I was struck by the prominence of climate change in The World in 2008 – the annual forecast by The Economist. In 2008 the two big events will be the US presidential election and the 2008 Olympics in China. But the underlying issue of global warming featured heavily in articles throughout the magazine.
Nancy Pelosi claims that global warming and greenhouse-gas reduction is “one of our highest priorities in Congress. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon calls global warming “the defining issue of our era.” In the business world sustainability reports and a net-neutral impact on the environment are desirable trends for the new year. The big polluters China and America are urged to come to an environmental agreement and even smaller powers such as Canada will go greener. The melting polar caps in the Arctic got space in the magazine, and even the term “greenwashing” made it onto the jargon list.
I have nothing against green – I support the cause in my own way. I just hope we don’t get caught up in the fad and remain skeptical like The Economist was back in 2004.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Arcane
January 2, 2008
6:35 am
The Economist has not been skeptical about environmental concerns, and I doubt most who oppose much environmental legislation are skeptical either. What matters is realism and prioritization. We must closely analyze what we can affect and the impact that it will have with cost-benefit analysis, and prioritize accordingly. The Copenhagen Consensus was an extremely important event that unfortunately did not receive enough attention. Their analysis and plan of action has my full support.
jim
January 2, 2008
5:28 pm
Environmental piety also allows us to denounce our fellows as evil sinners who are killing the planet. People enjoy being self-righteous.
Global Warming doom-mongering is just a secular version of the Left Behind books.
An interesting question is how long it will last? When the Earth hasn't devolved into apocalyptic hell by 2020, will the hysteria die down? 2030, 2040, 2050?
Scare stories about glaciers melting in a thousand years aren't sufficient to maintain popular hysterias. I think a decade or two is the farthest out imminent doom can be to sustain a real mass fear.
Alfred Russel Wallace
January 3, 2008
3:05 am
Regardless of how well or poorly climate models work (I am in the skeptical camp), carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so we should try to minimize its release. It is sobering to realize that the average age of crude oil is 100 million years - it has been sitting there all that time, and we will consume it in a few hundred years!
We can surely agree that the world cannot afford 6 billion living as we do... and regardless of when 'peak oil' hits, no-one can imagine the supply of oil is endless. What we need is leadership to find a positive way to both broaden economic prosperity and reduce energy intensity... A tough challenge, and few seem to be looking to lead....
Arcane
January 3, 2008
8:09 pm
Sorry, this is highly debatable. There is no longer any conclusive evidence that it is a greenhouse gas. It was assumed so in the past based on correlations, not actual experimentation, and those correlations have been found to be highly inaccurate as of late. Rises in carbon dioxide levels have been found to be occurring after temperature increases, not the other way around.
CTDeLude
January 6, 2008
7:26 pm
Either way I remain convinced it's a bunch of hooey. This post ( http://californiansojourn.blogs.com/california/2007/12/climate-changeg.html) from last year of mine really cemented the fact in my mind.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Forecast: Gloom and Doom
January 17, 2008
12:27 am