Guest post: Dorian Abbot on Conservative Conservation
A set of thoughtful proposals for dealing with climate change that should appeal to those with a conservative leaning.
Dorian Abbot, who has been a guest on my podcast, is a geophysicist who studies paleoclimate and possible habitability of exoplanets. He also has a strong interest in public policy, and scientific education, and has been an outspoken critic, as am I, about many features of the current DEI academic bureaucracy. In this thoughtful essay, he describes dealing with climate change in a reasoned, and hopeful way, that avoids climate change alarmism and denialism at the same time. He kindly gave me permission to repost his piece here.
___________________
Global warming alarmism exists (no, the world is not going to end in 12 years) and some liberals really do exploit it to try to advance their agenda, e.g., the Green New Deal. I’m not one of them. I believe global warming presents a surmountable challenge to society that people of all political affiliations can work together to address. Moreover, I’d argue that the conservative spirit can actually provide strong motivation for addressing global warming. I am even willing to speculate that conservative solutions to the problem of global warming may end up being the most durable and beneficial ones.
I categorically reject the idea that you should just “believe the science” about global warming (or anything else). Instead, I am going to give you a summary of the evidence and let you decide for yourself how strong the case is. We have good records showing the global-mean temperature of the planet has increased by 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 170 years. Over the same time period the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has increased by almost 50%, from 280 parts per million to 410 parts per million. We have actually burned enough fossil fuels to have increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide by twice this much, but plants and the ocean are taking up half of our emissions.
The observed global-mean temperature increase is the amount we would expect from the observed carbon dioxide increase based on radiative physics (which describes the emission, absorption, and transmission of electromagnetic radiation). If we burn all of the coal and gas still available to us, the carbon dioxide level will increase to about a factor of four above present levels. Although there is plenty of uncertainty, this could increase the global-mean temperature by about 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
For comparison, the global-mean temperature was 11 degrees Fahrenheit lower at the height of the last ice age, when Chicago was covered with half a mile of ice. A 15 degrees Fahrenheit increase in global-mean temperature would cause large changes in farming conditions, water resources, and coastal flooding. These problems would be exacerbated if they lead to human conflict and warfare.
There are good, conservative reasons for wanting to prevent this from happening. Pope Francis, Patriarch Bartholomew, and the late Chief Rabbi Sacks have all affirmed the theological justification for environmental conservation. Their argument is based on our role as God’s stewards of Earth, as well as our duty to love our neighbor and to care for the poor. We can also apply conservative hero Edmund Burke’s arguments about society to the planet. After all, the global environment is an extremely complex system that we don’t fully understand. If we start changing it thoughtlessly, shouldn’t we expect problems just like if we start changing society thoughtlessly?
Business leaders should be aware that a low-probability climate catastrophe can dominate a cost-benefit analysis, making addressing global warming the smart business choice, despite the discounting of future costs. Even libertarians should be concerned about global warming because of the damage it could do to privately held property.
In the face of the challenges posed by global warming, my role as a scientist is to offer you an informed, unbiased picture of what we know about the issue. Others need to take the lead developing policy, and I’m confident conservatives will help lead the charge. That said, here are a few options that conservatives might get excited about:
Establish a Pigouvian tax on carbon emissions to offset negative externalities, with proportional reductions in other government revenues so the size of the government remains constant. This would prevent growth of government waste that would swamp future economic gains from reducing carbon emissions. To make such a program extra appealing, the carbon tax might even be paired with a reduction in the overall size of the government.
Increase investment in nuclear energy research and production of new nuclear power plants.
Fund infrastructure projects to help adapt to climate change.
Promote agricultural research to make sure crop yields do not decrease as the planet warms.
Incentivize research into improved batteries and low-carbon-emission technologies.
In sum, I believe that conservation is conservative; it is not an accident that the words share the same root. Global warming is similar to the problem of poverty: liberals and conservatives share the goal of reducing poverty, they just have different ideas about how to do it. Given their strong moral values, sense of duty, and can-do attitude, it would not surprise me if conservatives end up finding the best solutions to the problem of global warming.
This post is an updated version of an article that appeared in The Chicago Thinker on March 12, 2021.
Mr. Abbot’s 5 proposals make good public policy sense. I wish he would have listed them first and then discussed them in detail. I suspect Mr. Abbot could write a chapter about each in any book he would care to write.
I cringe, however, when I read his remarks about “liberal agenda” and “conservative solutions” regarding scientific matters. Acid rain falls on conservatives and liberals alike. Likewise the pope, the patriarch, and the chief rabbi are all entitled to their opinions, but frankly I prefer to obtain information about the world in which I live from scientists.
When I have questions about climate change, my go-to source is — The Physics of Climate Change.
Well, I do not share your optimism because I live in a place where we now have many thunderstorms with winds ranging to over 50 mph and often over 75 mph that we did not have before with the same frequency. No big deal? Big deal for those living here because, apart from wind damage to homes, we have an electric utility DTE that has archaic infrastructure and equipment and over the air electric lines causing loss of power for days! DTE is very profitable. My point: capitalism (or corporatism if you like) is not willing to fix this easy problem by investing to upgrade their equipment and take preventing measures. Why do you think anything will be done to fix the global warming problem before it becomes unfixable? The Elon Musk types plan to relocate to Mars since they think it is much easier 😃