Ideas have consequences. They also move around. Sometimes it's useful to think of American political and cultural disputation as occurring in a set of three spheres.
In the middle is the "Sphere of Consensus," what we all (or most of us) agree on. True, the Sphere of Consensus isn't nearly as large as it was, but then celebrating diversity, can have that effect.
Outside the Sphere of Consensus is the "Sphere of Legitimate Debate," or what it's OK to argue about in polite company. Beyond that is the "Sphere of Non-Legitimate Dissent," ideas so wacky that their holders, if noticed at all, garner attention because they're often the kind of people you love to hate.
But these spheres are porous; the radical notions of one generation become the common wisdom of the next. Or at least they become politely debatable.
Such is the situation with global warming.
Not so many decades ago, conservatives could dismiss such concerns as the politically and culturally motivated alarmism of ecology-freaks, granola heads and the "One more Chardonnay then we march" crowd. Even today, some, like Japanese soldiers holed up in their caves, still dismiss the problem because, well, even if Al Gore did cop himself a Nobel Prize, he's still Al Gore.
But for most of us, the verdict is in. Something is happening. The climate is changing because the climate is always changing. How much of this is due to unprecedented levels of human activity these last two centuries, may be legitimately argued and debated. All we know for certain is that, in a system as complex as the planetary ecology, small changes can have large impacts.
So global warming may now be taken seriously, certainly insofar as the matter of what, if anything to do in response. Liberals naturally argue for their favorite fixes: treaties, taxes and major changes in American lifestyle. Conservatives prefer to keep on amassing wealth and developing technology as the best defense, especially if the process is already irreversible.
The liberal approach is fatally flawed. Treaties without adequate enforcement power are worthless. Scraps of paper such as the Kyoto Protocols exempt those developing nations (such as China) where future growth in hydrocarbon consumption is most intense. Energy taxes, especially taxes on gasoline, are arguably regressive; they hurt the poor far more than the rich and raise the price of everything. As for life-style changes, while many are worthwhile in many sensible ways, they're fundamentally one-time fixes and can't solve the basic problems of energy-intensive societies.
The conservative approach has more to recommend it, but also may be at odds with reality. An ugly de facto alliance of environmentalists and Big Oil make it impossible to develop new domestic or offshore sources or build new refineries. The argument that business can't do these things until the price of oil reaches a certain level is true, but that level is rapidly arriving, due to increased global demand, especially from China.
So what to do? Seattle-based historian and writer Philip Gold offers a novel idea. He believes that the solution is to rush off wildly in all directions:
everything from clean coal to nuclear to renewable, while developing affordable protective technologies that we can sell to the rest of the world. For the next couple decades, however, oil will remain central and it's vital to ramp up domestic production. This requires breaking the political deadlock.
Gold explains by way of analogy: "When the Cold War ended, it became possible to close or downsize a lot of homeland military bases. But since every base is in somebody’s district, Congress couldn't gird up its loins sufficiently to close anything. So they created the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) Commission.
"This was a group of military and outside experts who, in consultation with local communities, would compile lists of bases to be closed. Congress had to vote the entire list up or down, no amendments or deletions. It worked. Not perfectly, far from it, but we've been through several BRAC rounds and we have results."
Congress should "BRAC" the oil problem. Let the experts and those concerned develop lists of areas to be opened, based upon the best mix of ecological sensitivity and recoverable prospects. Let Congress vote it up or down. Then let's go to work.
Something for the presidential candidates to think about.
Meanwhile, the United States is still the world's biggest polluter, if you factor in all the pollution the Chinese generate while manufacturing the junk they sell us. Want to do something for the environment now? Buy American this Christmas.
* * *
Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., submitted this week's commentary.
Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., comments on medical-legal issues and is a visiting fellow in Economics and Citizenship at the International Trade Education Foundation of the Washington International Trade Council. Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a senior fellow and board member of the Discovery Institute and a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
|
