Shocker: Environmentalists may be lying to you

posted at 10:31 am on April 28, 2009 by Slublog

Feel the heart-ache.

Few things are more appealing in politics than something for nothing. As Congress begins considering anti-global-warming legislation, environmentalists hold out precisely that tantalizing prospect: We can conquer global warming at virtually no cost. Here’s a typical claim, from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):

“For about a dime a day [per person], we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil.”

This sounds too good to be true, because it is. About four-fifths of the world’s and America’s energy comes from fossil fuels—oil, coal, natural gas—which are also the largest source of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas.

America’s energy needs are significant, and there is simply no way that ‘green’ energy alternatives can ramp up production fast enough to meet the goals being considered in Congress. I am encouraged to see the Obama administration talk about nuclear power, although there are signs they aren’t serious about it.

Samuelson also points out that when discussing the ‘costs’ of switching to ‘green’ energy, environmentalists rely on that beautiful economist, Rosy Projection:

The trouble is that these models embody wildly unrealistic assumptions: There are no business cycles; the economy is always at “full employment”; strong growth is assumed, based on past growth rates; the economy automatically accommodates major changes—if fossil fuel prices rise (as they would under anti-global-warming laws), consumers quickly use less and new supplies of “clean energy” magically materialize.

In other words, not in this economy. An economy that will not be improved with policies like cap and trade, which would increase energy costs and put an additional burden on family budgets.

I’m all in favor of alternatives to carbon-based energy, if it’s cost-effective and efficient. However, we should have an honest debate about the costs and risks involved in re-engineering such a large part of our economy before moving forward. As Samuelson points out, environmentalists are not providing that honesty. Perhaps it’s time to ask why.

Blowback