It might be easy to
imagine that the folks at the Cato Institute aren’t as bad as some other “think
tanks” that work at the denial of the science that reveals and explains the
phenomenon of global warming. After all, right up front, on their web page on global warming, they clearly say, “Global warming is
indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975.”
OK, before we go any further, the part about 1975 is a little
weird. Does the Cato Institute demarcate the start of our warming of the globe
to when “Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting” hit the airwaves? Or do they want to
pin it on the start of Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign? The Cato Institute
has never liked Jimmy Carter. Just
to be clear, we’ve been warming the world since we started burning fossil
fuels, more like 1750 instead of 1975. But I’m not going to ding them for being
off by about 225 years.
The
rest of the sentence is something that seems incredibly reasonable coming from
a “think tank” that was started in part by Charles Koch and whose purpose is to
support oil industries and an economy based on the extraction and use of fossil
fuels. They acknowledge that global warming is real and we’re part of the
problem. Wow! How reasonable. These folks sound like they’ve done their homework
and are willing to follow through and do their part to reduce carbon emissions.
That’s
the way it seems until you read the rest of what Cato has to say:
But
global warming is also a very complicated and difficult issue that can provoke
very unwise policy in response to political pressure. Although there are many
different legislative proposals for substantial reductions in carbon dioxide
emissions, there is no operational or tested suite of technologies that can
accomplish the goals of such legislation.
Fortunately, and contrary to much
of the rhetoric surrounding climate change, there is ample time to develop such
technologies, which will require substantial capital investment by individuals.
Where do
I start with this? Global warming is “very complicated.” OK, I guess it is.
What does that have to do with reducing carbon emissions? In some cases it
might be complicated, and in others it might be quite simple. The other red
flag here is the use of the word “provoke,” which can simply mean to stir to
action, but also carries the connotation of inciting anger and rashness, and
here in this case insinuates that climate policy may not be well thought out or
poorly designed.
And while the phrase about “no operational or tested suite of
technologies” that can accomplish the goals of climate change legislation has a
germ of truth to it—we are, after all, on untested territory here with global
warming. We have never tossed up tons and tons of carbon in the air and
substantially warmed the entire earth—that does not mean that we should not
work to remedy the tight spot that we’ve put ourselves in. I could cite a
hundred examples of the past, from Columbus to Neal Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin
walking on the moon, to illustrate that although we sometimes find ourselves in
uncharted territory, we can still be successful in our efforts.
And renewable energy, hybrid cars, and other technologies that
are to help us reduce or mitigate climate change are only part of the solution.
A lot of economists will tell you that the easiest way to bring about
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax. A carbon tax can be
simple, designed to be fair to the poor and lower classes, and be quite
effective in making all of our carbon footprints smaller and smaller.
As
the Cato Institute wraps things up, they swerve into outright falsehood when
they say that there is plenty of time to develop the technologies to stave off
global warming. This is risible. We have pushed the CO2 concentration of the
atmosphere up to 400 ppm, the planet is sufficiently warmed, and we are seeing
some of the consequences of the forcing caused by all this new carbon dioxide
in the air. Glaciers melt, the oceans rise, and our weather patterns are
changing.
The
Cato Institute tries to come off as being responsible and reasonable,
acknowledging our contributions to climate change. But they are as bad as any
of the organizations or industry hired guns who deny the link between our
carbon emissions and a warmer world. They remind me of the “responsible voices”
who claimed that they themselves were not racists yet were quick to caution
Martin Luther King that he was asking for too much too quickly.
In
his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, King clarified what was at the core of this
delaying tactic. In the letter he wrote, “For years now I have heard the word
‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This
‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see, with one of our
distinguished jurists, that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”
And
so it is with Cato. Their “ample time” is the same as the racist “Wait.” Saying
that we should take our time to work on climate change means that they don’t
ever want to work on climate change. Their “ample time” rings in the ears of
Alaskan natives loosing their towns and homes; it rings in the ears of
Filipinos whose homes and villages were ravaged by Haiyan; it rings in the ears
of all of us whose food, water, and safety is jeopardized by global warming
with piercing familiarity.
