Simplistic and shortsighted

My friend Hal sent me a recent opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal that is critical of the modern environmental movement, yet is so full of holes that we should be calling for Dear Liza. A few quick (by my verbose standards) responses to claims in the article:

1. Perhaps the most mind-bogglingly naive statement in the piece is the following: "If cost-effective technologies to boost energy efficiency actually existed, industry would adopt them automatically, global warming or not." While I am attracted to many elements of libertarian philosophy (Dalmia works for the libertarian Reason Foundation), this gives far too much credit to the rationality of the free market. If the statement were true, the EPA would not have needed to cite and fine Wal-Mart for violation of idling regulations, a practice that needlessly burns 2.1 million gallons of diesel fuel each year (note: that fuel costs them money), despite a fairly simple cost-saving and environmentally beneficial solution (turn off the freaking engines!). As a fisheries biologist, the number of examples I have seen of fishermen irrationally outstripping the reproductive capacity of the resources that support their livelihood also challenges the assumption that industry will find the most sensible solutions.

2. The argument against energy efficiency ignores the tremendous savings that can be achieved by improvements in private homes, in addition to those by industry. If our government provided better information on how to make homes more energy efficient, as well as grants, loans and tax breaks to help bring about needed improvements, we could drastically reduce the need for hydropower.

3. On alternative energy sources, the piece states that most "...are still far from economically viable." This is true, but it ignores a huge factor. Dalmia notes that huge subsidies were originally provided to make many hydro dams possible. She fails to mention the subsidies still provided to make fossil fuel use "viable" (but likely adopts the alternative view). If solar, wind, wave and tidal (a.k.a. hydrokinetic), and other sources were given the same government support, these might be more economically viable sources in the near future, if not already. It's become somewhat cliche, but it's still true nonetheless, that if we had the same sort of "man on the moon by the end of the decade" vision and leadership today on renewable energy that JFK provided in 1961 on space exploration, we'd be having a very different debate right now.

4. There are a series of examples of green groups opposing alternative energy developments. The implication seems to be that if environmentalists claim that climate change is our most serious threat and therefore we do not unquestioningly accept all such renewable proposals, then we are obstructionists and hypocrites. This is a dangerously simplistic view. We need energy, and ALL energy sources have environmental impacts. That cannot be avoided. But asking questions about where to best locate facilities to minimize impacts is not only legitimate, it is irresponsible to not ask those questions. Although some will oppose all wind power, for example, if it has any impacts on birds whatsoever, many will want to ask the reasonable question of where to place a wind farm to achieve the optimal balance between ecosystem health and energy production. Indeed, one of the more radical environmental groups provides one of the more thoughtful analyses of a highly controversial wind farm proposal (the controversy stemming less from genuine environmental arguments and more from concerns over aesthetics and property values). The debate does not have to be between low-carbon energy and birds (or salmon - "damn" them?). With sound planning and ingenuity, we can have both.

5. The jab at Vice President Gore is a cheap shot. The progress toward mitigating climate change that Gore is helping to bring about is unprecedented in the history of environmentalism. We'd probably need to go back to Teddy to find a leader of such stature who has put environmental issues at the forefront of public policy. When Gore helps Congress pass a carbon cap-and-trade bill (which will let the free market do most of the legwork toward sorting out the problem), he will have done more than offset whatever greenhouse gases his mansion and cross-country flights are producing.