Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

KRAUTHAMMER: Church of the Environment

By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post

Published June 2, 2008 at 12:02 a.m.

Text size  
Charles Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’m a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can’t be very good to pump lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems — from ocean currents to cloud formation — that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability.

The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,” warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, “is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.” If you doubt the arrogance, you haven’t seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton’s laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming — infinitely more untested, complex and speculative — is a closed issue.

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class — social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies — arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher’s England to Deng’s China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but — even better — in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia’s priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment — carbon chastity — they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Just Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There’s no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research — untainted and reliable — to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive.

The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.

But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.

Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing?

Charles Krauthammer’s e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Comments

  • June 2, 2008

    6:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    greenleaf writes:

    I agree with the majority of Mr. Krauthammer's approach to global warming and the environment. It is true that many in the environmental movement, especially its youngest members, do approach the subject with a religious zeal. Others among us that form the "old guard" of the movement (38 years and counting) are more fiscally conservative and appreciate the value of market forces and minimal regulation. With age comes a different perspective and a desire to work from within the economic system to forge alliances with hunters, fishermen, ranchers, farmers, religious groups and other landowners and corporations.

    My idol in the environmental movement is not Al Gore, but Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. http://www.rmi.org/. I encourage anyone to examine his market based approach to our energy and environmental problems. He has consulted huge corporations such as Walmart and has been directly responsible for vastly increasing the energy efficiency in their many stores across the country and around the world.

    The mainstream environmentalist of today is more likely to follow Lovin's model (better environment through engineering efficiency) than to worship at an alter to "Gaia".

  • June 2, 2008

    7:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    An agnostic simply believes that something is unknowable. (Religion) Does Krauthammer believe that we cannot know what effect global warming is having?

  • June 2, 2008

    9:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    greenleaf writes:

    SQUATCH,

    At last, you are considering getting some help! We've been worried about you buddy! I'm sure he could help you with your eco-hysteria, warming-mania, enviro-phobia and especially, your really weird "look out the window" fetish!

    There may be hope for you yet! Let us know how we can help!

  • June 2, 2008

    9:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rushrulesbaby writes:

    Spencer, you need to get a brain and use it!

  • June 2, 2008

    9:41 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    greenleaf writes:

    SQUATCH,

    As usual, you have been drinking too shallowly from the well of knowledge! He has an MA degree and decades of experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_Lo...

    You profess knowledge: what are your credentials my old hairy friend?

  • June 2, 2008

    10:30 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    greenleaf writes:

    SQUATCH,

    Lovin's credentials are impeccable, and I could give a whit about Gore's, I've never cared much for him, and like him even less now after not greening his own act and setting an example. Although, I need to point out that Gore did not only attain a degree but enlisted in the army rather than avoiding it and returned to work on an advanced degree in divinity. He then dropped out of Law school (not at Harvard) to run for public office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore.

    Corporations like Lovins because he saves them millions of dollars while helping the environment.

    SQUATCH, Before you try to defame people, you should at least take 10 seconds to see if what you are saying has a shred of truth.

    Back to you: what credentials do you have old buddy, an advanced degree to the Karl Rove school of character assassination?

  • June 2, 2008

    12:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    fatheromalley writes:

    The assumption that pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere as being harmful is erroneous.. what do greenhouse owners use to invigorate plant growth?

    There are over 31000 scientists world wide that dispute this assumption and over 9000 have PHD's. www.petitionproject.org

    History shows us that CO2 was higher than now in the past and that there was vegetation then where now there is none.

    The assumption also embraces the theory that we are now in an optimum CO2 time and we are moving away from that optimum level..

    Computer models thusfar have failed miserably when overlaying their predictions on past measurements...

    I find that those that are generally critical of "the west" or industrialization are global warming fanatics..

    Our preoccupation with CO2 is blinding us to getting off of foreign oil. The steps taken to decrease CO2 are often in direct contradiction to getting off of foreign oil. Also this rush to mandate CO2 "emissions" is placing every American family in jeopardy of mercury poisoning as soon as the light bulb mandates go into affect. We are now advised to dispose of these new mandated bulbs in nothing less than two sealed plastic bags for each bulb disposed of.

