Criminal Generation
By Amit Singh | Sunday, February 28th, 2010 | PolicyAl Gore finally broke his silence on the recent backlash against Climategate with an op-ed piece in the NY Times. Despite someone I disagree with on many things, I do actually think Al Gore is a smart, motivated and sincere person. In the op-ed, he lightly acknowledges the recent missteps of “flawed overestimates” and “partly inaccurate” information published but quickly defends the errors by claiming science will never be “free of mistakes”. A mistake in the Free Market is correctable by punishing those who took the risk. A mistake in govt policy is rarely reversible and punishes the masses for the actions of a few. The proposed mistake of Cap and Trade should be fought by American industry and environmentalist s alike. Other than loss of jobs in America, the predictable consequence of Cap and Trade is for cleaner manufacturing in the U.S. to be exported to more polluting factories in China and India. Since advocates of Global Warming should concern themselves with the net effect of policies worldwide, they should realize that Cap and Trade is counter-productive to their goals.
Interestingly, Al Gore seems to be giving the Clinton-Gore Administration the credit for the “decisive victory of democratic capitalism over communism in the 1990s”. For some reason I thought that happened back in the 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall, but I digress. The problem he claims is that the resulting “market fundamentalists” do not provide the innovation to combat climate change. He “conveniently” leaves out the perversion of the market with govt subsidies for oil, ethanol and sugar which prevent cleaner and economically viable sources of energy from competing.
Al Gore foreshadows that “what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption”. His belief that there are some problems only the government can solve is shared by many in our generation and he calls us the “criminal generation” if we do not address climate change. But what is our generation going to be called if we make Global Warming worse?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
I'm left handed but right brained.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
6 Responses to "Criminal Generation"
Of course, Algore leaves out the part where he has significant financial interest in selling “carbon offsets” and a host of other investments to get richer from confronting “global warming”
We subsidize wind and solar too. And if we didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to get financing. The tax code benefits that oil companies get is hardly tanking our ability to transition to a green economy.
If you really feel that the free market is the be and end all, then are you suggesting there are absolutely no limitations there? Perfect competition is an ideal. There will always be imperfections like asymmetric information to distort perfect market functioning. One of the things that environmentalist point to that you don’t address is that there currently exists an imperfection preventing the market from fixing this. That being that pollution represents an externality that is not factored into the market’s allocation of resources. Thus, we need some system to factor that cost into the equation. Doing so will then allow the market to efficiently allocate resources to transition us away from those polluting activities.
Cap & Trade is a convoluted way to go about that. And from what I have seen the result will be an inconsequential price increase in carbon. Still can’t see why a Carbon Tax wouldn’t fly. If it offset payroll taxes so that it was revenue neutral, why would Republicans oppose that? I understand that some Republicans dispute the very idea of anthropogenic global warming. But still this would represent a shift from taxing work to taxing consumption. And don’t we want to reward what we see as virtues: industry and thrift?
@tx2vadem, I agree with you that the externality of pollution are not factored into the cost of items and they should be. Personally I would actually support some sort of carbon tax that punishes companies that pollute the most.
forgetting to add wind and solar to the list was an oversight on my part. not sure though why you think the cost of the Iraq wars and our military presence in the Middle East does not hinder our ability to pursue other initiatives whether it is alternative energy or healthcare. the actual tax code as you correctly point out is inconsequential but doesn’t cover the externality costs of using it as our main source of energy.
For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
try a google with ” bbc global cooling”
You guys just floor me sometimes.
Yes, the free market in conjunction with the constitution and enforced rule of law IS THE END ALL, BE ALL! Are there imperfections orchestrated by personal interests? Kinda like Al Gore wants to have with his infernal carbon credits? Yes but, sorry Al buddy, you don’t get “your turn” at being a self entitled parasite…..again.
The solution Tex, is to remove the not-so-free market stuff, not add to it. Especially because, Al Gore sees an opportunity to enrich himself and garner cultural power through the new Global Warming religion.
@ Amit, I respect both you and Tex. I agree with you(Amit) on a lot of issues. That said, with the exception of being smart, you give AlGore WAY too much credit.
Tex, I don’t like our current method of taxation, but given what we have, I support incentives for energy diversification and exploration. That goes for all energy, not just limited “Green” that at this point isn’t yet a capable replacement. So, I support incentives for solar etc. I just won’t torpedo the life style of one the cleanest developed countries in the world for the sake of the new Global Warming religion.
A Carbon Tax is BS and will NEVER fly! Never! Its stupid for one and two just because it starts off as revenue neutral doesn’t mean that you just haven’t introduced a new “PC” tax system that wasn’t there before. Revenue neutral today, off the hook tommorrow. Really, what do you take us for? Surely, you play at not understanding why we will never approve?
If you want a consumption tax, Tex, fine, support Fair Tax.
The externality of pollution is not a factor? There is no incentive to go cleaner without a legislated PC morality? What country are you guys living in again?
We don’t have dumping laws? Are there not fines and damages awarded when a company or person damages others by polluting rivers, streams, wildnerness etc? Acid rain laws? Isn’t it difficult to find a spot to dump your nuclear waste? While I totally reject PC Global Warming legislation, I endorse legislation that prevents one from damaging my person or property. I also absolutely endorse something that you seem to pretend not to exist. Cultural and marketplace pressure that gives companies incentive to continue to develop cleaner energy. ISO 14001 is great and establishes processes for continual improvement in a company’s regard to the environment. Trade organization are getting into the act. Give a Hoot and Don’t Polute, don’t pretend that tearful American Indian in those commercials didn’t have a positive affect. Don’t try to pretend that despite our “evil” consumption, we Americans have developed far superior and cleaner uses of energy for real world uses than most. Is China and Mexico cleaner? What? Some countries were exempted from the Kyoto Protocol from the start? Why was that Tex? Because they couldn’t hang even if they wanted to? Because it was a bad idea?
If you pollute, if your product is inferior, if you damage others:
You get fined!
You pay punitive and compensatory damages!
Your bottom line suffers!
You get bad press and you LOSE MARKET SHARE!
Don’t tell me the externalities of pollution are not a factor.
Conservationist and Free Marketers under a Constitutional Republic are the answer. Whack job legislation that taxes the periodic table and bankrupts our ability to compete is NOT! Anything that resembles Cap and Trade must be vigorously opposed and ground into dust. Then that dust is to be environmentally safely disposed of.
The only problem with “global warming” is that it has changed the nature of environmental debate. Instead of teaching kids in grade school to plant trees, recycle and to make efforts against pollution… they’re being taught about global warming.
Smokie the Bear has been replaced with, well… Al Gore.
Leave your response