 |
| Photo of drought-parched field in Arkansas. Photograph by Tim McCabe courtesy of US Department of Argiculture. |
Solving any problem requires a few basic steps.
1. Understand the problem.
2. Identify a workable solution.
3. Implement the solution.
4. Test the results to be sure you fixed the problem.
When it comes to anthropogenic global warming, we understand the problem pretty well. Humanity's carbon dioxide emissions have changed the composition of the atmosphere enough to increase the amount of heat the planet retains. Continuing to emit CO2 will cause further warming, and that's going to disrupt the climate.
Nobody still disputes the problem except the Republican/Tea Party and their media allies, and their opinions no longer matter, because their opinions don't correlate well with reality.
That brings us to the solutions. At an overview level, the solution is simple. We need to stop emitting so much CO2. We need to quit changing the composition of the atmosphere with no regard for the unintended consequences that we now know we'll face.
Breaking it down a little, the solution has three parts: conserve, convert, and capture.
1. Conserve energy so that we don't have to make more than we need.
2. Convert our power supplies to cleaner technologies.
3. Capture some of the excess CO2.
As I said before, the opinions of the Republican/Tea Party on the existence of the problem no longer matter, but they're still Americans, and they have a right to weigh in on the solutions. The problem is that the solution that party has settled on is essentially to do nothing, and that's no solution at all.
One problem I have with the do-nothing approach is that it's being sold as good conservative thinking using the argument that doing anything about global warming will kill jobs. But that thinking isn't even close to how a rational conservative operates.
Conservatism is supposed to be an empirical philosophy. It's supposed to be guided by history. History teaches us that a technological civilization needs to manage its waste products. It also teaches us that we can do that without killing jobs or otherwise disrupting American society.
We did that through the last half of the 20th century. We solved the smog problem without killing jobs or getting rid of our cars. We solved the problem of flammable rivers without killing jobs or giving up any modern conveniences. We solved problems with lead paint and asbestos and chlorofluorocarbons.
The argument that environmental regulations kill jobs is not supported by history, and no thinking conservative should support it.
That's not to say that every single environmental regulation or its implementation has been a success story. When dealing with any kind of collective action managed by government, from environmental regulation to warfare to budget management, you can always find some horror stories. But you can't focus on the horror stories and ignore the successes. A thinking conservative looks at the big picture.
What a thinking conservative needs to understand is what makes a particular regulation a good idea. A good regulation codifies a lesson that we've learned. You've probably seen this in action in your own life. Did you ever touch a hot car muffler? If so, I'll bet you made a personal regulation for yourself that says, "Don't touch a hot car muffler." That's an example of a good regulation, because it codifies a lesson in a way that can be passed on to others.
The same test applies to collective regulations imposed by government, and when it comes to environmental regulations, many of them have passed the test, because they codified a lesson we had learned about how to not foul our own nest.
The argument that environmental regulations are inherently destructive fails.
The other problem with the do-nothing agenda of the Republican/Tea Party is that it risks America's continued security and prosperity. One of the reasons America is a strong nation is because we have lots of good farming land, and we've had a relatively stable climate that let us take advantage of that land. We know that a stable climate has been a factor in the success of American agriculture, because certain kinds of agriculture have always been successful in certain parts of the country. For example, we've been growing tobacco in the same regions since before the country was even born. We couldn't do that without a stable climate to rely on.
A stable climate plus good land equals successful American agriculture. What happens when you change that equation? Can American farmers just adapt to a different climate?
Probably not. A changing climate means changing weather patterns, and that means bad news for farmers. We saw that in the Texas drought in 2011 and 2012. We're seeing it now with California's drought. Mess up the weather, and you put American farmers at greater risk.
Basically, the Republican/Tea Party's do-nothing approach to global warming is the same as saying we should roll the dice on America's future and see what happens. And that's not conservative at all.
Progressives are the people who propose changes so we can see what happens. Thinking conservatives resist changes, because you don't want to take chances with a system that works. The Republican/Tea Party's do-nothing approach to the climate is the very opposite of what genuine conservative philosophy demands.
The existence of the problem has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The steps we need to take to solve the problem are similar to steps we've taken before with good results. The Republican/Tea Party's argument that we should do nothing about global warming has no merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment