|
 resident
Bush is casting about for a global-warming policy that will placate
his critics and reassure his supporters. The result, as revealed
yesterday at a White House press conference, is more funding to
study global warming and subsidies to develop carbon-dioxide-reducing
technology. The only people who will be placated, however, are those
who will be the recipients of federal largesse.
When Bush dumped the Kyoto Protocol, which would have put undue
burden on the world economy with little environmental benefit, he
did so abruptly without consulting his domestic and foreign allies
or communicating the basis for his decision. As a result, he has
suffered a constant barrage of criticism from home and abroad, pushing
him to take politically expedient actions that aren't scientifically
justified.
Bush's policy proposals contradict his scientific statements. He
stated, consistent with the findings of a recent National Academy
of Sciences report, that there are still major uncertainties behind
global-warming claims. We still don't know, for example, how much
natural variation has contributed to the warming we've seen. If
we don't know that then we don't know how much man has contributed,
if at all.
He also pointed out that nobody knows what constitutes a dangerous
amount of warming. Contrary to popular treatment of this issue,
not all warming is bad. Every winter retirees flock to warmer climates
by the thousands, for instance. We have evidence that humankind
flourished during the Medieval Optimum, a period when global temperatures
were higher than they are now. Without knowing how much man has
contributed or how much warming is safe, there is no way to formulate
reasonable policies.
Moreover, the best available empirical evidence suggests that there
will be very little warming over the next 100 years and that the
amount of warming likely to occur may on the whole be beneficial.
Under these circumstances Bush's proposed "Climate Change Research
Initiative," to further study global warming, and "Climate Change
Technology Initiative," to develop "clean" technology, which at
first glance seem reasonable, are really nothing of the sort. They
seem more like political paeans to his critics and an abandonment
of his conservative political base.
Global-warming research is already funded to the tune of $2 billion
per year. The main result of this largesse hasn't been good science,
but rather the creation of a huge political constituency of scientists
who fight to maintain or increase federal funding levels.
What this means is that we are steadily bombarded by "scientific"
reports, such as the one released by the National Academy of Sciences
last week, stating that global warming is a potential, but poorly
understood problem that (surprise, surprise) requires more federal
funding.
The media, environmentalists, and their political allies then "interpret"
these reports to support extremist political agendas, which often
have far more to do with fighting the free enterprise system than
protecting the environment.
As noted in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, in an editorial
by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT and
a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel that prepared
the report, "Science in the public arena, is commonly used as a
source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and
propagandize uninformed citizens." Which is exactly how the report
is being used. But, according to Lindzen, "Our primary conclusion
was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by
no means settled." Moreover, the areas of agreement, "tells us nothing
relevant to policy discussions," he said.
The Bush administration must understand that further funding of
science is not the answer. The first reason is that the massive
amounts of funding already dedicated to this issue has not turned
up a causal link between man's carbon dioxide emissions and catastrophic
global warming. As noted by Dr. Lindzen at a March 1 congressional
briefing, sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition, "the longer you
look for something without finding it the less probable it is."
Since 1988, the federal government has poured billions of dollars
into global warming research looking for this link. Normally, after
so much time and expenditure it could be safely determined that
the link doesn't exist. But when $2 billion are at stake scientists
are much more likely to keep the issue alive, and ask for even more
money to find it.
The second reason Bush should avoid more science funding is that
federally funded scientific studies that contradict environmental
dogma are often ignored or maligned by political interests. So even
if good science were produced, there's little reason to believe
it would make the expected impact. This has happened before.
During the 1970s it was widely believed that acid rain was the cause
of dying forests, the acidification of the Adirondack lakes and
other environmental problems in the Northeastern United States.
Congress commissioned a 10-year, $600 million study of the problem.
The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) concluded,
"There is no evidence of widespread forest damage from current ambient
levels of acid rain in the United States." It also concluded that
acid rain does not contribute significantly to the acidity of lakes
and streams. In fact, the Adirondack lakes are no more acidic than
they were before the Industrial Revolution.
The study was widely hailed by the scientific community. Scientists
at the 1988 International Conference on Acid Precipitation accepted
NAPAP's findings wholeheartedly. Yet, such scientific endorsement
mattered little. The EPA and environmental groups relentlessly attacked
the report and shamelessly impugned the good reputations of the
project's scientists. Congress simply ignored the report even though
it had mandated that it guide priorities for the Clean Air Act.
On the global-warming front, the media and politicians have also
largely ignored several important global warming studies that strongly
contradict catastrophic global warming scenarios.
Sound science rarely influences political decisions, especially
if it contradicts a powerful political agenda. Bad science, on the
other hand, that supports a political agenda somehow becomes conventional
wisdom. In the world of policy-making, science is a servant to political
interests, and when it doesn't serve those interests it is easily
cast aside. In the case of the acid rain study, political interests
were willing to undermine good science to advance their agenda,
an act that has needlessly cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
At his press conference Bush eloquently explained to the American
people the absence of any scientific justification for global warming
policies. Unfortunately, he then proceeded to propose some. The
American people aren't stupid. An effort to communicate the facts
to the American people would go much further in raising approval
ratings than making unjustified political concessions to leftwing
radicals.
|
