PS: even if an American Cap and Trade system or to make a significant dent in global warming, which it won’t, how are we and what right have we to inhibit the burgeoning economies of China, India and Brazil, as they lift themselves from their ancient poverty using the most plentiful and efficient energy resources available? China, for instance, has already passed us in carbon emissions and its rate of such omissions is growing six times faster than ours. Gore’s program therefore is a nonstarter, and will only promote and speed the transfer of American jobs, traditional blue-collar union jobs abroad. It seems everything can be sacrificed for the “Planet” even strictures against outsourcing… and why are we supposed to be for that?…
I’ve followed this issue fairly closely, and I’ve noticed more than a fair amount of class and culture condescension from the greens towards the blue collars. The new Progressive Coalition, information age Greenies, and “people of color”, Black’s and Hispanics that is removed from their social, economic situation, from the working class that is, united against culturally conservative working-class whites. That is the modern progressive labor movement. Will this unstable coalition hold even if the green paradigm stifles economic growth as it certainly will? Time will tell.

Here’s another conundrum for the anti-fossilites. If the ultimate goal is the elimination or near elimination of fossil fuels, and the ultimate way of powering transportation, mass and vehicular, necessarily therefore is electricity, where is that vastly greater supply of electricity to come from? If we can’t burn natural gas and coal, and we can’t use nuclear, from where are we to get the energy to power the new electrified transportation system? One of the problems so far with electric cars is the need for frequent battery recharges, which take several hours to complete. An Israeli guy named Agassi has come up with an ingenious solution. Instead of recharging the battery, you go instead to what you might call a battery station and replace yor depleted battery with a freshly charged one. He’s perfected this relatively simple technique to the point where a battery change will take no longer than filling up at the local gas station. But a major and self imposed problem with his overall plan is that he stipulates that the power stations, which supply the electricity needed to charge the batteries also be clean of the CO 2 “pollutant.” Presently that would limit his power distribution system to some hydroelectric proximate locales such as Niagara Falls, or those fed by Hoover Dam, a limitation which despite it’s green provenance underscores how dependent we are on fossils and nuclear. Now that restriction, drastically limits the supply of electricity , and if you consider the additional fact that electric power usually comes from a number of sources and not from one plant, finding even a few 100% carbon free sources is near impossible … Before he began this venture, Agassi was already an entrepreneurial whiz kid, so I’m assuming he didn’t suddenly get stupid. In other words, his otherwise self defeating purism is most likely an advertising ploy. ” Agassi Electric, Purer than thou, purer than the driven $now.”

Now, I do not count myself among the AGW “deniers”, as I have neither the scientific background nor judgment to sift through the arguments of climatologists, researchers, and politicians in regards to what degree of a threat AGW is, if any. However, that the primary evidence cited in favor of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) continues to be computer models raises this software engineer’s eyebrow. You will struggle to find a group of people less likely to be swayed by computer models than software engineers. Computer models are just too easy to manipulate, and designing a completely thorough and completely reliable one is something that is rarely possible without some form of desired outcome in mind. Still, arguing about the reliability of this specific model or that specific model is something I will happily leave to others, as for even a nerd like me, incessant talk of algorithms and variables makes my head hurt.

However, while I can foresee no certainty coming from computer models, I can say with certainty that the proposed “remedy” for this supposed oncoming catastrophe looks awfully damn familiar: the same tax-heavy, government-involvement-and-spending-heavy, regulation-heavy, environmentally-puritanical, economically-crushing, and, yes, socialistic measures that were the proposed “cure” for the (supposedly) eminent “population bomb” and the coming “ice age” touted in the ’70s. Adding to the sense of deja vu is that the proposing is largely being done by the same type of people then as now. Neither the “ice age” or “population bomb” came remotely close to being realized, and now the same socialistic measures are being proposed to address AGW. And just like with those eminent threats from the latter days of bell-bottoms, we are being told that not only must the US and world adopt their “solution”, we must do it RIGHT NOW OR ELSE, because there is NO TIME TO DEBATE ABOUT IT. I would be thought a fool if I were to be taken in by such tactics from a car salesman, but I should heed to them when considering adopting massive socialistic economic and environmental policies? Why should anyone be cowed by admonitions for adopting radical measures made in such a fashion? Oh, because they say their data “overwhelmingly” supports it. Right. The data largely extrapolated from computer models. Round and round we go.

All that being said, however, I still can’t even claim to be a skeptic, as though the question as to what degree of a threat AGW is, if any, had any importance to me, and I was simply withholding judgment. No, I simply do not care. I do not care because I do not believe that the “concern” over AGW has anything whatsoever to do with concern for the environment or humanity. The AGW debate is, at bottom, a political debate between those who wish to implement their vision of a socialistic utopia and those who are not so keen on the idea. If AGW is a real threat, the “remedy” proposed by the AGW crowd will have longer-lasting and more damaging effects than the problem, as socialistic government policy has never failed to take a bad situation and make it exponentially worse. However, proving AGW is not a threat will not offer a reprieve from those wishing to impose these socialistic measures. If AGW is not a real threat, the present-day AGW alarmists will no doubt move on to the next “problem” that they insist requires immediate adoption of their “solution”. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Regardless of whatever the supposed “threat” in whose name the call for implementation of socialistic measures is being made, I will continue to oppose, with great fervor, the implementation of said socialistic measures. Therefore, whether AGW is real or not is entirely besides the point.

And I tripped right over it. Sorry!

I doubt the “righteous fervor” will be abated by the quieter, more thoughtful voices.

Krugman is an economist.