Jonah Goldberg: Is your dog a climate criminal?

4:47 PM Friday, October 30, 2009

The government cannot have my dog.

Don’t tell that to the authors of the new book “Time to Eat the Dog?: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living.” They calculate that dog owning is much worse than SUV driving for the planet. So when you see a car heading to the dog park with some happy labs drooling out the window, you should think “climate criminals.”

Meanwhile, in less surprising news, cats (long known as the handmaidens of Satan) have roughly the ecological paw print of a Volkswagen Golf.

Authors Robert and Brenda Vale don’t actually suggest you eat your dog. But they do say we’d be better off if we weaned ourselves from pets that treat Gaia like a fire hydrant. Better to play fetch with our pet chickens and then eat them.

The book has gotten lots of press, because dogs and cats sell newspapers. What interests me is how environmental activists live in a fantasyland.

The push in Congress for a huge new carbon tax is a dangerous farce. Yes, CO2 levels and global temperatures have risen since the Industrial Revolution, and that’s something to take seriously. But the political reality is that truly meaningful global restrictions on CO2 emissions in the near future simply will not happen, and pretending otherwise is a waste of time, money and political capital.

Last week, the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that belief in, and concern for, climate change is evaporating. Belief in global warming has dropped from 71 percent in April to 57 percent; only 36 percent believe man is mostly responsible for climate change. Only 35 percent of respondents said it’s a “very serious problem,” down from 41 percent.

This is after more than a decade of near-relentless fearmongering — er, sorry, “education” — from Al Gore, academia and Hollywood. They can’t persuade the American people to spend trillions for less than a degree Celsius of cooling a century from now. No doubt the fact that neither climate models nor doomsday predictions have panned out (there has been no rise in global temperatures since 1998) is a big part of the story.

But my hunch is that the bigger reason for the shift is that Democrats are threatening to really do something about it, and the costs no longer seem hypothetical.

Throw in a bad economy, and Americans simply balk. And that’s Americans — the notion that China, India and Brazil are going to don carbon handcuffs is just silly. Those countries want to get rich, and they’ll gladly sell their carbon to do it.

But the anti-global-warming industry seems to be on autopilot, churning out books that only half-jokingly propose eating your pets. Others insist that Americans will have to restrict themselves to only one child, just like in authoritarian China. If those are the costs, free people will not pay them.

In response to popular reluctance, the Jeremiahs are not only getting more shrill, they’re starting to resent democracy itself, sounding more and more like they want to make an end-run around the people.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, for example, has made no secret of his envy for China’s ability to Get Things Done. In 2005, he wrote: “I cannot help but feel a tinge of jealousy at China’s ability to be serious about its problems and actually do things that are tough and require taking things away from people.” Last month, he lamented that the GOP’s refusal to bend to Democratic cap-and-trade proposals demonstrated that our system of “one-party democracy” is worse than China’s “one-party autocracy.”

Meanwhile, an international bureaucracy pushes “global governance” to combat climate change, heedless of popular sentiment.

America’s founders revolted to protest too much taxation and too little representation. The notion that America will sacrifice its sovereignty and treasure — and dogs! — to reduce warming by a fraction a century from now is absurd.

If you cannot afford — politically, morally or economically — the solution to a perceived problem, then it’s not a solution. We can’t afford to end the use of carbon-based energy, so a better strategy is to develop remedies for the bad side effects of carbon use.

That’s the case Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner make in their book “SuperFreakonomics,” which is already being torn apart by environmentalists horrified at the notion they might lose their license to Get Things Done as they see fit.

Is the atmosphere getting too hot? Cool it down by reflecting away more sunlight. The ocean’s getting too acidic? Give it some antacid.

The technology’s not ready. But pursuing it for a couple of decades will cost pennies compared with carbon rationing. Moreover, you just might get to keep your dog.

Jonah Goldberg is a syndicated columnist. E-mail address: JonahsColumn@aol.com.

Share this article

ADD COMMENT

Comments feed

Yes, listening to those who actually study the subject is "narrowing the fit" considerably. But, listening to those who don't leaves you with baggy trousers that no belt will hold up. Like your argument.

drunken orangetree
10:03 AM, 11/5/2009

REPORT ABUSE

This gets back to my original comment. Folks like you seem to want to take us off the deep end, sacrificing our sovereignty for the sake of a UN treaty and endangering our economy for no other reason that to make you feel good because cap/trade will accomplish nothing in the way. I noted the other day poorer countries are protesting the UN meeting because rich countries are not committed to higher standards. Translated, the wealth redistribution isn't enough.

TRS
11:44 AM, 11/4/2009

REPORT ABUSE

So, those who study climate change have a consensus but other scientists whose field may relate to the issue don't count, a very narrow view to fit your "buy in". You obvious fancy yourself a scientist of some sort and I confess I am not. I have described my view as a skeptic, which means neither belief or disbelief. I acknowledge there are concerns; but, I don't believe the sky is falling Gorisms. Prudent action can be taken but cap/trade nor UN treaties do not fit the category of prudent.

TRS
11:40 AM, 11/4/2009

REPORT ABUSE

The overwhelming consensus among scientists who actually study climate is that humans are causing global warming. So, global warming is not "settled science" only among people who know nothing about the subject.

Which goes back to the original argument: Americans are increasingly likely to believe something that is contrary to fact.

drunken orangetree
10:55 AM, 11/4/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Most folks acknowledge warming in the 20th century; but, from what? Some scientists say solar, some say weather patterns, some say its a natural cycle; thus, its not settled science. People see a bill which will accomplish nothing, see where the typical DC "fuzzy math" has been applied trying to see it; but, common sense tells them it will cost even more jobs and an administration thats clueless about how to replace the one's already lost.

TRS
8:00 PM, 11/3/2009

REPORT ABUSE

There are 9 additional comments

SHOW ALL

We welcome your comments. Please remember this is a public forum and behave appropriately. Your comments must conform to our visitor's agreement.