What If the Climate Change Catastrophists Actually Have a Point?

Climate change has become so politicized that it’s hard to have a rational discussion about the subject. If you disagree with the statist/Environmentalist/socialist agenda of the Democrats and their media supporters, you are automatically labeled a “denier” of some kind, regardless of what you actually say and believe. For people who oppose that Leftist agenda, opposition often consists of outright refusing to accept the possibility of human activity causing harmful climate change, if for no other reason than to defend free market capitalism. This is understandable, because the catastrophists' position is unequivocally anti-freedom and wrapped up in a socialist push, causing some to conclude that defending freedom necessitates ignoring or minimizing the actual science and facts of anthropogenic climate change.

Some of us remain uncompromisingly true to valuing freedom but reject both positions and try to stay objective about climate. I'm one. And while I listen to both of these sides, sorting through the bullshit to get at the substance of what they’re saying, I depend on certain leading independent  thinkers who are not on either of those sides to help shape my thinking to maintain a balanced view without sacrificing my free market radicalism.

So when one of those thinkers alters his position, I sit up and take notice. One such thinker is Ronald Bailey of Reason. Recently, Bailey ran a column titled Climate Change: How Lucky Do You Feel?, in which he announced a significant alteration (or evolution) in his position on man-made climate change. (His column was seconded by Jonathn H. Adler.) Bailey rejects the hysterical panic-mongers who see “a ‘collapse in society’ in about 10 years.” And he never denied the possibility that climate change may become “a significant problem” longer term. But in his recent article, he goes considerably farther:

I have unhappily concluded, based on the balance of the evidence, that climate change is proceeding faster and is worse than I had earlier judged it to be. There are still big scientific uncertainties, such as just how sensitive the global climate is to a given increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. And the proper public policy remains far from clear. Still, most of the evidence points toward a significantly warmer world by the end of the century—probably more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. Such a temperature increase will definitely have substantial impacts on human beings. (For a more detailed review of current climate science, visit reason.com/climatedata.)

He goes on to discuss various proposed options for dealing with it, divided into three broad categories; Option 1: Privatize It, Option 2: Regulate It, and Option 3: Ignore It. And he concludes:

Will climate change be apocalyptic? Probably not, but the possibility is not zero. So just how lucky do you feel? Frankly, after reviewing the scientific evidence, I'm not feeling nearly as lucky as I once did.

I have great respect for Bailey, especially after reading his terrifically informative book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century, in which he argues that freedom and economic growth, not statism, are the only effective, progressive means of mitigating negative climate effects.

But this one statement raised a nagging question in my mind:

It's time for market-oriented folks to recognize these facts and figure out the best way to handle them. If we don't offer solutions to the public, the only ones on the table will be those proposed by people who misunderstand economic principles or are unfriendly to market capitalism.

“Unfriendly to market capitalism” is extraordinarily generous. “Capitalism hating” is more precise. That aside, “I’m wondering if Bailey and Reason (and others) are leaning more towards catastrophism not so much because they believe it but because they fear that freedom-fighters are losing to the statists. So by giving a nod to the catastrophists, the pro-capitalist forces can more credibly advance their policies and head off the truly catastrophic assault on capitalism being waged by statist/Environmentalist/socialist forces in the name of “saving the planet from global warming.” In short, pro-capitalists need a “seat at the table” so it’s best to get there through the “climate crisis” door.

I may be wrong. In any event, a free market response to the “Green New Deal” thinking that calls for government force to “totally remake the American economy to address the climate crisis” is desperately needed. Bailey remains loyal to his defense of freedom, while  seemingly opening the door to governmental policy solutions: 

Continued economic growth and technological progress would surely help future generations to handle many—even most—of the problems caused by climate change. At the same time, the speed and severity at which the earth now appears to be warming make the wait-and-see approach increasingly risky.

In his latest article, Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change, Bailey highlights a Wall Street Journal article by Ted Nordhaus, who argues that “The deniers and alarmists may make headlines, but behind the scenes, an expert consensus is taking shape on how to respond to global warming.” Nordhaus observes:

Beyond the headlines and social media, where Greta Thunberg, Donald Trump and the online armies of climate “alarmists” and “deniers” do battle, there is a real climate debate bubbling along in scientific journals, conferences and, occasionally, even in the halls of Congress.

I will add that I have seen no evidence that Bailey is backtracking on the wisdom of his book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century. He seems to be building on it.

I’ve been in the camp that climate change is real, humans are contributing significantly though not exclusively to it, likely has both positive as well as negative consequences, and that restrictions or banning of reliable, economical energy would do far more harm than the negatives. I’ll be paying close attention to this debate, and what respected experts like Alex Epstein, Ron Bailey, Michael D. Shellenberger, and other leading pro-capitalists energy/environmental thought leaders have to say about this. 

Related Reading:

‘Climate Denier’: The Leitmotif of the Climate Propagandist

It’s Time to Listen to the ‘Climate Denialists’

The Climate Debate Should Focus on How to Address the Threat of Climate Change, Not Whether Such a Threat Exists--JONATHAN H. ADLER for THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY 

Clean Free Market Policy Beats a Carbon Tax. Here's Why.--JIGAR SHAH AND ROD RICHARDSON for Reason.com

If clean technologies can now compete and win, then we need to open closed markets by removing barriers to participation.

That's the core proposal of clean free market policy. Several free market think tanks (including the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit which publishes Reason) have distilled this insight into The Declaration on Energy Choice & Competition, which calls on government leaders to protect everyone's right to produce, buy, or trade the clean, reliable energy of their choice, and remove barriers to energy competition.

Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change--Ronald Bailey

The Breakthrough Institute's Ted Nordhaus urges Americans to reject both doomism and denialism.

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels—Alex Epstein

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century—Ronald Bailey

Climate Expert Shreds Claims Made By Ocasio-Cortez, Thunberg In Congressional Testimony--Ryan Saavedra for DailyWire.com

Related Viewing:

Fossil fuels are not mankind's enemy--Illinois Channel TV interview with Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels