With his post Global Warming Is Not a Threat But the Environmentalist Response to It Is, George Reisman comes to the rescue of the capitalist values that justify the actions of global corporations as they continue their irresponsible abuse of the planet.
Since I posted my own comentary about the IPCC report about a month ago, in the spirit of facing the critics I wanted to give some space to the arguments being used by Reisman to discredit this global initiative.
At the core of his argument, the main premise is that it would be more damaging to society to halt progress in the name of controlling the warming of the planet:
global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it.
Citing the fact that industrial civilization has enabled growth to the point where the average person has a better life today than the most wealthy a few generations ago, he cautions the stakes are high. To keep the industrial civilization running as we know it, we have no alternative but to continue the use of fossil fuels.
If we assume that everyone accepts global warming as a fair price to pay for our life styles, these are some of his arguments to feel good about it:
Central Canada and large portions of Siberia will become similar in climate to New England today. So too, perhaps, will portions of Greenland. The disappearance of Arctic ice in summer time, will shorten important shipping routes by thousands of miles. Growing seasons in the North Temperate Zone will be longer. Plant life in general will flourish because of the presence of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
I find it particularly ironic that someone who is defending the unrestricted advance of industrialization uses the fact that plants will flourish as a positive aspect to consider. But he continues to illustrate the simple way forward, even in the face of rising sea levels:
the portion of the world not threatened with rising sea levels would accept the people who are so threatened. In other words, instead of responding to global warming with government controls, in the form of limitations on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, an alternative response would be devised that would be a solution in terms of greater freedom of migration.
From this point on, Reisman goes on an attack of the environmental movement (if you can call the IPCC a bunch of environmentalists). It tries to establish the premise that the only progress possible is the one based on the technologies we know today. But in doing so, he is talking more like a CFO worried about shareholders and board of directors, than an economist. With the right incentives applied to the right fields, innovation will surely blossom. Putting a cap on greenhouse gases may be just the right incentive for some enterpreneurs to take the risk and push forward that one idea that will turn our civilization to a more sustainable future. I’m sure that for every corporation currently doing business at the cost of the environment, there are 100 small businesses ready to overtake and do things right, shifting growth from bad business to good business.
Even if it means to take a couple of steps back in terms of our degree of civilization the right solution must be the one that can preserve life on the planet as we know it. Even without global warming, I believe there is a certain agreement that a few bad corporate citizens are playing dangerous games and it would be in our best interest to stop them now. This agreement is implicit in the definition of a new Global Culture. Call it a renewed global conscience or awareness.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Jorge // Mar 8, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Thanks for the link –it’s a frightening read. Reisman’s spin of the environmentalist movement as one that “does not value human life” is particularly absurd.
That’s what we’re up against.
2 AdamP // Mar 10, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Woah, boy!
Why, exactly, should I give a crap one way or the other about the birdies and the deer and the plants?
3 juan // Mar 11, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Jorge: Indeed. The best tool we have is communication. Spread the word.
AdamP: you should care for the same reason Reisman does… because their flourishing as a result of higher concentrations of carbon dioxide will be a signal that we’ve crossed the point of no return.
4 quixote // Mar 12, 2007 at 5:53 pm
This Reisman chap needs to get back on his meds. (As does AdamP.)
The reason to care about the dear plants is that’s what you eat and that’s what makes your air. Plants do not simply flourish when it’s hotter. (Credential moment: I’m a biologist, 20 yrs teaching in universities, etc, etc, etc.) Fixation of carbon (AdamP: this is important because of the “what you eat” business above) increases with very small rises in temperature. After that it decreases because of the way that particular reaction works. Higher temperatures also mean plants lose more water. Most plants can only fix carbon while they are also transpiring water. Desert plants, for instance, have a very complex adaptation that allows them to gain sun energy during the day, but fix the carbon at night.
The plants in Canada do not have adaptations to heat. They will die off. They will not be replaced by a vibrant ecosystem capable of supporting humans and agriculture. They will be replaced by weeds, or “early successionals” as we biologists like to call them. Useful ecosystems only come much later in the succession.
Another example: higher temperatures mean insects get ahead of those birdies AdamP has no use for. Some of those insects carry diseases. Dengue, for instance, has recently appeared in the southern USA.
Moving right along, I’m sure that nations battling disease outbreaks and crop failures will be delighted to welcome environmental refugees from the global South. Or even from the US South, as time goes by. I mean, look how happy the US is right now to welcome Mexicans and other Latin Americans.
And as for costs, which I gather is Reisman’s whole shtick, let’s look at a recent example. Estimated cost of fixing New Orleans’ levees and dealing with the coastal erosion, pre-Katrina: 17 billion was the high estimate. Estimated cost of post-Katrina damages, which doesn’t begin to get it back to where it was: 200 billion and counting.
The corporate toadies keep trying to pretend it’s a choice between no cost and some cost. If they’re smart enough to be writing articles, they’re smart enough to know they’re lying, just so they can for now keep robbing our children blind.
The choice is between some cost now and staggering costs later. And the staggering costs won’t buy the good life. They may, *may*, enable a few to save scraps from the wreck.
5 Mia // Apr 24, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I found this blog to be very disturbing by the fact that global warming is a serious issue. We as human beings, have always avoided or “made light” of a problem that will definetely afffect us in the future. It’s sad to know that there are people who actually have the nerve to devalue our environment and the world we live in.
Leave a Comment