If children didn’t exist, the left would have to invent them.
Case in point is Environmental Defense’s new television ads, in conjunction with the Ad Council,
sounding the global warming alarm. Filled with little skulls full
of mush who probably don’t know the difference between a polar ice
cap and Pokemon, they implore us grownups to preserve the planet
for them by combating climate change.
The ads have received a fair amount of media attention and
uncritical coverage (but I repeat myself), leading to a lot of
self-satisfied backslapping by Environmental Defense. An email I
received from the group the other day was titled, “Global Warming
Ads Get Rave Reviews.” “Nothing short of remarkable.” the email
reads. “That describes the media’s reaction to the launch of our
powerful new TV spots to wake up America on global warming.” It
also boasts, “Time magazine devoted its April 3 issue cover to global
warming and gave generous coverage to our Fight Global Warming
work” — as if you needed any further proof that the line between
mainstream journalism and liberal advocacy is now so blurred as to
be non-existent.
The email continues, “The overwhelmingly favorable response
means that global warming has finally arrived as a mainstream
American issue. Global warming is no longer a matter of political
or scientific debate.” This is in keeping with the Time
magazine issue that declares in the table of contents that “The
debate is over.” If you had a dime for every time environmental
alarmists and the media (but I repeat myself again) declared the
debate over global warming is over, you could afford Laurie David’s
Tudor mansion along with its high electricity
bills.
Of course, the debate is far from over. Just recently, over
sixty scientists urged the Canadian government to review the
science of climate change as it relates to Canada’s position on the
Kyoto protocol. The letter stated:
Observational evidence does not support today’s
computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model
predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United
Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the
alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based.
Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact
of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas
reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be
insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open
hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and
responsible course of action.
While Environmental Defense may succeed in stifling debate on the
science of global warming, it is going to have a much harder time
doing so on global warming policy. One policy Environmental Defense
promotes is a “cap-and trade” system in which
the total amount of greenhouse gases that companies can emit is
restricted by the federal government. Companies that do a better
job of limiting their greenhouse gas emissions under the cap can
earn credits that they can trade with companies that do not do as
well as limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Defense
points to the successful cap-and-trade system employed to limit
sulfur dioxide, the main cause of acid rain. However, technologies
like smokestack scrubbers and low-sulfur coal were already in
development when the sulfur dioxide system was established. As of
yet, there are no such technologies available for a greenhouse gas
like carbon dioxide.
We can also look to how well the cap-and-trade system of the
Kyoto Protocol is working by looking at Europe, which ratified the
agreement in late 2004. Most of the major nations in the European
Union will fall far short of the 8 percent cut (based on 1990
levels) in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. A recent study by the International Council for Capital
Formation found compliance with Kyoto would result in substantial
job losses and reductions in GDP for the United Kingdom, Spain,
Germany and Italy. Last year British PM Tony Blair admitted that Kyoto wouldn’t work: “The truth is, no
country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in
the light of a long-term environmental problem. Some people have
signed Kyoto, some people haven’t signed Kyoto, right? That is a
disagreement. It’s there. It’s not going to be resolved.” If this
is the effect cap-and-trade is having on Europe, one can only
imagine how dismal its economic impact would be on the U.S., the
largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
The environmental movement may have duped much of the American
public that global warming is a major crisis. But they will have a
much harder time convincing us that we must sacrifice economic
growth to combat it. Environmental Defense will have to find even
cuter looking kids for their commercials.
David Hogberg is a senior research analyst at the
Capital
Research Center. He also hosts his own website, Hog
Haven.
