One of the biggest sources of funding behind
climate alarmism is the federal government. In
a new study for the Science & Public Policy Institute
Joanne Nova figures Uncle Sam has spent some $79 billion over the
last two decades on climate change.
She asks:
The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon
and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of
vested interests. By pouring so much money into a question have
we inadvertently created a self‐fulfilling prophesy instead of
an unbiased investigation?
Advocates of wrecking the economy in the name of confronting
global warming want us to believe that Uncle Sam is disinterested
and objective. However, long ago we should have
learned that politicians and bureaucrats are not Vestal Virgins,
acting without prejudice or agenda. Indeed, Public Choice
economics clearly demonstrates how the political process so often
is biased against the interests of the public. Global
warming is no different than any other issue.
Similarly flawed is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the shrine at which all climate alarmists
worship. Earlier this year science writer John McLean
suggested that we shouldn't assume the IPCC is the broad,
inclusive organization that it has been made out to
be. Wrote
McLean:
How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that
4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human
influence on climate? I think I've seen it on television, radio
and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels
have quoted suchfigures. There's no question whatsoever. It's
utterly wrong.
In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number
falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who explicitly
supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does
4,000 become 60 and were they all qualified and credible
scientists? Let's take a closer look at the real numbers.
Even if global warming proves to be a serious problem, it can be
dealt with without wrecking the economy. For instance,
Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, favors
making "green" energy cheaper. (Personally, I'm not
convinced that increased government subsidies would yield
much more than in the past.) More
important, however, Lomborg dismisses the sort of boondoggle cap
and trade legislation now pending before Congress:
Yes, and that too is a problem. Cap-and-trade is essentially a
system for trading permits to emit gases, like carbon dioxide,
that are blamed for global warming. The problem is that it
makes possible immense amounts of gaming the system through
political lobbying. Because typically, most of these permits
are given away, which is one of the big things the Obama
Administration is talking about right now. The companies that
had the most benefit from Kyoto in Europe were the energy
companies. That is because, at least for the first three or
four years, these companies got all the permits to pollute, but
the companies still charged their customers -- me and everybody
else. So they made tens of billions of euros each year from
climate-change policies. Not surprisingly, they are very much
in favor of these policies, but it doesn't mean that they are
smart policies.
Philosophy does not predetermine science one way or the other:
climate change might eventually become a significant
challenge. That case has yet to be convincingly made,
however, and even if so, economics tells us that some
alleged cures are worse than the disease. Like
impoverishing people today in an attempt to lower temperatures a
fraction or two decades hence.
