WARMING A COLD FACT

Richard Rahn

Do you think those who have reservations about whether man is creating global warming should lose their jobs and be denied the right to present their views?

Over the last few months, there has been a concerted effort to silence those who have doubts about global warming and man’s effect on the climate. The Oregon State climatologist was fired for disagreeing with the “conventional wisdom.” A meteorologist with the weather channel demanded that dissenting views not be broadcast. CNN, in particular, has treated skeptics with great disdain.

As an economist, I do not claim to know for certain who is right and who is wrong in this debate, but I do know that attempts to shut down debate are both wrong and dangerous. When I was a student, Keynesian economics was the “consensus,” and those few who disagreed, like Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek, were ridiculed by the economic establishment, and students in many universities were not even exposed to their views. By the late 1970s, it was apparent to those who cared to look at the data and the world around them that Keynesian economics had all been wrong and Friedman and Hayek had been right. Once Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and other government leaders adopted the Friedman/Hayek model, their economies and also the world economy, entered the longest and highest rate of growth ever. History is filled with those who dissented against the conventional wisdom but were proved correct, such as Copernicus, Galileo, Albert Einstein and many others.

The doomsayers in the media and political classes were all atwitter last month when the most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was released, saying humans were partly to blame for global warming — so I decided to read the report.

Let’s do a mind game. The authors of the report predict average temperature will increase between 3.2 and 7.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century, and that sea levels will rise between 7 and 23 inches. Assume, for the moment, that mankind can do nothing about this projected climate change. Given that information, how would you change your behavior? If you are like most people, you would do nothing but enjoy the few extra days of summer and swimming. If you were going to build a house on the sea, you might build it a couple of feet higher than the existing codes require — no big deal. Unless you enjoy shoveling the snow, having a little less of if to contend with each winter probably would bring more pleasure than pain.

Now, let us assume mankind might be able to slowly reduce global warming by drastically reducing carbon emissions. This can be done by increasing the cost of power and fuel. How much would you be willing to pay to make these changes for something you would barely notice over your lifetime? Would you be willing to take on these extra costs, knowing they would accomplish very little if the citizens of the rest of planet did not do the same?

What do this and other reports about climate change tell us? A majority agrees the most notable temperature increases will be in upper Canada and Siberia, and the moisture these areas receive will increase — which means much better and longer growing seasons in these areas. These favorable developments will be partially offset by longer droughts in some localities. But given that both these positive and negative changes will occur slowly over a century, humankind will have plenty of time to adapt, and on balance it will be easier and less costly to produce food. If you are a skier, your season will be shortened, but if you play baseball, football, golf or swim, your season will be longer.

However, if the politicians on the left operate true to course, they will propose even more costly regulations and higher taxes, without any offsetting tax reduction. This will unnecessarily make the poor poorer and reduce job creation. The brains of many on the left (and some on the right) seem unable to understand second-order effects of policies and actions, which tends to make them overstate problems and come up with solutions that do more harm than good.

Vaclav Klaus, who is both a distinguished economist and president of the Czech Republic, criticized the new U.N. report on global warming, saying it was a political document, “without scientific basis.” He also said, “a sane person can’t conclude that we are ruining the planet” as Al Gore has said, given that the planet is now far more user friendly for humans than it has ever been in the past.

It is worth remembering that, as recently as the 1970s, a consensus held we were in a period of global cooling and might face a new ice age. Those who seek to shut down the debate are only revealing their ignorance of history and disdain for liberty.

Richard W. Rahn is a director and board member of several economic policy organizations, including the European Center for Economic Growth.

What’s So Great About the Great Society?

by John Samples

Forty four years ago this week Lyndon Baines Johnson traveled to Ann Arbor, Michigan, to deliver a speech that outlined the vision that would guide his administration. The speech may be read profitably today. Barack Obama has evoked "change" and "hope" while denying he is a liberal. Yet Obama's supporters expect his administration will become the third stage of Progressivism, the two earlier being the New Deal and the Great Society.

LBJ began that spring day by stating a goal: "The purpose of protecting the life of our Nation and preserving the liberty of our citizens is to pursue the happiness of our people. Our success in that pursuit is the test of our success as a Nation."

