You know how they say the Environmental movement is the new home for displaced communists. This Op-Ed posted at the National Journal confirms that old saw:
In college classes, climate change is taught as a textbook example of where democracy fails. And there are a whole host of reasons to think America will fail on climate change: We’ve waited too long; the consequences aren’t as tangible as in other areas of policy; we’re bad at sacrificing in the short term to achieve in the long term.
President Obama, who on Monday rolled out landmark regulations for coal-fired power plants, has found a way around that age-old political problem posed by climate change and democracies, in part by acting a little bit more like a dictator. This is something he’s been skewered for on the right, with Rush Limbaugh accusing the White House of focusing on global warming just because “it offers the president opportunities to be dictatorial.”
Limbaugh is onto something, but he has it precisely backward: The decision to use executive authority is the means, not the ends. It also makes a lot of sense when it comes to global warming given Congress’s failure to pass the Waxman-Markey energy bill in 2009, and, for decades before that, to pass any sort of comprehensive climate legislation whatsoever.
By ‘climate change’ what environmentalists mean is global warming and, if we’re talking decades, it was less than four decades ago, the scientific community was hyping global cooling and an impending ice age. Remember this?
Returning to the original point, leftists are resorting to the ‘dictatorial’ rout to consolidate more power within the Federal Government because most Americans aren’t buying the global warming hype. Furthermore, why does every so-called solution to ‘global warming’ involve heavy handed government regulation, punitive taxes and wealth redistribution through the U.N.?
Global warming will increase the variability of weather and most likely result in more extreme weather events. The Munich Re NatCatSERVICE data on loss relevant natural disasters already show such a trend for the last 30 years. The Germanwatch Climate Risk Index, which ranks the countries according to their extreme weather risks, shows that all countries in the top ten of this index are developing countries, led by Bangladesh, Myanmar and Honduras. 95% of fatalities from natural disasters in the last 25 years occurred in developing countries.
Furthermore, indices characterizing the expected range of future changes of climate like the Climate Change Index (Baettig et al., 2007) clearly show that in many developing countries these changes will be most pronounced. Taking into consideration that already today the climate conditions in many of these countries are on the edge of allowing a sustainable livelihood to the people, only small changes can put this at risk.
Developing countries do not have a history of large emissions of green house gases and thus have not contributed significantly to the causes of climate change. So it is in the responsibility of the industrialized countries, which have caused the problem, to support the people in the developing countries to mitigate climate risks and help them to adapt to the changes.
Scientific consensus doesn’t equal scientific proof and furthermore, isn’t it the job of scientists to be skeptical,
Looking at the above chart (click for a larger version), the 1970′s scientist might have been on to something after all. I wonder if they had consensus?
H/T: The Hockey Schtick