|
FREE (Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment) is a right-wing think-tank best known for the junkets it hosts each year for Federal Judges and its effort to indoctrinate those judges in Libertarian ideology.
Pasted below is their most current Op-Ed, titled "Are We Ready for $6 Gas?" It makes interesting reading.
It makes even more interesting reading when you appreciate that FREE receives major funding from Shell, ExxonMobil, General Motors as well as the usual extreme right wing philanthropic funds such as Olin, Castle Rock and Claude Lamb.)
"Are We Ready for $6 Gas?" is a good question to ask.
One might also ask:
"When Gas does eventually reach $6, how much of that cost should be due to taxes and for what purposes will those taxes be used?"
Surely, one must also ask
"Why did John Baden, a past member of the National Petroleum Council, write this particular piece? What ideology is he promoting? What solutions is he suggesting? What is it about this piece that gives off a bad smell?
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=522
In the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, September 06, 2006
Are We Ready for $6 Gas?
by John A. Baden, Ph.D.
Americans seem hardwired to believe problems can be solved. This
classic “can do” approach often works -- but alas not always. Some
afflictions are persistent but manageable; we handle gravity and crab
grass via rebar or Ronstar.
Other problems, some extremely serious, should only be acknowledged and
confronted, not wished away via purported solutions. Success may
require terms far beyond our lifetimes. Global warming is one.
Thanks in part to the success of Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth,
I’ve concluded that most smart and successful Americans are determined
we should and will address this problem. I’m consistently told, “If we
only care enough to allocate sufficient resources, we can solve this
problem.” I can only hope my friends are correct -- but to believe they
are, one must ignore a great deal of science.
Assuming it’s real and has serious negative consequences, any solution
to global warming must involve and coordinate two distinct fields, the
physical/scientific and the cultural/economic. The first set is
amazingly complex, but at least in principle, it’s understandable.
Certain human activities and natural processes generate greenhouse
gases. People burn fuel, bogs and ruminants emit methane, volcanoes
generate noxious vapors, water evaporates, and so forth. This is the
easy stuff.
In contrast, no one nowhere has the foggiest idea how to coordinate the
social and economic behavior required to manage climate change. Naiveté
runs rampant over this reality. A recent personal experience well
illustrates the problem.
I was in line to buy popcorn while waiting for Al Gore’s aforementioned
movie. Joining me in line, a smart, successful, extremely well educated
and well intended friend harangued me regarding global warming. He
assured me this is a huge problem with immense international
geopolitical implications. I agreed. He further asserted a scientific
consensus on the matter.
I mentioned the dissent of Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of
Atmospheric Sciences at MIT and a member of the National Academy of
Sciences. My friend dismissed the MIT prof’s view. He argued that
anyone who fails to conform to the received wisdom on global warming is
not a real scientist.
He of course had not heard of Prof. Lindzen or his arguments, but no
matter. When important issues are too complex to be readily understood,
even smart, well-educated folks normally default to simplistic
solutions. Hence, I am sure of this: we will commit significant
resources to the problem.
My friend had this proposal. Take the many billions we’ll squander to
fix New Orleans (his view) and give it to the Jet Propulsion Lab with a
mandate to fix the impending climate change catastrophe. I’m sure he
could have thought of more proposals, but the movie was about to begin.
How American all this.
Given our growing propensity to “fix” the global warming problem, those
serious about social welfare should minimize the adverse consequences
of good intentions. For intentions are insufficient and may cause much
mischief. When implemented into public policy, they surely will foster
plunder via politics.
Many folks advocate energy taxes that bring gasoline up to $6 per
gallon and keep it there. Here’s an example: “High oil prices are good
for America. The higher the better; I’m rooting hard for $4 and then
$5, even $6 gas. It is only when gas is expensive that people start to
pay attention to the true cost, which is much higher.”
This price, however, will contribute a little, but only a little, to
global warming solutions. It may, however, be good policy. (Viagra
failed as a heart medicine.) Madmen with a monopoly on divine wisdom
and a mandate to impose Allah’s directives on others (or kill them),
are the beneficiaries of $70 oil. Their economies are otherwise so
sorry they would collapse from corruption and misallocation without the
nearly half-trillion dollars in annual subsidies from oil. Six-dollar
gas really does address this problem. Prepare for it.
In mid-September, FREE will host a small, invitational conference
involving federal judges and academics to examine the environmental
consequences of energy use. Speakers include the aforementioned Richard
Lindzen of MIT and Lester Lave of Carnegie Mellon University, among
others. Please contact FREE for additional information.
John A. Baden, Ph.D.,is Chairman of FREE and Gallatin Writers.
|
- Various 
