In this post on the First Things website, Richard John Neuhaus follows up on his discussion a few days ago, also posted here, about the reality behind the environmentalist’s alarm raising on global warming which would require the kind of major sacrifices no first-world society is prepared to make, “in the hopes of forestalling coastal flooding in 2047.”
We see, so far at least, the same syndrome here, where everyone agrees that the Sacramento area is the most flood-prone city in the country, with the potential for tens of billions of dollars worth of flood damage; which could be remedied by the relatively minor investment of a few billion dollars for 500 year protection by building a dam, yet that optimal solution is still presented by most local public leadership as a pipe-dream.
The first thing we all might consider doing, is perhaps beginning to think about our problems around flooding, and other environmental issues, with more rationality, seeking optimal solutions as they are the best solutions by definition, and the best is always the right place to start.
Here is an excerpt.
April 21, 2006
Richard John Neuhaus writes:
Some readers have taken sharp issue with my agreement with George Will, Thomas Derr, and a host of others that we should cultivate an informed skepticism about some of the more alarmist claims advanced by those warning us about global warming. One reader writes, “Of course there is uncertainty, but uncertainty does not mean we should do nothing; it means we do should more.”
But more what? Some of the proposals advanced would mean–and their proponents often readily agree–the economic crippling of affluent countries and the consequent calling off of the aspirations of poor countries for economic development. This is the point of an incisive commentary by Ross Douthat over on The American Scene. He writes:
"None of this is to say that talking about climate change, and looking for sensible policies to cope with it, isn’t a good and necessary thing to do. Nor is it to say that the Bush Administration hasn’t dropped the ball on this somewhat, as it has on so many other issues. But any serious response to global warming has to begin with an awareness that we–and by we, I mean the whole world, not just the present and future occupants of the White House–simply aren’t going to accept the kind of “pain” that would be necessary to prevent it from happening. For better or worse, constant economic growth is the engine of our world, and the source of whatever limited political stability our planet enjoys. And no matter how many documentaries Al Gore makes and how lavishly they get praised, there’s simply no one, from Berlin to Beijing to Bangkok, who’s going to cut the engine in the hopes of forestalling coastal flooding in 2047.
"Religious leaders who have jumped on the global warming bandwagon frequently say that we have to be willing to make radical sacrifices. But it is the poor of the world who will be required to make the greatest sacrifices. It may be a relatively little thing for an American to give up his SUV, but it’s a very big thing for somebody in Niger to give up his hope for a square meal each day. It is not bold and prophetic to call for sacrifices, whether here or in the global South, that no political leader could possibly embrace. It is moralistic self-indulgence."
