(crossposted at five before chaos)
… have always been, I believe, rooted in capitalism and economic libertarianism. Basically, if anthropogenic global warming proponents are correct (as I believe they are), it basically means that we can’t just “do what we want” regardless of the consequences. One of those right wing definitions of freedom seems to be mind-numbingly simple , i.e. freedom is doing (or buying or destroying, but certainly not having sex with) what you want, regardless of the consequences. It certainly doesn’t take into consideration other people’s freedoms to be free from pollution, dirty water or having the public commons completely corporatized and exploited.
And of course, apologists for this worldview inevitably point to “market based” solutions and the convoluted illogic that regulations are hampering environmental progress, as though if there were no MPG standards, and they could build a car that gets 2 MPG, somehow people will miraculously all start buying hybrids. It’s really as crazy as what the Rapture-Ready™ crowd believes, but it’s more harmful, as it truly affects every single thing on the planet.
This free-market fundamentalism consistently fails to address a rather salient point… how do you fix things, when consumers, given a choice between something environmentally friendly or not, healthy or not, toxic or not, repeatedly choose the detrimental option? Nobody seem to be able to give me a decent answer on that, instead blathering on about “individual choice” and “it’s not my fault if people make bad choices”, or when all else fails, “who are you to decide what’s right?”, as though there are really upsides to lead paint or BPH that are somehow escaping me. If all else fails, some vague reference to the Soviet Union and waiting hours on line for a roll of toilet paper are thrown in for good measure.
More below the jump.
Now, for any of you kooky kons who happen to be reading this, and are thinking, “but global warming is a lie, so it doesn’t matter”, just put aside that premise, and use that seldom-used part of that brain that uses hypotheticals just to try to make your case. Don’t worry, Jim Inhofe isn’t reading this.
So, anyways, Daniel De Groot over at Open Left has a bit up right now, called Why the Right Denies Anthrpogenic Climate Change, that really struck a nerve with what I’ve believed since day one, that if it is indeed real, that whole worldview comes crumbling to the ground because it simply can’t fix it. De Groot’s article was prompted by a few others in the blogosphere, kicked off by Digby:
Can someone explain to me why these people hate this climate science so much? I mean, I get that they don’t like gays and think women should stay barefoot and pregnant. I understand that they hate taxes that pay for things that help people they don’t like. Evolution — yeah, that’s obvious.
But global warming? Why? Is it all about their trucks or what? I just don’t get where the passion comes from on this one.
Amanda Marcotte thinks it’s because it pisses liberals off. But Krugman disagrees, having a much more nuanced view, namely that it’s rooted in both the pervasive anti-intellectualism that has permeated the right-wing, coupled with that whole “real men don’t have to change what they’re doing – they just kick ass” mentality that I alluded to above.
It’s really an act of desperation, if you think about it. De Groot:
What’s really happening is that anthropogenic climate change is a fundamental assault on right wing ideology and the solution requires a worldwide implementation of liberal policies that will undercut right wing ideas at every level well into the future. Right wingers maybe do not grasp this fear consciously, but intuitively everything about this issue stinks for them. Denial is the only way to save their worldview.
It’s not so much a conservative/libertarian worldview, it’s really one of unrestricted hypercapitalism, specifically one that intends to maximize every last profit that can be squeezed out of our 19th century petro-based energy system. It's why, when one looks at the most prominent “studies” cited by global warming denialists, it's no surprise that they are often funded by the petrochemical industry and “free-market” organizations. And with that, the kinds of “liberal” changes that would need to come about would have a chilling effect on the hypercapitalist worldview, which De Groot gives a knockout punch to in his closing paragraph:
The solution to the climate crisis requires increased world governance (though not a “world government” proper). Voluntary action by individuals is not nearly enough, and even individual nations taking internally collective action will fail. Taxes on carbon, or a government imposed “cap”, or regulation on industry is needed. Lots of major international coordination to curtail freeloading and even wealth transfers from rich to poor so that poor countries can curtail emissions too. Sure, cap and trade takes advantage of markets, but overall, the solutions are by and large liberal ones, that would leave the world a fundamentally unconservative place. There will be spillover into other topics, trade, labour standards, economic justice. Once governments around the world agree to coordinate regulation of carbon, they will find it easier to coordinate regulation of other things. The infrastructure will be there. It’s easier to add a few staff and enlarge the mandate of a particular bureaucracy than to build it from scratch.
One way or another, climate change is the demise of the right wing economic worldview. The only question is whether liberalism “wins” (by solving the problem) or gets dragged into calamity by the deniers blocking needed action.
That’s why they fight this so hard. It proves everything they believe is wrong.
Indeed.
Digby doesn’t get where the passion comes from with deniers. I would mutate that and also ask why Obama is lacking much passion on this .
His “it’s the best we could hope for /it could have been worse” performance at the Copenhagen conference and the coming foolishness in the Senate on climate legislation don’t indicate much positive happening on the Democrats part.Incapable,unwilling or both who knows?
The Guardian’s George Monbiot looks at Steven Chu’s Copenhagen speech and highlights the ingrained problem here in the US.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi…
…which is that the right wing has a fragile world view. It doesn’t stand up to much examination. They don’t stand up to much self examination. It is people and movements with unstable myth-based systems of belief that are most virulent in the defense of their beliefs. Only the secure can laugh off a threat.
Forgive the linking, but my latest at minorheresies.com addresses the reality that “free market” is an oxymoron. Since the central tenet of conservative economic theories is an absurdity, they don’t have the ideological resilience to debate real-world solutions. Global warming, and the necessary cooperative regulatory effort it requires, are like howitzer shells through the tissue paper of their beliefs.
In the face of dissolving into incoherence, they deny reality entirely. Even the so-called liberal politicians have an investment in the dream of a world without physical limits. Most of the people who voted for them certainly do.
It isn’t really the politicians who give me the chills. It is the delusional mass of people out there who think we can just go on like this forever.
There may be some deep thinking political philosophers and strategists on the “right” who worry that controlling carbon output lead to a less “free” market (by which they mean Governments are in control rather than corporations). But there is a much simpler explanation for the vast majority of people who are unwilling to make lifestyle and governmental changes to prevent global warming.
These are the kind of people who have lost jobs to high technology; they’ve watched their churches decline and their children take on ethics that they are uncomfortable with. Now, here comes some set of Eastern elite dopes saying that 100 years from now somebody in Bangladesh (wherever the heck that is) is going to drown, that polar bears will be gone, and that sea levels will be higher all over. And, oh yeah, the weather will be warmer.
The vast majority of these people don’t, in their hearts, doubt the science. They simply have asked themselves, “What’s in it for me?” And the answers are all negative:
IF the science is right, we MAY be able to slightly ameliorate anthropomorphic climate change. We won’t ever be able to prove we make a difference, though, because we won’t have a control on the experiment. But we will CERTAINLY pay more in taxes and utilities. We will CERTAINLY cede some control over our national affairs. And the next technology will probably cause some other awful problem. Finally, all of this is going to happen after I’m dead or too old to care.
Most people recognize that such a line of reasoning is not politically correct. This cognitive dissonance is solved by professing that the science is wrong. Doing this allows them to do what they want to do anyway, without going through the “I don’t really care that much about the rest of the world” stuff…cause, well, it’s a little embarrassing. But if there’s a conspiracy to shove this rotten science down our throats in order to increase governmental power…yeah, that’s the ticket…I get to make no changes AND stick it to the rich, godless eggheads that moved my job to India…