Like LBJ, Barack Obama sees in politics and governing the possibility of secular transcendence.

Compare that statement to some earlier words about the purposes of American government: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These words from the Declaration of Independence reflect the individualistic, natural rights philosophy of the American founders.

LBJ's words reflected a fundamentally different philosophy, Progressivism. Individuals do not pursue happiness within a framework of rights. Government pursues happiness for them or rather for "our" people.

Johnson noted two means to that collective end: the life of our Nation and the liberty of our citizens. The second is revealing. The liberty of the individual is not a goal of government. It is rather the means for the collective pursuit of happiness.

The great society would would realize that collective happiness. In the Great Society, "men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods." They put aside "unbridled growth" and "the demands of commerce" to fulfill "the hunger for community." Mere business and trade produce a "soulless wealth" that is far short of national aspiration.

The readers who see in LBJ's words a call to secular spirituality through government are not far wrong. He said to the students and faculty of the University of Michigan: "You have the chance never before afforded to any people in any age. You can help build a society where the demands of morality, and the needs of the spirit, can be realized in the life of the Nation." The speech ends with the hope of a "new world," a remaking of the nation.

Ironically, in light of what actually happened later, LBJ also claimed that "The solution to these problems does not rest on a massive program in Washington, nor can it rely solely on the strained resources of local authority. They require us to create new concepts of cooperation, a creative federalism, between the National Capital and the leaders of local communities." Over the next decade, federal spending tripled.

Like LBJ, Barack Obama sees in politics and governing the possibility of secular transcendence. He is a far better orator than LBJ was, and his skills might well bring a third phase of Progressivism to the United States in 2009. However, there is room for doubt. Obama lives in different world than LBJ.

In 1965, democrats held more than two-thirds of both chambers of Congress. As LBJ said on his inaugural night, "We can pass it all now." Democrats may gain seats in Congress this year, but they will not have the same majorities LBJ had. President Obama will not say "We can pass it all now."

LBJ began his quest for the Great Society by cutting taxes. Obama will have to raise taxes to pursue his dreams -- excuse me, "our" dreams. Once "hope" and "change" cost real money, Obama will find Congress less willing to dream.

1n 1964, 76 percent of Americans trusted the federal government to do what is right almost always or most of the time. In 2004, 47 percent trusted the feds. Perhaps Obama's charisma will foster trust. Or maybe not. Obama is running as post-ideological. If he undertakes a new Progressivism, voters are likely to feel betrayed and trust in government will drop as it did when Clinton ran as a moderate in 1992 and tried to govern as a liberal in 1994.

Conservatives have reasons for pessimism in 2008. But the spring of 1964 was much worse. Barack Obama may expect to renew the left's quest for a secular spirituality rooted in politics and government, a religion to replace the older faiths. But 2009 is unlikely to be 1965. In fact, if Obama overreaches enough, 2010 might come to resemble 1994.

Let “them” bring the war over here.

Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada
—
At a church I was making a delivery at this weekend, an assistant pastor mentioned to me that he’s hearing more and more about Ron Paul, but still hates his foreign policy. He asked me the status quo neoconservative question: “Don’t you think it’s wiser to take the war over there than to bring the war over here?”

My answer was: “No. Bring the war over here.”

He was shocked. Literally floored. With his mouth agape, and before he could respond, I told him I’d post a blog post for him, and him alone, but share it with the public. I think it’s a worthy post to share with others, because it opens up a realistic eye to this so-called war, and the definition of “them.”

When many think of “them” bringing the war to us, they think of 9/11. 9/11, a tragic event, an event that could have been prevented with less government, not more. No government in the world can prevent guerilla attacks. It isn’t possible. Yet private organizations can, and do, prevent outbreaks of mad people every day. I saw a drunk youth booted out of a shopping mall by armed guards once. It was fast, and no rights were violated. When 9/11 happened, my claim to fame was that I foresaw the event just 7 months earlier. I ran an email newsletter read by around 2000 people. I was ranting and raving about the inability of the airlines to monitor security, about the inability of pilots to arm themselves, about how ridiculous it was that pilot doors weren’t even locked (a year before 9/11, I witnessed an old lady accidentally open the flight-deck). Before 9/11, few listened. They felt secure. The day after 9/11, I was stuck in San Diego, and I received hundreds of emails asking me how I knew there would be an attack. My response was: “Because government got in the way.”

Terrorist attacks are infrequent even in the Middle East. We hear about all the ones that happen, but if you were to plot them out on a world map, you’d see they mostly happen in the same 2 or 3 locations. What is unique about those locations is the massive oversupply of government agents in those areas — agents there to supposedly secure the area. Yet just miles away from the most popular place for terrorists to attack, you see peaceful private citizens going about their lives: going to movies, eating fast food, shopping, living. The common sign is not where the terrorists are, but where uninvited agents of war exist.

So I welcome the idea of bringing the war over here, for many reasons:

1. Reducing our foreign aggression would reduce the amount of innocent casualties that occur. I find it horrific that our government doesn’t keep track of how many innocents are murdered during our dalliances in foreign lands. I want to know. I think I have a right to know. It’s a more important fact than how many enemy combatants are killed. I also think that by not killing innocents, we’ll anger far fewer people. Blowback’s a mean enemy.

2. Reducing our foreign aggression would reduce the amount of money we spend on military games. It’s a massive figure, and when money matters get large, I have a law I wrote: “The bigger a monetary amount grows, the less understandable it is to common people.” When I mention to someone that a $100 car radio was stolen at the mall, they understand. When I mention that billions of dollars a year are stolen because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policy, they look like they didn’t hear me. Big numbers mean little connection to reality for most people. So I’ll put it this way: the U.S. government has to tax 10,000,000,000 people (about the size of the world’s population) $100 each to pay for the Iraq war. That’s 10 billion people paying $100 each. It’s staggering, since it takes a few hundred years for a single person to count up to a billion. They still don’t understand.

3. Reducing our foreign aggression will definitely reduce the amount of hatred aimed at the U.S. government. I’ll be in the Middle East with my wife on December 27th, less than 15 miles from Iran. We’re going shopping and sightseeing, and we’ll eat good food. I’ll take photos. It’s not a bad place to be. The people I know in the Middle East are constantly shocked at our saber-rattling, and many of them can’t understand why “we” hate “them” — most of the countries we supposedly hate looked very much like our own home towns. The photos you see in the paper and on TV would be akin to someone going to the California desert and calling it America. It’s called lying.

4. I know my neighbors in Illinois. Most of them are packing heat. That’s what a conservative area calls for: people using their God-given inherent right to protect their homes. I’d love to see any army, organized or not, try to walk 5 miles into the U.S. The U.S. army would be ridiculously undermanned if it had to repel an enemy attack. The U.S. private citizens would not be. We have 300 million adults in the U.S. We’re spending $1 trillion on a war that we’re losing, just as we’ve lost every war since the day after WWII ended. $1 trillion divided by 300 million adults = $3333 per adult. That’s more than enough money to arm every adult with a single firearm and enough ammo to last years. Personally, I gave up my gun ownership beliefs, but that’s the wonderful aspect of freedom: if the enemy has no idea who is armed, they’re less likely to attack. John Lott’s great book “More Guns, Less Crime” showcases how towns with few gun restrictions are the safest, and towns with heavy gun restrictions are the most dangerous. Criminals know what the laws are, and they know that the average resident will follow them. Why rob in a town with many legal guns when you can rob in a town with strict gun laws?

Seriously, bring it on. I know my neighbors wouldn’t stand for it. It doesn’t matter who attacks, because the minute a madman goes on a rampage, I can see 50 million or 100 million Americans not standing for it.

It’s a good answer. Let people hate us for our freedoms, our Imperialism, our love of Britney Spears, our use of trans-fat laden foods, or even our ice cream variety. What are they going to do? Come here? If they do, there is only two groups to blame: the attackers, and those who pretend to defend us.

We can defend ourselves. We don’t need the police (who can’t defend anyone while they write their traffic citations and play Dog the Bounty Hunter with those who jump bail on a minor pot charge). We don’t need the Army. All we need are individiuals who understand that they may be called to defend their families, their home, their neighbors and their towns. No one can destroy freedom except those voted to protect it. And if you’re familiar with the past 90 years, you understand that is exactly the case. 9/11 should have been responded to by returning more rights to individuals. Instead, we chose the wrong people.