The American Enterprise Institute: Still Peddling Lies, Lies and More Lies About Global Warming

authordefault
on

At some level, itโ€™s hard not to feel sympathy for global warming skeptics. It must take a lot of resolve and perseverance to keep pushing an idea that everyoneย  knows is blatantly false(presumably, them too). That is, until you actually start reading some of the material they try to pass off as sober-mindedย research.

What I find pathetic is not so much the content, which, as we all know, is easily disprovable, but the fact that their views have barely evolved over the years โ€“ even as the science has progressed and clarified. A perfect example of this regressive mentality is a speech that was recently given by Kenneth P. Green, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

The AEI has been a vocal hotbed of global warming skepticism and is one of several think tanks to have received funding from ExxonMobil โ€“ more than $1.6 million over a period of several years, according to an article published last year in The Guardian. (The same article revealed that the AEI had offered to pay $10,000 to any scientist or economist willing to undermine the IPCCโ€™s Fourth Assessmentย Report.)

Along with several of his colleagues, Green has previously dismissed efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions as โ€œthe positively silly idea of establishing global-weather controlโ€ in an article for The National Review and lavished praise on Michael Crichton, a well-known right wing author (and a favorite of Senator James Inhofe), for educating โ€œmillions of readers about climate scienceโ€ (if by โ€œeducatingโ€ you meanย โ€œmisleadingโ€).

There are many things wrong with his latest speech, but letโ€™s start with the obvious: his absurd statement that โ€œthe technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremelyย costly.โ€ย 

Even those who believe that climate change, in one form or another, is now unavoidable would agree that we have all the resources and brainpower necessary to fight back. The only element that is missing is the requisite politicalย will.

Another ludicrous claim is that we are now back to the average temperatures that prevailed during the late 1970s. Contrast that fiction with the Climate Progress graphs showing a clear upward trend in average global temperatures sinceย 1978.

One possibleย  explanation is that he may be looking at a different graph. Real Climateโ€™s Ray Pierrehumbert has shown how easy it can be to โ€œcookโ€ a graph in order to obtain the desired results (basically, pick completely unrealistic starting conditions and numbers in your model and jack up various parameters).ย ย 

He goesย on:

โ€œTheory suggests that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, without feedbacks, would raise temperatures by about 1ยฐC โ€ฆ Simple forward extrapolation suggests weโ€™ll cause an additional seven-tenths of a ยฐC of heat retention if we reach twice the pre-industrial concentration of GHGs. Thatโ€™s expected to happen over the next 90 years, unless the economic crisis seriously retards growth, or China grows even faster than we expect itย to.โ€

Wait, what? What kind of โ€œtheoryโ€ is Green exactly spouting here? Most estimates, even those made by the IPCC (which tend toward the conservative), predict warming of at least 1.1ยฐC, and up to 6.4ยฐC, over the 21st century. Yes, he qualifies his statement by specifying that he would expect to see a slight temperature increase in the absence of climate feedbacks, but the premise here is all wrong. Indeed, it is not a question of if, but how serious those feedbacks, such as the diminishing albedo effect or the release of methane, will actually be โ€“ a question Green does not evenย address.

Green has a point when he criticizes the European Union cap-and-trade model as having been initially flawed. Under the original EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), a large majority of the permits were distributed to energy companies for free; as a result, trading prices quickly collapsed โ€“ eliminating any incentive to actually reduce emissions. The European Commission has since proposed a number of crucial revisions to the scheme, including a centralized allocation system and more auctioning of permits, which could be implemented in the next phase of the ETS.

What Green omits in his criticism is that the US model, particularly if it is administered by an Obama administration, would look much different since it would use a full auctioning system and would impose stringent emission targets โ€“ 80 percent cut below 1990 emission levels by 2050 โ€“ from the get-go. His claims that a cap-and-trade system would inevitably reduce economic growth, increase the prices of goods and services and create massive new national bureaucracies are simplyย unfounded.

Obama, for instance, has promised to allocate a significant chunk of the permit revenues to investing in clean energy technologies and infrastructure projects โ€“ all of which would help create new jobs and boost economic growth. The system may have some fits and starts in its early stages, but, if done correctly, promises to avoid many of the problems that befell the EUโ€™s ETS.

If you were to believe Greenโ€™s gloomy assessment, there is no reason why anybody should even try to reduce emissions. A cap-and-trade system wonโ€™t work because it imposes too many burdens on the economy, and a carbon tax, though preferable, would inevitably fail because governments would use it to โ€œbenefit crony-capitalists and steer money to favored constituencies.โ€ And, as I mentioned earlier, Green seems to believe that we are still decades away from developing the necessary technologies to reduce ourย emissions.

Which, of course, leaves us with only one possibility: do nothing. Now why didnโ€™t I think of that before?

Related Posts

on

High demand for wild-caught species to feed farmed salmon and other fish is taking nutritious food away from low-income communities in the Global South.

High demand for wild-caught species to feed farmed salmon and other fish is taking nutritious food away from low-income communities in the Global South.
Analysis
on

Premier Danielle Smith can expect new tariffs, fewer revenue streams, and a provincial deficit brought on by lowered oil prices.

Premier Danielle Smith can expect new tariffs, fewer revenue streams, and a provincial deficit brought on by lowered oil prices.
on

Jeremy Clarkson spreads well-worn conspiracy theory that casts inheritance farm tax policy as plot to โ€œreplace farmers with migrantsโ€.

Jeremy Clarkson spreads well-worn conspiracy theory that casts inheritance farm tax policy as plot to โ€œreplace farmers with migrantsโ€.
on

Premier Danielle Smith declared sheโ€™s pursuing โ€˜every legal optionโ€™ in her fight against Trudeauโ€™s federal proposal to curb emissions.

Premier Danielle Smith declared sheโ€™s pursuing โ€˜every legal optionโ€™ in her fight against Trudeauโ€™s federal proposal to curb emissions.