Conservative commentator George Will's article "An Inconvenient Price" (
http://www.newsweek.com/id/43352) lambasts environmentalists for hyperbole and asserts, in book-report style, based upon Bjorn Lomborg's book "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming", that global warming wouldn't be all that bad but the economic consequences of fighting it would be comparable to, say, imposing a global speed limit of 5 mph.
Mr. Will's opinion piece is one of the smirkiest, short-sighted, ill-researched, don't-touch-my-stock-dividends, apathy-rationalizing dismissals of a global problem I have ever read. I understand the need to carry both liberal and conservative commentary on current issues, but this "analysis" is such a joke that it should be embarrassing even to conservatives and environmental skeptics. Does Mr. Will really believe that the effects of global warming will be limited to how many people will be killed by extreme cold and extreme heat? Are the full extent of the meteorological and agricultural impact utterly lost and to be swept aside out of hand?
Just one of the many throwaway lines included is "The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment anticipates *increasing* species richness." I doubt Mr. Will has even glanced at, much less read, the 1042-page report of the ACIA or even its relevant sections. After all, while it is technically possible to make his claim in a twisty, half-truth sort of way, such an assertion utterly fails to neglect that the increased number of species will result from cool and cold-weather species fleeing northward into arctic climes from their previous homes.
The actual wording used in the ACIA is "Arctic species and habitats are thus likely to be squeezed into smaller areas as a result of climate change." Caveats are presented showing that not all species will be affected equally, but arguing that global warming is good for arctic biodiversity is as disingenuous as claiming that a massive forest fire is good for the biodiversity of the plains surrounding the former forest.
Mr. Will blithely asserts that hurricanes "have not become more frequent or more violent." This directly contradicts studies showing increased frequency of Atlantic storms over the past century, taking place largely in two significant steps which are not correlated to any technological improvements in detecting storms. Additionally, while it is true that increased populations in coastal regions will increase the destructive impact of hurricanes, they make the impact of global warming that much more direct to this burgeoning demographic (not merely a "number of local problems," as Mr. Will scoffs).
Interestingly, Mr. Will makes it sound as if what we are looking at is turning a "big knob of climate change" to actively make the planet cooler, when in fact what environmentalists (and indeed most reasonably-thinking people) are attempting to do is stop, or at least slow down, the "knob" we are *already* turning to make the planet warmer.
In a fit of hypocrisy, Mr. Will accuses environmentalists about gross hyperbole about the dangers of global warming and neglect of any economic impact... and then presents actual hyperbole about the dangers of 5mph "global slowing," arguing that the economic impact of fighting global warming would be similarly catastrophic without presesnting a shred of evidence, all while neglecting or dismissing the potential impact of warming.
A real, conservative, cost-benefit analysis opinion piece might have bothered to look at the actual projected costs of both likely warming scenarios and proposed mitigation policies, rather than merely taking refuge in the same sort of hyperbole Mr. Will accuses his opponents of. The media should be ashamed -- not for printing a conservative viewpoint on a current hot topic -- but for printing such a poorly researched and poorly considered piece, particularly on an issue that could reach far, far beyond the political peccadillos of the day.
George Will: Why fight global warming?
Today
Sponsored Links
Linear Mode
