Mouse Versus the Volcano

The case for global warming rests on indisputable evidence: (1) Actual temperature measurements, and (2) Visible effects, e.g., glacial melting.

The question of whether human activities contribute to global warming ought to be just as easily resolved, but that question is still debated. The case for human causation is grounded in four facts: (1) That carbon dioxide (CO2) causes so-called greenhouse effects, (2) That human activities add more CO2 to the atmosphere than would be the case if humans still lived in caves, (3) That the natural system of CO2 balancing – primarily photosynthesis – has itself been reduced by human-caused deforestation, and (4) That in any case, human processes add CO2 to the atmosphere at a faster rate than the natural systems can handle. None of the facts has been seriously disputed. Click here for a graphic overview of the global warming problem.

Nevertheless, the case for human causation is still debated. This would not be so surprising if the objectors were evenly spread across the political spectrum, but they are not. Politicians in America who call themselves liberals are almost 100% in agreement that human activities contribute to global warming, while a high proportion of those who call themselves conservatives disagree. Given that the facts involved in deciding the issue are essentially scientific in nature, it is difficult to understand how and why a split along political lines has occurred.

As I blogged yesterday, it is understandable why corporations that would be adversely affected by remedial actions are among the objectors. They are and necessarily must be in business to make profits. That they have funded conservative leaning think tank organizations to make a case against human involvement naturally follows. One of the early presentations of the case-against appeared in 1997 shortly after the liberal president had declared a desire to enter into an international treaty agreement to combat global warming. [The points made in that broadside have since been refuted, but the assault continues.]

The anomaly, though, does not lie in the fact that corporations would seek to prevent their ox from being gored, but lies rather in why the conservative political wing would appear to have joined their effort. Ultra-partisan liberals may argue that the conservatives are “bought-and-paid-for” cronies of the oil industry, but let me suggest that their behavior can better be explained without such rancorous accusations. They are philosophical true believers in the libertarian teachings of Adam Smith, arguably the most important economist who ever lived. The following is an excerpt from my blog of July 17, 2006.

“His classic book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, has rightfully been acknowledged as the most fundamental of the intellectual building blocks that undergird the capitalist system. The most famous quotation from that book has become to the capitalist what the first commandment of the Decalogue was to the Jewish people. In a single sentence, Smith defined the guiding principle that has ever since guided capitalist theory.

" ‘By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he [the industrialist] intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.’ [Book IV, chapter 2]”

The unintended “end” Smith referred to was – and note this well – the maximization of industrial output. The case has been conclusively made that no system of central planning can come close to matching the efficiency of the capitalist system in achieving that end. To debate the point would be folly. But a similarly effective case has also been made pointing up the difference between maximizing industrial output and maximizing the “general welfare.” If, for instance, a subset of the industrial base were engaged in the manufacture of harmful products, e.g., tobacco, the more efficient the industry, the worse off will be the people.

An analytical case can also be made between the ideal of human freedom and the underlying principles of laissez faire capitalism. If men ought to be free then they ought to be left alone to conduct their legal business affairs without government interference. As compelling as this argument seems to be it hinges upon a definition of “freedom” that does not square with the most fundamental lesson of American history. In our republic we are free to determine the laws by which we shall be governed. And given that every law infringes someone’s freedom, it is fundamental to the American system that we have engaged ourselves in government primarily for the purpose of infringing our freedom. If individuals were left to their own devices, we can be assured that society would be a much more dangerous place. It would perhaps not be absolutely out of control because human beings still possess a natural desire to survive that could be trusted to provide a semblance of order to their lives even without formal government, but in view of the disagreements that persist, even with government, life would still be a messy affair.

When, however, the desire to survive is seen to apply to corporations as well as to flesh and blood humanity, the achievement of even minimal order cannot be so easily trusted. Legally speaking, corporations are persons, but they differ from real persons in one significant respect: corporations have no conscience. I do not say this maliciously, but simply as a statement of fact. Conscience-stricken human beings will occasionally act in ways that can only be interpreted as for the common good. That is, we may lay aside our own immediate best interest in exchange for an indirect socially desirable benefit. But as Adam Smith said, not exactly in these words, the enterprise that works for the good of society acts in a suicidal manner. So we may safely observe that when Exxon/Mobil and Phillip Morris seek to influence the people to believe that their products are not harmful, they act exactly as good corporations should act. They act in an absolutely selfish manner. They desire to survive.

The conservative movement in America has become, on one of its political sides, committed to Smithian economic principles, and on the other, to what should be (if words possess meanings) a diametrically opposed set of ideas, the Christian religion. On the first side they have overlooked the difference between maximum production and maximum happiness. They have in that regard catered to and promoted the consumerist attitude that pervades American society, that having more equates to having happiness. With that idea firmly implanted in the public’s mind, it follows that the unquestionable benefits of Smithian economics ought to appeal to politicians of both the liberal and conservative stripe. But it has been only the conservatives who have permitted themselves to be wholly committed to the idea that what’s good for big oil is good for America. They have bought into Smith’s invisible hand as if it were a panacea to all social ills. They have overlooked that the hand is sometimes balled into a fist.

With the Smithian mindset firmly imprinted on their thinking, it is no small wonder that the conservatives are more prone to believe the propaganda being doled out by the oil and coal industries. Even though both parties have succumbed to the consumerist persuasion, the liberals seem at least capable of listening to the arguments for and against human involvement in global warming without becoming embroiled in true believer-like reactions. They are perhaps not totally unselfish in this regard, their constituencies being more environmentally conscious, but that observation merely pushes the concern one level deeper: why are environmentally conscious people better listeners?

The case finally comes to this question: Has the conservative mindset been so infected by Smithian economic dogma that it is now incapable of thinking outside that box?

I mentioned yesterday a subcommittee hearing that I witnessed on C-Span. For the better part of four hours the congressmen threw questions (and speeches) at six panelists, three of whom were advocates of the “hockey stick” view of global warming, and three of whom had questioned the statistical methods of the other three. Apparently, none of the six panelists disagreed on the larger question. When a young liberal congressman from Washington state asked the panelists to raise their hands if they had any doubts about human involvement in global warming, no hands were raised. The congressman then, in a few words, pointed out that one of the oil companies had decided to get on board with the environmental movement and its global warming concerns. The company had done several things, which the congressman summarized, and having done so, actually found that they had cut their costs by $300 million. Within a matter of less than five minutes later, the conservative chairman of the main committee spoke up. And what did he say. “It’s going to cost too much.” He had been sitting right there, and unless he had fallen asleep, had heard the young congressman point out that by doing the right thing, one company had actually saved money, and yet ….

Well, you get the picture. We may add to the oil company’s experience the fact that many of the things home owners can do – such as using compact fluorescent light bulbs in lieu of normal incandescent bulbs – will produce savings while reducing power consumption. And as Steve Brown said Friday evening, here in Virginia, when we use electricity in our homes we’re actually burning coal, the worst CO2 offender.

Finally, if it turns out that global warming does involve human action, we ought to be thankful. We can do something about human activities. But if the global warming we’re experiencing is entirely natural, then we had better hope and pray that the predicted effects are grossly exaggerated, because if they’re not, then the human race is in for a terrible future.