Do climate alarmists pose a real threat to freedom?

The answer is no, despite a recent speech by Vaclav Klaus to that effect. He himself provides the data on the basis of which the conclusion is inescapable: during the first 15 years under the Kyoto regime (1990-2005), man-made carbon emissions increased dramatically in countries experiencing an economic boom, increased slightly in countries with stagnant economic growth, and decreased dramatically in countries in economic decline. Two factors, (1) economic growth, which no politician except a bona fide Green actually opposes, and (2) population growth, the very thing countries with a declining population are trying to stimulate, trump all the timid and face-saving efforts of central planners to reduce carbon emissions.

Does that mean that the Kyoto accords and global warming alarmism have had no practical effect? Of course not. It nicely served the Finnish government as an argument for building more nuclear power plants, something it wanted to do anyway. In the US, it triggered the building and subsidy of countless ethanol plants in the Midwest. The flagging US agricultural sector needed this shot in the arm on other grounds. Of course, the switch to biofuels in the US drives up the price of grain around the world. Let's call that an "inconvenient truth."

Somehow, I don’t think the climate alarmists were hoping for those kind of results. C’est la vie. At the intersection of do-gooders and politics, the law of unintended consequences rules.

Comments

[James Pate]

Hi John!

You make an important point: there are people who stand to gain from the current global warming hysteria. Often, the debate is presented as if the anti-global-warming-is-caused-by-man side is the only side that stands to gain financially, while the side that believes in global warming is simply committed to the truth.

[Looney]

There is also the point that leftist have historically taken a great interest in the ownership and/or micromanagement of heavy industry. Thus, global warming policies frequently target heavy industry directly, while attempting to avoid any disruption to the lifestyle of the final consumers of the energy.

[JohnFH]

It is sometimes said that "great" theories, such as that of socialism and capitalism, are never really disproven. People just choose to walk away from them at a certain point.

But it's true that greens, who love to recycle, recycle old central planning philosophies as well. Of course, capitalists are likewise known to prefer an active Fed Reserve to the invisible hand of the market. I see a lot of muddleheadedness on all sides.