Eli Lehrer in Weekly Standard. Time for GOP to Wake Up.

June 29, 2013

If Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard is publishing acknowledgements of climate science – how much longer can mainstream Republicans pretend to go along with the Tea Party denialist crazies?

Former Heartland staffer Eli Lehrer has written a piece for the Standard with a novel proposal. Believe the physics. Believe the markets. Rejoin the real world.

Weekly Standard:

President Barack Obama’s climate agenda announced last week represents the latest of many Democratic party efforts to address climate change. Although it includes no new legislation, the president’s plan makes unprecedented use of executive branch powers and offers a great many things that appeal to core Democratic constituencies. Implemented in full, the new power plant carbon rules, further delays in economically beneficial pipeline projects, and added green energy projects would result in a bigger, more intrusive government that exerts greater control over the economy, rewards perceived “good guys,” and punishes supposed “bad guys.” Not surprisingly, the plan, like all previous Democratic efforts, has earned a suspicious and hostile reaction from conservatives.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Rather than pretend climate change isn’t a problem, there are ample opportunities for Republicans to point out the obvious flaws in the left’s plans to deal with it and offer alternatives of their own. In short, conservatives can take a page from the liberal playbook and use the climate change issue to push policies that they favor anyway.

A detour into the undisputed facts about climate change illustrates why this strategy makes sense. Nobody seriously involved in the policy debate over climate change—not even those the left unfairly labels as “deniers”—actually denies that humans influence global climate. There’s also no dispute that the Earth is warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can trap heat energy.

Likewise, there’s little doubt that the worst plausible projections of sea level rise and temperature change resulting from this warming trend would present major problems in almost every corner of the globe. While more carbon in the atmosphere could have some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold, it’s also likely to pose a variety of severe problems ranging from droughts and floods to the destruction of commercial fishing. Nearly any accounting of these costs indicates they will exceed the benefits.

On the other hand, the extreme alarmism from some corners of the environmental movement isn’t warranted. The scenarios sketched out by climate models cover a broad gamut of possibilities. And the models themselves remain imperfect. For example, although current overall carbon levels and arctic ice melt are higher than most scientists predicted they would be today, actual temperature changes tend toward the lower end of most models. Moreover, increasing property damage tolls from natural disasters stem overwhelmingly from more people living in disaster-prone areas, rather than fundamental changes in climate.

In any case, focusing on the science can be something of a dead end. The scientific consensus that exists about the causes and effects of climate change can’t point to an optimal policy solution any more than improvements in heart surgery techniques can provide guidance on health care reform.

Indeed, if free-market conservatives really want evidence of climate change, they ought to look towards the insurance markets that would bear much of the cost of catastrophic climate change. All three of the major insurance modeling firms and every global insurance company incorporate human-caused climate change into their projections of current and future weather patterns. The big business that has the most to lose from climate change, and that would reap the biggest rewards if it were somehow solved tomorrow, has universally decided that climate change is a real problem. An insurance company that ignored climate change predictions could, in the short term, make a lot of money by underpricing its competition on a wide range of products. Not a single firm has done this.

In the end, if both private insurance markets and overwhelming scientific majorities are proved wrong about global warming, a more lightly taxed, less regulated nation with more energy sources, more useful research, and less crony capitalism will still be better off by almost any measure.

President Obama’s various proposals to deal with climate change have deep flaws. But that doesn’t mean the problem they seek to address isn’t genuine. Conservatives should care about global warming. And, just as liberals have done for almost 20 years, they should use the issue as a way to promote policies they already favor.

9 Responses to “Eli Lehrer in Weekly Standard. Time for GOP to Wake Up.”

  1. NevenA Says:

    Wow, he actually mentioned Arctic sea ice loss…

  2. indy222 Says:

    Lehrer clearly hasn’t read the work on heat transfer in the ocean and its relation to years of lower than average surface air temperature rise. By the time these guys finally admit that things are really going to be bad, it’ll be too late to do anything significant about it. There is a point where a natural human desire – not to look like a complete idiot in hindsight – will cause some amount of walkback. Don’t mistake it for an onrush of rationality. The more they succeed in giving in to quarter measures or even half measures, the less time there is for the truly Herculean work that actually needs to be done. I’m not encouraged by Lehrer’s remarks.

  3. […] a below-the-waterline collision with reality seems unlikely.   I posted Eli Lehrer’s recent Weekly Standard essay on saturday. Now we have another piece on the Washington Times website by Chris Ladd, which gives a revealing […]

  4. Jan Freed Says:

    “Nobody seriously involved in the policy debate over climate change—not even those the left unfairly labels as “deniers”—actually denies that humans influence global climate”

    Gee, they knew it all along!

    “On the other hand, the extreme alarmism from some corners of the environmental movement isn’t warranted.”

    We are at .8 deg C; our trajectory (World Bank, IEF, IMF, UCS, NRDC) is 4 deg C, five times higher, in the absence of tipping points, which could occur.

    Predictions have been quite accurate up to now.

    I am extremely alarmed. Please talk me out of it.

  5. […] 2013/06/29: PSinclair: Eli Lehrer in Weekly Standard. Time for GOP to Wake Up […]

  6. […] 2013/06/29: PSinclair: Eli Lehrer in Weekly Standard. Time for GOP to Wake Up […]

  7. […] for Republicans in congress. How many more important electoral issues do you want to be on the losing side […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: