politicalcivility.com Blog

Now that ExxonMobil has seen the light (green light that is), we’re going to have to find a new corporate whipping boy who dares to fund research that shows that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon. 

And to think, I thought people grew out of peer pressure when they became adults.

Mention the word ExxonMobile and global warming and the response is pretty predictable.  “Oh those guys that are making billions and funding all the global warming deniers.”  The fact is that statement is pretty true.  Exxon has made billions and they have spent several million over the past 15 years making research grants to a few (but hardly all) university professors and think tanks.  Problem is they may have been wasting their money.  Maybe they should change their strategy and just copy “green” GE. 

The WSJ recently released a list of top spenders in Washington DC, and right behind the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Medical Association (makes you wonder about why we are having problems refoming the medical system) was not ExxonMobile but eco-friendly GE rounding out the top 3.  From 1998-2007 GE spent in excess of $160 million in lobbying efforts.  Exxon didn’t even make the top 10.

Why would GE spend so much money?  Answer: they are heavily invested in green technology (wind, solar, and those nice expensive light bulbs that are now mandated by the federal government in 2012).  GE isn’t the only one benefitting from green policy, but they sure haven’t taken any chances on not cashing in on their green investment.

So maybe Exxon should stop trying to fund science and just go straight for the golden goose: the beltway goose that is.  GE is green alright (just check out their website: www.ge.com) but the green might not have anything to do with the environment.

I’ve been busy this week with EarthWeek at Sutherland which has kept me from posting more, but I wanted to throw out this question posed by Roy Innis during the first day. 

What’s the balance?  What’s the right balance between development and conservation?  What’s the balance between the principles of stewardship and economic progress?  What’s the balance between the development of ‘alternative’ fuel sources and asking consumers to pay significantly more for life’s basic necessities (food, shelter, warmth/cooling)?

This balance question forces us to start making clear what is the principle and priority framework we are coming from rather than relying on the rhetoric or emotional hysteria that can accompany both sides of the issue.

As I look at the issue of climate change/global warming here are a few of principles/priority frameworks that guide how I look at this debate.

1. Stewardship: As I have stated on this blog before I am a firm believer in being a wise steward of the earth’s resources, but inherent in that belief system is the idea that the resources should be used. 
2. Cost: For me the balance question has to look at cost with a heavy bias toward human cost (this goes back to my post about conservationalist philosophy versus a preservationist worldview).  Human life takes highest priority.  So when millions begin to starve or die because of “green” policy then those policies must change.
3. Government Expansion: This goes back to my belief that any “war” so called on an issue (environmentalism, poverty, terrorism, you fill in the blank) leads to significant government intervention (which leads to greater inefficiency and subsuquent increase use of resources) and loss of freedom.  Also if you want to see how well the a government controlled economy handles the environment look no further than the former USSR and China.  Both stellar examples of clean air and water.
4. Cause & Effect: One of the most glaring issues of the IPCC report is the misuse or lack of use of appropriate cause and effect analysis.  Much of what the IPCC calls “cause” is actually just correlation.  There is a huge difference. So getting this right is critical if we want to really make a difference or know if we really can make a difference.
5. Everything on the Table: If we are to have a serious discussion about environmental problem solving, we must stop arbitrarily removing proven solutions and dismissing legitimate scientific research and inquiry.  Let’s put everything on the table: wind, solar, nuclear, manmade versus natural warming effects and see what is real according to the science and economics and then balance that with the cost to the environment and cost to society to see what makes the most sense.  Then we need to step back and let the market work. 

Just a few of my thoughts.  The floor is now yours.

This post is primarily an answer to a comment from Misty Fowler on this blog.  Her comment:

“I give up, I don’t think people that are set against the idea of global warming are just being blind and don’t want to hear the truth. I’m really truly not sure what people like you have against the idea of taking care of our planet.”

My first response to this question is a question.  How does my opposition to those pushing the global warming movement immediately make me someone who opposes the idea of taking care of the earth?  This is a plain and simple logical falacy in that it assumes that I can only take care of or that I only care for the planet if I buy into a particular worldview on global warming. 

I have already highlighted some of the bungled attempts to legislate “earth” sensitive products (GE fluorescent bulbs and ethanol), which especially in the case of ethanol are actually more destructive to the earth than the ‘dirty’ products they were supposed to replace.  Given the track record of these ecologically friendly products, I believe I have the right and responsibility to be skeptical of the fixes many of the advocate propose regardless of my feelings about the science.

I think what Misty mistakes as lack of care for the earth really is based perhaps (I can’t speak directly for Misty, so I am generalizing here) in a fundamental philosophy difference in how we see the world.  I am a conservationist, meaning that I believe in personal (not government mandated) stewardship and wise use, and that I have what Peter Borrelli calls a anthropocentric world view.  This view starts with viewing man as the measure of creation. 

This view [conservationalism] is opposed to the preservationist philosophy, which fundamentally has a biocentric view of man and nature, meaning that man is just another creation and so is of no more value than a dog, cat or house fly.  The preservationist advocates a position of nature lock out because humans have no right to disturb the flight patterns or mating habitat of an animal, reptile, bug or whatever.  It also centers on a scarcity versus abundance mentality or zero sum world view–i.e., if man’s population grows xyz animal loses. It is this view that allows preservationalists to make man the problem because he is the great annoyer of nature. It is this view that allows environmentalist to ignore the human costs of their actions/policy initiatives (i.e., DDT and 40 million children [who have died since DDT’s ban– thanks Ed for the correction here. WHO puts the number at 1 Million+/year, 90% of which are in Africa] around the world from malaria or the increased burden the poor and low-income families in America are carrying) because their suffering is equal to or in some cases not as significant as the bird that has the minor risk of dying from DDT exposure.

As a conservationalist, I am and will forever be opposed to prohibitionist and mandate policies regarding the earth, because they a) increase the size and scope of government and b) lead to a huge loss in freedom and liberty.  With respect to the first point, I lived in Russia and saw first hand the effects of a state run everything.  This form of centralized government ultimately leads to unwise use of resources and the destroying of the environment.  It also destroys the average citizen’s desire to be a good steward. 

My idea of good principle grounded environmental policy is based on incenting behavior not mandating or punishing behavior.  This incentive based policy is one of the primary reasons that the polar bear population is growing as noted in a recent USA TODAY article. This policy approach limits the role of government, frees humans to make good choices and fosters freedom and liberty.  So do I favor tax breaks for enviro-friendly cars; yes.  Would I favor mandating that by 2012 every American should run a enviro-friendly car; absolutely not.  Should I be rewarded for paying extra for energy efficient windows and appliances; yes. Should the government mandate my choice in appliance or windows; no. 

Thomas Huxley would classify this as an ”ugly” fact, which has the potential to ruin a beautiful hypothesis: global warming. 

Let’s look at a positive of global warming: Bio-Diversity.  The colder the earth gets the more rapid the rate of species extinction.  The reverse is true that as the earth warms we experience expanded bio-diversity in plant and animal life.

If global warming is really happening, why do we only hear how bad it is when in actuality the earth is better off when it is warm.

Here are some quotes from the global warming conference I attended earlier this week that ought to help inform the global warming/climate change policy debate.

From Thomas Huxley:

1. Skepticism is the highest calling of a true scientist. 
2. The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
3. Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. [In this case the creed is Global Warming??? Just another note on this, don’t global warming advocates sound an awful lot like Chicken Little?]

From Alfred North Whitehead:

“It is the business of the future to be dangerous, and it is among the merits of science that it equips the future for its duties.”