewable energy and environmental protection.
July 24th, 2006 at 1:46 pm#28 – KingCranky,
July 24th, 2006 at 1:47 pmEveryone has an out, it’s called death.
Well, by actuators, i meant actuators coupled with force transducors :)
Comment by neopro — July 24, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
whew! i’m so glad you cleared that up! :-)
We can either pay a little now or a lot more later.
Comment by Jason — July 24, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
a common truth of so many problems…
July 24th, 2006 at 2:03 pmHilarious – US as a clean technology exporter ….
Current business model is a few lab guys create a raw “clean” technology, then they license it to Asian countries for manufacturing, because it is too impracticle to manufacture it in the US, because unions have instilled a poor work ethic and no company loyalty in the US workforce.
July 24th, 2006 at 2:22 pmHilarious – US as a clean technology exporter …. Current business model is a few lab guys create a raw “clean†technology, then they license it to Asian countries for manufacturing,
Yeah, ever heard of capitalism?
July 24th, 2006 at 2:39 pmMark my words: The Chinese will figure out how to bring down the cost of mass producing photovoltaics. They’ll achieve the economic gains from kicking the oil habit long before we do in the US. We’ll be importing their technologies because, just like everything else in this country, our labor costs will be too high and all the jobs will be outsourced! We’ve already missed the boat! AGAIN!
July 24th, 2006 at 2:51 pm#33 Jason M. Hendler
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz… A discussion on how to make money from new technology gets an anti-Union FUD post. I don’t consider wanting a livable wage and paid vacation “poor work ethic.” It’s fair terms of work and pay for our country’s citizens. Comparing foreign sweatshops where they work for nothing because they HAVE no trade unions and regulation is a poor thermometer for unionized labor “work ethic.” Of course, to this I always hear some anecdotal story about some union employee that does no work and never gets fired. There I beat you to it. Don’t bother. Poor workers can be found everywhere, unionized or not. It’s the peter principle, essentially. And it may be a necessary evil. I’d rather one lazy guy get away with doing a crappy job for some average “unionized” pay than millions of workers in unhealthy, unfair, work to the bone, little pay, no vacation, die early conditions like after the industrial revolution BEFORE unions. We’re better than that.
As for how to prevent exporting of jobs? Regulation balanced with tax breaks and/or other incentives to stay in the USA. An example of “Free market” gone awry: do you think your Nikes cost less because they are made in asian sweatshops? HELL NO. The big guys on top take a bigger cut. My ass Nikes would cost more if they were made in the USA. The raw materials and labor are NOT that expensive. it’s all a balance. Fair terms and pay for workers, fair reward for the white collar CxOs and shareholders. But the latest tradition in American capitalism is self-reward the CxOs with lots of bonuses no matter how they do, while laying off and exporting American jobs. I think (I hope) things like Enron opened the eyes of a lot of Americans about corporate greed and corruption. Only time will tell.
But I digress from the original point…
July 24th, 2006 at 2:52 pmgetting old sucks… brain farts and memory loss…
i wish i could remember the details, but i do remember listening about how solar technology was basically stamped out of existance in this country because of lack of incentives… it was not allowed to catch on in this country, even though there was positive interest and demand… the technlogy was bought up by german companies… that government gives tax incentives and other perks – as a result, there are very few roof tops that do NOT have solar panels on them…
similar to toyota buying the hybrid technology from GM…
and GM destroying perfectly good electric cars…
hmmmm… a pattern?
nope, can’t blame “the unions” either…
July 24th, 2006 at 3:10 pmThe only reason conservative repugnant-cans havent endorsed this yet is because big oil bought them.
I though the only reason is they don’t want their friends teasing them and calling them “liberal.”
July 24th, 2006 at 4:24 pmThe ITER project in France (if successful) alone should provide enough power for multiple countries. Just convert the heat energy to electricity and store it some sort of capacitor or battery and export them to third world countries.
Comment by neopro
IF successful…the biggest issue is to produce a sustainable nuclear fussion. I like the idea of having little suns here on earth supplying huge amounts of energy. We would solve the exergy (not energy) crisis forever without a doubt but the problem is monopolization and discrimination. Poor countries wont have this fussion facilities and the energy they buy from wealthy countries is going to cost them a fortune…pretty much like nowadays, although poor countries have the prime material but not the final product. As a science project, I would encourage it but not to solve energy shortages.
Parrotlover is correct, in my opinion. Fuel cells will power all vehicles in the future…along with some hybrids. There is a lot of research to do, which is being done, as you correctly point out, by japanese automobiles manufacturers. There are going to be hydrogen stations (hydrogen production is another field yet poorly explored) to power these automobiles. Fuel cells wont sustitute thermoelectric plants that light our houses, but conventional fossil power plants will be replaced by solar, wind, hydro and wave energy plants.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:41 pmI agree with you. There is not ONE great solution…but a variety of technologies waiting to be applied for certain necessities. Even fossil fuels…but in a very small fraction.
It is a fact that climate change is cyclical.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical02.jsp
As recorded in ice cores from Vostok, Antarctica, the temperature near the South Pole has varied by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit during the last 350,000 years. There have been peaks of warmth approximately every 100,000 years.
The age of the Earth is 3 to 4 billion years at least. Home erectus has inhabited the Earth for 2 million years.
Judd claims global warming is unusual based on evidence from the past 400 years or so. 400 years/400000000 years = 0.00001%.
That’s like making a prediction of how warm this year is going to be based on the conditions and temperature during this very minute. See how stupid this global warming hysteria is? There is a lack of data. Even the IPCC acknowledges this fact, but Judd ignores it.
July 24th, 2006 at 7:47 pmI love the graphic Gore puts up in “An Inconvenient Truth” that has a scale with gold bars on one side and the planet on the other. Which one is more important? Hmm that’s a toughy.
This arguement that combating global warming will cause economic woes is total bs. THE EXACT OPPOSITE WILL HAPPEN. It will revitalize our economy by creating an entirely new energy industry, creating new jobs that stay in America. Instead of importing oil from unstable regions that support terrorism (namely the Middle East), we would keep that money in our own country through ethonal, wind power, solar, etc. I can go on but I won’t.
July 24th, 2006 at 9:22 pm[...] More via ThinkProgress. “Combating Global Warming Does Not Require ‘Economic Castration’” In 2004, for example, the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration analyzed a carbon-cutting plan advanced by Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman, which aimed to stabilize greenhouse emissions. The energy administration estimated that reaching this target would cause U.S. GDP to be 0.4 percent less than it would otherwise have been in 2028. Since GDP was projected to grow by 90 percent between the time of the study and that year, this meant that the nation could address climate change and still experience growth of 89.6 percent over the period. [...]
July 24th, 2006 at 11:26 pmHilarious – US as a clean technology exporter ….
Current business model is a few lab guys create a raw “clean†technology, then they license it to Asian countries for manufacturing, because it is too impracticle to manufacture it in the US, because unions have instilled a poor work ethic and no company loyalty in the US workforce.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 24, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
Vie vell march and sing and heil our ghreat corporations dahs ve love and ve vell verk harder and more hours so daht Herr Hendler is happy. Ve vell keep der ovens running night enhrn day fur Herr Hendler, Ya!
July 24th, 2006 at 11:33 pmHi! Good site! http://www.misst.info/online-m/ – new impotant info hare! Successes by all!
July 25th, 2006 at 12:08 pmHi!! Today read clauses about novelties in the field of communication ( http://www.cartoyota.com/ )… By, good work!
July 28th, 2006 at 3:37 amKrish
I just wanted to tell you that your site is really awesome and is of a fantastic quality. The content is great and I will be returning.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:10 pm