    What is the "carbon footprint" of billions of plastic bags being placed in our landfills?

    What are the real environmental impacts of having any of these bulbs break in our homes?

    The most important to our immediate security and prosperity is beng dependent on Foreign oil and these mandates, like 19 different blends of gasoline does not get us any closer to that goal..

    I am not writing about drilling or more refineries.. I am referring to solar panels and windmills used to "store" electricity for our electrical usage to decrease CO2 "emissions"..
    That same electicity could be used for separating Hydrogen and Oxygen in water..

    70% of our oil needs are going into our transportation industry, not the manufacturing of electricity..

    Hydrogen fuel cells if allowed to continue in sales and development will eventually be a landfill problem.. also unlike Hydrogen run ICEngines, Hydrogen fuel cells are non backward compatible with older cars .. Hydrogen as a fuel IS compatible with the last 100 years of ICEngine development.. but alas it seems that burning any fuel is "old school" and we are infaturated with everything electric..

    I don't see Hydrogen fuel cells or "batteries" supplying the torque of the horsepower to run trains, trucks and jet airplanes, all of which Hydrogen as a burned fuel can..

    What is the exhaust of Hydrogen burning? Water! Our astronauts drink the exhaust of the shuttle, purified water!

    So while it might "sound" balanced and deeply thought out that the aassumption that CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is necessarilly bad, the science and the experience of greenhouse farmers to not bear that out..

    Not all is at it seems..
    May God Bless,
    Father O'Malley

    Go to www.fatheromalley.com

  • June 2, 2008

    12:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    rushrules. Is that all you got? Your monikor says a lot. You idolize the hillbilly heroin addict who dodged the draft due to a boil on his butt. You really look up to some high quality people. Can you dispute the definition of an agnostic?

  • June 2, 2008

    4:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    Father M. Eventually you have to open the window and let the air out, or the plants in the greenhouse melt and die. Worked in such a place once, that makes me a world expert.

  • June 2, 2008

    8:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    greenleaf writes:

    father o,

    True enough, greenhouses use CO2 sometimes in the winter when they have a closed greenhouse. They never use it in the summer, its too expensive and would dissipate.

    The problem with too much CO2 is the unintended consequences: Vines such as kudzu and poison ivy love a high CO2 environment. You might end up with more crop growing areas in Canada, but fewer in the U.S. due to drought(plants need water as much as they need CO2). We may gradually gain land mass for plants in Greenland and Antarctica, but lose as much or more along coasts and in islands that become submerged. The Moral: I don't know, you don't know and I trust the climatologists to know there exists a problem, but not to know the final outcome.

    Hydrogen? Its exciting but it takes a lot of energy whether from solar, wind, coal nuclear or SQUATCHS overused million gerbils. Plus, the infrastructure doesn't exist. I'd put my dollar on the almost ready for prime time plug-in hybrids that can get 100 miles per gallon and use electrons from any source in the grid to break the stranglehold of middle eastern politics of war and terror.

    CFLS can be recycled now at many suppliers including Ace hardware. You shouldn't need to recycle a newly purchased bulb for 3-5 years anyway. By then many more options should be available. As for the minute amount of mercury? CFLS keep much more mercury out of the environment by reducing the amount of coal that needs to be burned. It is mercury from coal burning plants that release so much mercury into the environment that it has contaminated Tuna, swordfish and other fish species to the point they are actually toxic to humans. We have been throwing out the long tube florescent bulbs used in offices schools and hospitals for years. millions, if not billions of them. They contain more mercury than CFLS, but I bet you haven't heard a word about them have you?

  • June 4, 2008

    11:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    Well Green, looks like you and I are the last standing. And no one answers us.

  • June 5, 2008

    6:18 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Damo writes:

    As for using hydrogen with the by product being water, we should be carful as in its gaseous form this is the main contributor to global warming!;-)