This is a very good and important essay. Thank you.
You point to Critical Race Theory and anti-racism that contribute to the loss of our common identity. While both are important, I believe "climate change" is a far greater cause of our polarization. Not all Americans are exposed to racial issues every day, but we are all exposed to the barrage of gloom and doom coming from the media and policy-makers. The differences have spawned new definitions for citizens, "deniers" on one hand, and "alarmists" on the other. This issue is one which clearly divides the political left and political rights.
Yuval Levin has written that the "breakdown of political culture in our day is not a function of our having forgotten how to agree with each other but of our having forgotten how to disagree constructively." Your essay here, sir, is one key towards re-learning the art of compromise - that is the need for parties to find and bond in a common identity. We found it briefly after 9/11; otherwise, it took a World War for us to remember who we are are, and what we represent.
John Adams wrote that he was well aware of the toil and blood and treasure it will cost to maintain this Declaration. The importance of Independence Day is its reminder to all of us that the toil and blood and treasures must be constantly renewed to preserve it.
I’m conservative on more issues than I can list here, and one of those is being an old style conservationist in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt. While I detest woke ideology, I reject the notion that concern about climate change, and the related economic concern about resource depletion, is at all comparable.
I had a career in engineering that focused on water resources and not on climate as such. But I recognize scientific opinion that climate change is a threat that is credibly exacerbated by the combustion of fossil fuels, and that these fuels will become increasingly scarce and expensive over most people’s lifetimes. Just because the poorest people will experience the most harm, it is hardly leftist ideology to advocate policies to gradually transition the economy to less polluting, more sustainable forms of energy, including nuclear.
I very much agree, sir. I too am a civil engineer, starting my career in water resources but spending most of it preparing environmental assessments. Half of my coursework in grad school was in nuclear engineering.
When I hear folks complaining about the climate, I like to point out that if it wasn't changing, we'd all still be under 1,000 feet of ice! Freeman Dyson observed that we "have no reason to think that climate change is harmful if you look at the world as a whole. Most places, in fact, are better off being warmer than being colder. And historically, the really bad times for the environment and for people have been the cold periods rather than the warm periods."
I see from your profile you are experienced in economics. Are you aware of any studies that have attempted to equate power density to opportunity costs? I am wondering if there is a way to clearly demonstrate the economic inefficiency of diffuse energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass. For example, for every square kilometer of nuclear, 50 square kilometers are needed to generate the same megawatt. For a resource such as steel, the ration is 1:4. Thus, the opportunity cost of wind is 3 pounds of steel, when comparing the same megawatt of nuclear. I don't know if this is right, but there must be a method of actually comparing energy source that recognizes the resources needed to produce that energy.
Thanks for your substantive reply. I’ll add this comment about the compatibility of market based economics with environmental protection.
“Economics” and “ecology” not coincidentally are named from the Greek word “oikos,” meaning “household” ( not yogurt). They are both sciences that address the way that humans interact with each other and with natural systems. A common principle is that “Everything depends on everything else.”
I recognize free markets as basically the best way of maximizing efficiency in the utilization of natural resources. But I also recognize many “market failures” that call for governmental remedies. One of those is pollution by individuals that harms others, and one remedy is to tax the source of the pollution and use the proceeds to compensate the victims. That in combination with sensible regulations can lead to an optimal balance between material prosperity and environmental protection. That principle applies in particular to decisions regarding energy production and consumption, which I and the majority of economists think should be governed primarily by a tax on carbon emissions, with the revenues used to reduce other taxes and government debt. But the right wingers oppose any new taxes while the leftists obsess over the prospect of a carbon tax being regressive (despite that being remediable) and prefer granting subsidies to politically favored “green” non-solutions.
So, the word "should" is useless. We can should forever and get nowhere. If everyone, nearly, in education believes America is bad, how do they suddenly become purveyors of patriotism who spread that point? If departing from that agenda in a different forum means we are balkanizing between the existing and the desired, where's the answer? Something better than "should" needs to be promoted.
This is a very good and important essay. Thank you.
You point to Critical Race Theory and anti-racism that contribute to the loss of our common identity. While both are important, I believe "climate change" is a far greater cause of our polarization. Not all Americans are exposed to racial issues every day, but we are all exposed to the barrage of gloom and doom coming from the media and policy-makers. The differences have spawned new definitions for citizens, "deniers" on one hand, and "alarmists" on the other. This issue is one which clearly divides the political left and political rights.
Yuval Levin has written that the "breakdown of political culture in our day is not a function of our having forgotten how to agree with each other but of our having forgotten how to disagree constructively." Your essay here, sir, is one key towards re-learning the art of compromise - that is the need for parties to find and bond in a common identity. We found it briefly after 9/11; otherwise, it took a World War for us to remember who we are are, and what we represent.
John Adams wrote that he was well aware of the toil and blood and treasure it will cost to maintain this Declaration. The importance of Independence Day is its reminder to all of us that the toil and blood and treasures must be constantly renewed to preserve it.
I’m conservative on more issues than I can list here, and one of those is being an old style conservationist in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt. While I detest woke ideology, I reject the notion that concern about climate change, and the related economic concern about resource depletion, is at all comparable.
I had a career in engineering that focused on water resources and not on climate as such. But I recognize scientific opinion that climate change is a threat that is credibly exacerbated by the combustion of fossil fuels, and that these fuels will become increasingly scarce and expensive over most people’s lifetimes. Just because the poorest people will experience the most harm, it is hardly leftist ideology to advocate policies to gradually transition the economy to less polluting, more sustainable forms of energy, including nuclear.
I very much agree, sir. I too am a civil engineer, starting my career in water resources but spending most of it preparing environmental assessments. Half of my coursework in grad school was in nuclear engineering.
When I hear folks complaining about the climate, I like to point out that if it wasn't changing, we'd all still be under 1,000 feet of ice! Freeman Dyson observed that we "have no reason to think that climate change is harmful if you look at the world as a whole. Most places, in fact, are better off being warmer than being colder. And historically, the really bad times for the environment and for people have been the cold periods rather than the warm periods."
I see from your profile you are experienced in economics. Are you aware of any studies that have attempted to equate power density to opportunity costs? I am wondering if there is a way to clearly demonstrate the economic inefficiency of diffuse energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass. For example, for every square kilometer of nuclear, 50 square kilometers are needed to generate the same megawatt. For a resource such as steel, the ration is 1:4. Thus, the opportunity cost of wind is 3 pounds of steel, when comparing the same megawatt of nuclear. I don't know if this is right, but there must be a method of actually comparing energy source that recognizes the resources needed to produce that energy.
Thank you again for your comment.
Thanks for your substantive reply. I’ll add this comment about the compatibility of market based economics with environmental protection.
“Economics” and “ecology” not coincidentally are named from the Greek word “oikos,” meaning “household” ( not yogurt). They are both sciences that address the way that humans interact with each other and with natural systems. A common principle is that “Everything depends on everything else.”
I recognize free markets as basically the best way of maximizing efficiency in the utilization of natural resources. But I also recognize many “market failures” that call for governmental remedies. One of those is pollution by individuals that harms others, and one remedy is to tax the source of the pollution and use the proceeds to compensate the victims. That in combination with sensible regulations can lead to an optimal balance between material prosperity and environmental protection. That principle applies in particular to decisions regarding energy production and consumption, which I and the majority of economists think should be governed primarily by a tax on carbon emissions, with the revenues used to reduce other taxes and government debt. But the right wingers oppose any new taxes while the leftists obsess over the prospect of a carbon tax being regressive (despite that being remediable) and prefer granting subsidies to politically favored “green” non-solutions.
So, the word "should" is useless. We can should forever and get nowhere. If everyone, nearly, in education believes America is bad, how do they suddenly become purveyors of patriotism who spread that point? If departing from that agenda in a different forum means we are balkanizing between the existing and the desired, where's the answer? Something better than "should" needs to be promoted.