Existential Choices: Mitigation Efforts and the Future of Conservatives

In the last post, I argued that Conservatives and Libertarians run a risk of being proven wrong on Anthropogenic Global Warming. A few really hot years could be prove to be politically disastrously for a climate a AGW right wing. Conservatives have place themselves in this situation by claiming to know that the AGW hypothesis is untrue with a far greater degree of certainty than is possible. Slogans like "AGW is a hoax" and "AGW is a fraud" can and probably will comeback to haunt the right wing.

The hoax argument is at best weak, and reprehensible. The latest attempt by the Climate Audit gang to turn some stolen emails into a scandal has been shown to be without merit by a report of the British The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee titled The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, has discredited the hoax arguments based on the email disclosures. The Conclusion of that report stated in part,

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.

The natural inclination of the right is to adopt a free market, business as usual approach, but given the magnitude of the crisis, a business as usual approach is likely to fail. I noted that the Peel government of the United Kingdom, relied on free market and local solutions to a lesser crisis, the 19th century, the Irish potato famine. This failure lead lead to the death of a million people, and the immigration of another million from Ireland. What would be required of human society to meet the AGW crisis would be an effort similar to the global warming crisis, similar to the effort that was expended by the belligerents during World War II. Global society must be mobilized as if it were going to war.

It should be noted that mobilization during war, is not an anathema for conservatives. Indeed a Conservative, Herbert Hoover, headed the American Food Administration during World War I. In a war time situation Hoover did not flinch at instructing American farmers what they should grow, and how much money they should be paid for their crops. He also exercised influence over food prices in stores, and told the American people what they should eat and when they should eat it. Through Hoover's efforts, the United States was able to feed a large Army and millions of people in Europe. In contrast to the Conservative Peel, whose administration allowed a million Irish die during the potato famine, conservative Hoover's efforts prevented mass death in Europe, due to wartime and post war famines.

It may not be necessary to go to the length that Hoover did during World War I, to fight climate change, but Conservatives and Libertarians should be prepared to do so if necessary to ensure success in the effort to fight climate change. Climate change threatens the national security of the United States, perhaps more than any war time enemy ever has.

The means of achieving success in the effort to prevent anthropogenic climate change should not be the real problem for the right. Rather the problem would lie in the outcome of the crisis sought by the romantic environmentalist. That projected outcome envisions a low energy, low materials future to be achieved by social engineering. My view is that Conservatives would very much wish to avoid such an outcome, if it were possible to do so.

It has been the contention of Nuclear Green that the outcomes typically advocated by romantic environmentalists, would likely turn into a demographic disaster similar to what occurred as a consequence of the Irish potato famine, but without an America to escape too. Further. I believe that such a consequence would be wholly unnecessary and that outcomes that would be deemed far more desirable by Conservatives and Libertarians would be possible. It is thus in the interest of Conservatives to not write themselves out of the mitigation game, and that interest is existential. Conservatives and Libertarians risk the survival of a world in which their ideologies are even possible if they ignore the possibility that AGW is real.

I have argued for much of the last three years that a nuclear powered future would be most consistent with Conservative goals, and would allow for the avoidance of the undesirable consequences that the solutions supported by romantic environmentalists would bring. There is a plausible case that global oil production is near peaking, and that at the very least, global oil production will not keep pace with increasing demand for oil by new car owners in India and China. As it is the costs of imported oil is a huge burden on the American economy, a burden that cannot be ignored. The huge cost of imported oil can only lead to the long term ruin of the American economy if the homaging is not stopped.

The cost of imported oil has been a major an increasing burden to the American economy for some time. the electrification of surface transportation in the United States makes economic sence, whether or not you acknowledge that climate change is an emanate reality. Of course, oil companies are never going to acknowledge any of the problems, despite what their own scientists tell them. But conservatives must realize that business executives often don't tell the truth if it is in the interests to tell lies. It is also in corporate interest to employ ideologically

motivated hacks to tell their lies for them. Unfortunately Conservatives and Libertarians have until now proven themselves all to willing dupes of the lies.

There large though largely hidden costs associated with the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity and produce heat. Coal fired power plants produce an enormous amount of pollutants in addition to CO2. Many of the pollutants effect the health of millions of Americans. The cost is not paid by electrical producers and consumers. Instead it is payed by employers, consumers and the federal government in the form of added insurance premiums, and by sick people and their families in the form of added medical costs, lost wages, suffering and heart ache. Conservatives and Libertarians have expressed concerns about the cost of health care, yet not so concerned that they are willing to stop environmental pollution from fossil fuel use, that contributes to health care cost.

Natural gas use must be included in this issue. Natural gas carries with it, radioactive radon that can cause cancer. There is a sort of tasit conspiracy by the left and the right to hide the problem of radon in natural gas from the public.

Thus the savings in health care costs that would be reaped from a successful AGW mitigation effort would go a long way to paying for the cost of the mitigation effort, and the increased strength of an American economy, no longer shackled by the cost of imported oil would increase the prosperity which Conservatives and Libertarians seek.

My argument for the last three years, has been that advanced nuclear power would offer a technological fix that would lead to the best possible outcome from Conservative and Libertarian perspective. That outcome would require the least amount of social engineering, and by relying on technological fixes. Thus Conservatives and Libertarians have a stake in AGW mitigation, whether or not they recognize it, and the future of the sort of society that they both would like to see, rests in no small measure in their participation in the social negations that will proceed the determination of the direction that the mitigation efforts take.

I must add that I consider myself a Liberal, but a Liberal who believe that the current generation of Conservatives and Libertarians have something to offer, if they would stop fighting the AGW concept, and sign on to the mitigation effort negations. Their failure to do so would only bring existential disaster to themselves, and to their society.