Last night, I had the pleasure of attending a talk given by Naomi Oreskes, author of the book "Merchants of Doubt", a nonfiction account of how a small group of people have managed to spread doubt on the science on issues from tobacco, to ozone, to climate change. A few interesting notes that I took away from the talk is that the argument against climate change is not necessarily only an argument over science, although it may appear that way, it is an argument against government regulation. What this stance boils down to is the role of government and the role of the free market.
When the government tried to step in to prevent people from smoking cigarettes, the move was seen as an infraction on personal liberty from "Big Government." The underlying problem with climate change is that it is a market failure - as put in this article "When free markets do no maximize society's welfare, they are said to 'fail' and policy intervention may be needed to correct them." The same was true for tobacco, it was a market failure that required government intervention in order to protect the public's health. Government regulations on advertising, labeling requirements, smoking area restrictions, and other measures have had a positive effect. Smoking rates among adults dropped from 20.9% in 2005 to 16.8% in 2014 (CDC). There's a lot of similarity between tobacco smoke and climate change. For tobacco companies, they do not have to pay for the negative impacts their products have on their consumers. The same goes for oil and gas companies - the cost of emitting greenhouse gases won't be billed to Exxon and Chevron, the impacts will be felt by people living in developing countries, island countries whose coastlines are disappearing, and by future generations.
Since the adverse effects of emissions are 'external' to the free market, it requires an external body, such as the government, to regulate it and give an economic incentive for reducing emissions. This is not to say that the free market cannot play a role in climate change mitigation - we need alternative sources of energy and the free market is the best place for these solutions to be found. The free market can and must come up with viable alternatives to keep our economy pushing forward, and we must stop demonizing the government. After all, our country created our government to be for the people by the people, and its purpose is to protect its people. You cannot say the same about the corporations that are fighting to keep climate skepticism alive. We need to put a price on carbon emissions and create an economic incentive for polluting companies to curb their emissions, and switch to more sustainable forms of energy.
You can learn more about the book "Merchants of Doubt", including the documentary created from it here: http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
I've also posted a few clips from the documentary below:
"DDT, Asbestos, Tobacco, Global Warming - what do these things all have in common?"
"Hard pill to swallow"
"Merchants of Doubt" trailer
When the government tried to step in to prevent people from smoking cigarettes, the move was seen as an infraction on personal liberty from "Big Government." The underlying problem with climate change is that it is a market failure - as put in this article "When free markets do no maximize society's welfare, they are said to 'fail' and policy intervention may be needed to correct them." The same was true for tobacco, it was a market failure that required government intervention in order to protect the public's health. Government regulations on advertising, labeling requirements, smoking area restrictions, and other measures have had a positive effect. Smoking rates among adults dropped from 20.9% in 2005 to 16.8% in 2014 (CDC). There's a lot of similarity between tobacco smoke and climate change. For tobacco companies, they do not have to pay for the negative impacts their products have on their consumers. The same goes for oil and gas companies - the cost of emitting greenhouse gases won't be billed to Exxon and Chevron, the impacts will be felt by people living in developing countries, island countries whose coastlines are disappearing, and by future generations.
Since the adverse effects of emissions are 'external' to the free market, it requires an external body, such as the government, to regulate it and give an economic incentive for reducing emissions. This is not to say that the free market cannot play a role in climate change mitigation - we need alternative sources of energy and the free market is the best place for these solutions to be found. The free market can and must come up with viable alternatives to keep our economy pushing forward, and we must stop demonizing the government. After all, our country created our government to be for the people by the people, and its purpose is to protect its people. You cannot say the same about the corporations that are fighting to keep climate skepticism alive. We need to put a price on carbon emissions and create an economic incentive for polluting companies to curb their emissions, and switch to more sustainable forms of energy.
You can learn more about the book "Merchants of Doubt", including the documentary created from it here: http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
I've also posted a few clips from the documentary below:
"DDT, Asbestos, Tobacco, Global Warming - what do these things all have in common?"
"Hard pill to swallow"
"Merchants of Doubt" trailer