RALEIGH – I remain skeptical about climate-change alarmism, obviously. But if I ever come to believe that human-generated emissions of greenhouse gases posed significant dangers to humankind, I suspect I’d still have fundamental disagreements with some environmental activists about what to do next.
At first glance, the choice of remedy would seem to be far afield from my usual purview of state and local policies. But thanks to actions by North Carolina lawmakers and activists, it seems that a debate about policy responses can’t be limited to national regulations or international treaties. They’re pushing a measure in the General Assembly that would form a panel to study the implications of global warming and potential North Carolina policies to combat it.
There are plenty of private initiatives underway to debate and study these issues, I believe, so creating a state panel can only be construed as lending the state legislature’s credibility to the alarmist side of the controversy. I’m tempted to celebrate the rhetorical result – lending our legislature’s “credibility” to any cause is akin to securing Paris Hilton’s endorsement of a new Christian rock album – but nevertheless would prefer that lawmakers focus on more relevant matters.
Just for the sake of argument, however, suppose that we want to enact government policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the coming decades, and further suppose that North Carolina policymakers were going to be part of the “solution.” What should we do?
Activists offer a variety of answers to this question: wind, solar, alternative-fuel cars, redesigning homes, and carrying burlap sacks to the grocery store rather than accepting either plastic or paper at the register. (That’s delicious, and why I sometimes call them the Burlap Brigade.) Frankly, none of these suggestions is persuasive as a meaningful response. Windmills kill birds and obstruct views. Solar takes up a lot of space and cost for a small output. Some alternative-fuel initiatives offer promise but others involve elaborate attempts to obfuscate the fact that an economical source of energy must be tapped to run our modern industrial society.
Some activists go all the way and reject that modern industrial society altogether. Most do not, at least not publicly, since that is essentially an argument for increased poverty and thus not a popular one.
We are left with two biggies: energy conservation and nuclear power. The former is fine, as far as it goes, but the concept is often misapplied. People consume energy more efficiently when its price goes up. If you simply impose efficiency mandates, people may not respond in ways that reduce energy use. That is, if cars will get more miles to the gallon, people tend to drive more miles.
The latter, nuclear power, is a fascinating case. Some environmental activists have concluded that nuclear is the best remedy for global warming. Most scientists I know think it is absurd that America doesn’t employ more nuclear power. And some conservatives and libertarians think it would move to the front of the line, too, if government impediments were removed. But others think the opposite, that nuclear power can succeed only if government protects and subsidizes it.
Guess I’ll have to make up my mind on this – but not yet. Alarmism remains unappealing.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.