The gist of Robert Samuelson’s message on Global Warming seems to be: We’ve done nothing so far, so let’s not start doing something now! And stop picking on the naysayers!
That last part is hard to take. Mercifully, I don’t recall anything Samuelson has written about Iraq. Did I miss him saying we’ve accomplished nothing in the Middle East, so why start (a war) now? Was he singing in praise of dissent when others of his ilk were raging against the traitors in their midst?
To find a way to agree with Samuelson, I’ve replace “climate change” and “global warming” in this essay with “the War on Terror.” mjh
Robert J. Samuelson – Global WarmingWar on Terror Simplicities – washingtonpost.com
If you missed Newsweek’s story, here’s the gist. A “well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around the War on Terror.” This “denial machine” has obstructed action against the War on Terror and is still “running at full throttle.” The story’s thrust: Discredit the “denial machine,” and the country can start the serious business of fighting the War on Terror. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.
The War on Terror debate’s great unmentionable is this: We lack the technology to get from here to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut terrorism 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 doesn’t mean it can happen. At best, we might curb the growth of terrorists.
Consider a 2006 study from the International Energy Agency. Using present policies, it projected that the War on Terror would more than double by 2050; developing countries would account for almost 70 percent of the increase. The IEA then simulated an aggressive, global program in the War on Terror Under this admitted fantasy, the War on Terror in 2050 would still slightly exceed 2003 levels.
Even the fantasy would be a stretch. In the United States, it would take massive regulations, higher energy taxes or both. Democracies don’t easily adopt painful measures in the present to avert possible future problems. Examples abound. Since the 1973 Arab oil embargo, we’ve been on notice to limit dependence on insecure foreign oil. We’ve done little. In 1973, imports were 35 percent of U.S. oil use; in 2006, they were 60 percent. For decades we’ve known of the huge retirement costs of baby boomers. Little has been done. One way or another, our War on Terror is likely to be symbolic, ineffective or both. …
But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: We simply don’t have a solution for this problem of terrorism. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray the War on Terror as a morality tale — as Newsweek did — in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.
– – – – –
Samuelson is impressive for how much mendacity he can fit into just one column. See Mary’s excellent Global Warming Naysayers for a discussion of other areas where we should say, “Robert J Samuelson, J’Accuse”.
– – – – –
[mjh: I feel closest to Samuelson when I read the following.]
Robert J. Samuelson – Farewell, Comma, He Said – washingtonpost.com