The Civil Religion of Global Warming

This morning I pre-ordered a copy of Bjørn Lomborg's new book. Lomborg wrote a book a couple of years ago called the Skeptical Environmentalist which generated a lot of discussion. I thought a good deal of what he said made a lot of sense - namely that we need to respect the environment but we should not go crazy with fear about the risks we face.

As Amazon always does when I made my purchase it recommended a couple of other books including one that I have not read but know something about called Unstoppable Global Warming. The comments on this, which were numerous, were probably more interesting than the book. There is a lot of scientific evidence that at least some of the trends claimed by Al Gore and the followers of Kyoto are simply false that ultimately the earth goes through some long cycle changes that seem to last about 1500 years. There is some pretty good science that supports the theory. But to read the comments here one would have thought that Lomborg and Singer and Avery are the Anti-Christ.

Any decision here ultimately affects future generations and current ones. If we spend too little in protecting our environment we may suffer some of the consequences that Gore and his followers suggest but if we spend too much we may sacrifice global economic growth. In an ideal setting we would get policy makers who thought carefully about the alternatives and the tradeoffs. But as you read the discussions on the Singer-Avery book that is not what is going on. First, although the two authors (and Lomborg too) are distinguished scientists they are attacked as lackies of the energy companies. Needless to say, the supporters of the alternative point of view do not seem to want to admit that their position might be at least partially influenced by some outside sources.

One of the comments struck me as particularly interesting. For the better part of a year before the turn of the century we heard a lot about Y2K and the catastrophic problems that might occur because of a glitch in code which prevented all but the most modern computers from recognizing that years had four digits. We spent a lot of energy and worry about an issue that turned out to be much ado about very little. Indeed, the lack of clarity on some dates could have caused some potential problems but in the end we seem to have wasted a good deal of energy worrying about a set of questions that was ultimately solved by reasonable work arounds.

I am concerned that Mr. Gore has two qualities which I distrust. First, a good deal of what he argues for reinforces his notion that government can and should do more. We need to be constantly aware of issues where government can be successful and where it cannot and to not allow this or that chicken little to badger us into accepting heightened government activity simply to help us solve a perceived problem. My perception is that at least some of the investments that we have made over the last couple of decades in environmental protection have been beneficial - but that does not mean that every dollar invested will be well spent. His trust in government is religious - faith based. The second quality that bothers me about his is his do as a say not as I do philosophy. Gore has not been a paragon of environmental living standards but some how his lifestyle (which can be partially offset by his purchased indulgences of carbon credits) is ok because of the purity of his motives. That is nonsense.