Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Warmed Over
A few weeks ago, our Right-Wing Think Tank Review analyzed an American Enterprise Institute paper by Samuel Thernstrom and Lee Lane, which indicated a shift in conservatives' approach to the global warming debate. Outright denial is no longer politically sustainable for the right. The new strategy accepts the reality of climate change, but focuses on arguing that technology development (as well as geoengineering and coping strategies) represents the only realistic way to deal with the problem. The main point is to continue the crusade against Kyoto and the idea of CO2 emissions cuts generally - these, we're told, are too expensive and would simply be ineffective.
So I was interested to see this Robert Samuelson piece in the Washington Post, which appears to have been cribbed straight from the Thernstrom and Lane article. Lo and behold, the conservative message machine works its magic again.
It's all there: the argument that "we have no solution" to climate change, the dismissal of CO2 emissions limits, the finger-pointing at the third world, the focus on long-term technology R&D, even the rejection of "cap and trade" programs in favor of a carbon tax (for all I know this last idea may have some actual merit).
Coming soon to Fox News, I assume.
A question: are conservatives the Neville Chamberlains of the War on Climate Change?
Following on the post below...
A few weeks ago, our Right-Wing Think Tank Review analyzed an American Enterprise Institute paper by Samuel Thernstrom and Lee Lane, which indicated a shift in conservatives' approach to the global warming debate. Outright denial is no longer politically sustainable for the right. The new strategy accepts the reality of climate change, but focuses on arguing that technology development (as well as geoengineering and coping strategies) represents the only realistic way to deal with the problem. The main point is to continue the crusade against Kyoto and the idea of CO2 emissions cuts generally - these, we're told, are too expensive and would simply be ineffective.
So I was interested to see this Robert Samuelson piece in the Washington Post, which appears to have been cribbed straight from the Thernstrom and Lane article. Lo and behold, the conservative message machine works its magic again.
It's all there: the argument that "we have no solution" to climate change, the dismissal of CO2 emissions limits, the finger-pointing at the third world, the focus on long-term technology R&D, even the rejection of "cap and trade" programs in favor of a carbon tax (for all I know this last idea may have some actual merit).
Coming soon to Fox News, I assume.
A question: are conservatives the Neville Chamberlains of the War on Climate Change?
Labels: American Enterprise Institute, global warming, Lee Lane, Robert J. Samuelson, Samuel Thernstrom, Washington Post
¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 11:48 AM 
