Policy among friends

As I think I have written about before I have a group of guys who I have been eating lunch with for the last 30 years. The group is informal and includes people from across the political spectrum. The rules of entry are simple - have run campaigns at some point in your career, have an earned doctorate and be willing to listen to your colleagues (at least occasionally).

One of the people in the group has always worked for people left of the center. He did a USC Ph.D. and then spent a career working in the legislature, including a stint with legendary California political figure Jess Unruh and with the California Energy Commission. He has been asked to come back and help the Senate think about the issue of climate change. Many in the legislature have looked at the issues as almost a civil religion. I am skeptical of a lot of the discussions because many of the strongest supporters of the "global warming" thesis have no qualifications. Even some of the scientific experts are decidedly ideological. I am almost genetically skeptical of Malthusian explanations of anything.

My friend was skeptical of the California energy de-regulation and at one of those lunches right after the bill passed outlined the real perils about the new market that had been created by the legislation. A lot of what he argued made sense at the time and as the process evolved, he seemed to understand the perils that had been cobbled together by a legislator who had a huge ego but whose most outstanding qualification was that he had been the producer of a second rate movie called "The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes."

About three months ago we had a lunch and started to talk about Global Warming. I allowed as how I thought Gore was fundamentally a blowhard and that his then new movie was a rant that should not be taken seriously. But my friend began to ask about what I thought about climate change. We talked a lot. I got him a copy of Cool It Bjorn Lomborg's book on global warming - which I thought was pretty good (major argument sure people have helped to change the climate but most of the "solutions" proposed by the Kyotomaniacs will be expensive and not effective).

We've exchanged a couple of books about the problem. I am not a scientist. He has spent a good part of his career getting to know the technical stuff pretty well. But what has been fun about the process is that we have been able to look at a range of issues and suppositions with good will and with an ability to disagree (when we do) civilly. That is a value which is not present in much of the public policy debates about the issue. We have not come up with any "Aha" experiences but we continue to probe around the edges of our understandings and beliefs. It has been a refreshing ongoing discussion. He is deep in the process of trying to read everything he can and at least within my view he has tried to read from a variety of sources.

Ultimately, we have a responsibility to maintain our environment for the next generation. But the stylized policy kabuki that masquerades for serious discussion will no contribute to that. I wonder how we could extend the tent between me and my friend to a larger audience or as an ethic in policy discussions.