I've called myself a libertarian since 1976, but my libertarianism has always had a contrary streak. As a Marine brat and former Marine, I also have a sense of duty to my fellow citizens and to the nation. I accept that sometimes we need a few rules, that sometimes we need to pitch in and work together.
For example, I have no problem with the idea of traffic rules. Generally speaking, traffic rules represent a mutual agreement we accept so that we don't smash our cars into each other as often. That doesn't mean that every single traffic rule makes sense, but the general idea represents the kind of minor liberty infringement I can handle.
Likewise, I'll follow orders sometimes. If paramedics are trying to get someone out of a wrecked car, and they've blocked the road to give them room to work, I'm not going to paint my face blue, shout "Freedom!" and run the blockade. I'll accept a minor, temporary infringement of my liberty to deal with an emergency.
The rest of the time, I'm going to do what I want, and you need to stay out of my way. To me, that's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist or a criminal. A libertarian doesn't completely oppose rules and the mechanisms needed to enforce them. He opposes rules that infringe on our liberty with no real justification. He understands the difference between collective action by a group of people and genuine socialism. He wants to maximize individual liberty within a civilized framework.
So how does this libertarian feel about global warming? It comes down to judging the evidence and the proposed solutions based on reason, historical lessons, and the best available evidence. Is there enough evidence to justify collective action?
When it comes to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the evidence is in. Although fossil fuels were a cheap way to build our modern, technological society, that approach turns out to have unintended consequences that range from the dangers faced by workers who extract those fuels (think coal miners) to dependence on foreign powers for our fuel supplies (think Saudi Arabia). Another unintended consequence of burning fossil fuels, especially with a growing, power-hungry population, is that the burning process releases emissions.
Ten Signs of a Warming World
National Climate Assessment
And that's where the problem of AGW arises. Fossil fuels are carbon based. Coal is a form of naturally enriched carbon. Petroleum is composed of various hydrocarbons. When we burn these fuels, some of that carbon combines with oxygen to form things like carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The accumulation of CO2 in our atmosphere and the additional greenhouse heating it causes is destabilizing our climate. We've added a new term to the climate equation.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
I'm not just libertarian, I'm also conservative, and the idea of continuing to change the composition of our atmosphere no regard for the consequences, which is the plan the Republican/Tea Party promotes, is one of the most outrageously stupid plans humanity has ever come up with. It's rolling the dice on our future.
It's an especially stupid idea for Americans. One of our national strengths comes from our agricultural capabilities. Those abilities depend on huge tracts of fertile land and a relatively stable climate. Anything that destabilizes the climate threatens American agriculture and therefor threatens our continuing prosperity and security.
Dry Season: the Texas Drought of 2011
California Drought: The Human, Natural Elements Up to Today
That's where we are now. Do we follow the GOP/TP's agenda of continuing to change the composition of the atmosphere? Do we take the advice of politicians and talk radio entertainers who tell us that everything will be fine? Or do we face the evidence and take the collective action necessary to solve the problem? This brings up another issue.
Besides denying the evidence for AGW, the GOP/TP and its media allies have lied to America about the reasons for solving the AGW problem and the solutions being proposed. They claim that AGW is part of a hoax to "destroy" America. They claim that getting off fossil fuels will leave America a cold, dark place with no energy available. They claim that clean-energy technology is "decades away". They promote fear instead of honest reason.
We can't stop the GOP/TP and its media allies from telling these lies, but it's time for every rational American to stop believing them, especially my conservative compadres who still think that someone like Rush Limbaugh is a reliable source for scientific information.
It's also time for us to understand what kind of solutions we're looking at, and those solutions break down into three parts: conserve, convert, and capture.
Conserving energy means that we either use less energy or use it more efficiently so that we don't have to generate more than we really need. We're making progress on this front, because the free market, with some government prodding, is making more energy-efficient devices. People are learning that leaving unnecessary lights on is like letting the faucet run. It's a wasteful treatment of both money and resources.
Energy Efficiency: Texas' Newest Energy Resource
Converting means upgrading our power supplies. That's not socialism, my conservative compadres, it's just the kind of technical upgrade humanity has been making throughout history when circumstances require it. Despite what the GOP/TP and its media allies tell you, clean energy is already viable, and it's already replacing combustion-based electricity generation.
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Capture means taking some of the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere. This seems to me like a necessary step at this point, because we've taken too long dealing with the problem so the process of converting to clean energy is happening too late to solve AGW by itself. Carbon capture and trapping still requires a lot of research and development before we find the best approach.
Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technologies at MIT
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration-EPA
What does all this mean to a libertarian conservative with a Marine Corps background? The need for collective action to deal with AGW is clear. The solutions lead us to a world a lot like today where energy is readily available. The infringements on our liberty and freedom are minor, especially when compared to some of the real offenses against liberty that both Democrats and Republicans still support.
And the main benefit is that the nation I love, the nation I and my family have served, will continue to be prosperous and secure. As a libertarian-leaning, American conservative, that's an important goal for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment