Waxman-Markey as National Security

by publius

The military is increasingly worried about the national security threats posed by climate change.  The million dollar question, then, is whether these concerns will persuade skeptical, and/or industry-purchased, legislators to get behind bills like Waxman-Markey.

The short answer is who knows.  But there's an interesting parallel here, I think, with the early civil rights movement.  It would be nice to think that most white leaders came around on civil rights because of the sheer injustice of segregation.  In reality though, as people like Mary Dudziak have argued, civil rights became a Cold War issue.  Indeed, one of the reasons the Court in Brown in 1954 was unanimous was because Justice Stanley Reed was more anti-Communist than pro-segregation.

In short, the Cold War gave many leaders political cover to support civil rights. 

Maybe national security concerns can eventually do the same for today's legislators on climate change.  The immorality of leaving future generations with an irreversibly overheating planet doesn't seem to be doing the trick.

Comments

[Hartmut]

And maybe the same legislators will then try to sell US nuclear powered planes* and tanks as the carbon neutral alternative ;-)

*look up 'nuclear aircraft' and 'aircraft nuclear propulsion' e.g. at wikipedia for actual projects.

[PaulinRI]

National Security is a good reason to enact health care reform as well. If health care continues to eat up more and more of the GDP there will be less for tanks and planes.

[Awesom0]

publius:

I believe you have just inadvertently made an argument for Realism.

[Hartmut]

Btw, the Pentagon already had a study when Rummy was still in office. Short version: The US itself will be less affected than most other regions but there will be a billion refugees and angry people pounding at our doors and that could mean real trouble. And yes, the problem is real not a hoax.

[Davis X. Machina]

And yes, the problem is real not a hoax.

Pity the poor one-star from the Pentagon's Congressional liaison shop that gets to tell Sen. Inhofe he's wrong.

[russell]

The million dollar question, then, is whether these concerns will persuade skeptical, and/or industry-purchased, legislators to get behind bills like Waxman-Markey.

As far as industry goes, most industries that are likely to be affected by climate change have long since factored it in as something that is occuring and is quite likely to continue to occur. They don't consider it to be a myth, they simply consider it to be a risk to be managed like any other, albeit one of significant scale.

Likewise, military analyses have assumed the likelihood of significant climate change for a while now, and mostly focus on planning for and/or mitigating the negative effects.

I support Waxman-Markey but my sense is that, to whatever degree climate change is human-generated, most of the horses are out of the barn. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to not make things worse, but IMVHO it's likely too late for anything like prevention.

The only way industry decision makers will back carbon mitigation is if they can make money off of it. They are bound, by law, to consider no other calculus. Seen in that light, giving the credits away to the worst polluters may well be effective, even if it's also both perverse and expensive.

[CaseyL]

Pity the poor one-star from the Pentagon's Congressional liaison shop that gets to tell Sen. Inhofe he's wrong

Do liaisons ever tell members of Congress they're wrong about a pet issue? Seems to me the "poor one-star" is likelier to keep humoring the ignorant twaddle-eating git, rather than risk a "Nay" vote on one of the Pentagon's pet issues.

[Ben Alpers]

As far as industry goes, most industries that are likely to be affected by climate change have long since factored it in as something that is occuring and is quite likely to continue to occur. They don't consider it to be a myth, they simply consider it to be a risk to be managed like any other, albeit one of significant scale.

Perhaps. But one of the ways they manage it is to pay certain legislators to convince the public that it's a myth.

[russell]

But one of the ways they manage it is to pay certain legislators to convince the public that it's a myth.

I agree, completely.

It's in their financial interest both to proactively plan for climate change, and to try to prevent the public sector from doing so in any way that will detract from their profitability.

And as the decision makers in the private corporate sector never tire of telling us, they are legally bound by their fiduciary responsibility to consider the financial interest of their shareholders above all else.