- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Since there is no editing capability, and I'm typing this at breakneck speed, I'm going to repost with corrections. I hope the moderator deletes the previous incarnation.
There are at least two ideological differences that cloud the issue of global warming.
The first has to do with economics, and opposes two static "mind sets", one socialist and the other free market capitalist. This is a distortion: it is a mathematical theorem that neoclassical economics is compatible with a broad spectrum of economic institutions, of which free market capitalism is only one. In general, there is an enormous variety of markets possible; the socialism/free-market dichotomy is a mathematically ignorant caricature.
The second has to do with ideological attitudes towards global warming, some identified with pro-science attitudes, and others aligned against science. Freeman Dyson goes into this in his June 12th 2008 review in the New York Review of Books. See especially the first section on the results of Keeling on atmospheric C02 concentration, and Dyson's review of "A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies" by economist William Nordhaus.
Nordhaus compares several global warming policies using a model he calls DICE (see the review for the meaning of this acronym). Gore's policy would be only two trillion dollars better than doing nothing, which would cost 23 trillion dollars in environmental damage by the year 2100. The Kyoto protocol would net $0 if the United States does not participate, and $1 trillion if the United States does participate. The British proposal (which Nordhaus calls "Stern") would impoverish millions of Chinese and cost $15 trillion. However, there are carbon tax proposals that would make sense (a net gain of 3 trillion dollars), and if Dyson's prediction comes true that at least by 2050, biotechnology will help create "genetically engineered carbon-eating trees," then "...the rules of the climate game will be radically changed. In a world economy based on biotechnology, some low-cost and environmentally benign backstop to carbon emissions is likely to become a reality."
