Global Warming: Shifting the Debate

Matthew Allen Miller

Many arguments for government action resemble the following non sequitur: “X is a problem; therefore government action is necessary to address X.” Unfortunately, the validity of these kinds of arguments often goes unquestioned, even by those who disagree with whatever the conclusion happens to be. Instead, many focus only on the premise: they debate whether X is actually the case, or whether X is even a problem. Few, it seems, are concerned with whether the conclusion (that government action is necessary) logically follows from the premise.

This seems to be true of the debate about anthropogenic (“man-made”) global warming (AGW). Now, I’m hardly competent to judge the relevant science, and I doubt most involved in the debate are either. But it seems to me that the science is where too much of the debate is focused. That is, skeptics question the truth of AGW and the science meant to support it. While I certainly have my doubts about AGW, for practical purposes I choose to remain agnostic. This is partly due to my above-mentioned scientific incompetence. But it is also because I believe it is more important and productive to place my skepticism elsewhere. What I prefer to argue is that, even if AGW is true, it hardly follows that we ought to empower government to take measures to reverse it.

Logic tells us that, in order to reach this conclusion, at least both of the following must be true: (1) Human planning has a good chance of reversing the climate trends of planet Earth. (2) Government is the best candidate for successfully designing and implementing the plan.
One might argue for (1), stating that “we started the trend, so surely we can reverse it.” But this neglects the important distinction between unintended results of mere human action, and intended results of human designs or plans. If AGW is true, it is the unintended result of billions of humans acting in pursuit of their interests. But no one planned it. However, reversing the climate trends of planet Earth must be designed or planned. But the plan to reverse AGW would necessarily run against the grain of those countless human actions which are said to be responsible for AGW in the first place. Think of the measures which would have to be taken, and the resistance they would face. This conflict casts significant doubt on whether any plan to reverse AGW can successfully be implemented.

This doubt should increase when we consider (2) that the plan to reverse AGW is to be designed and enforced by government. This is the same institution running the post office, the DMV, and Amtrak (to name just a few); the workings of which cannot compare to the efficiency of private enterprise. An important reason for this is the problem of incentives. If those in the private sector fail, they lose profits and go out of business. But if a government agency fails, the likely result is that it will get more tax dollars and more power. Those in government have little incentive to get things right. But they do have the incentive to stay in power, and thus to please those who will help keep them there. This means, for example, pleasing those in big-business and heavily-unionized industries. But these interest groups are often involved in activities that are said to be responsible for AGW in the first place. How can we expect those in government to please these folks and reverse AGW at the same time? It is doubtful that they can.

The lessons to take home are the following. First, humility and honesty demand that we recognize our limited capacity to engineer a reversal in the climate trends of planet Earth. Second, a realistic understanding of the true nature and workings of those in government suggests that we should be suspicious of government solutions to AGW. Both points directly challenge those who want to empower government to take action. But the above ideas also challenge AGW skeptics to recognize that, in addition to arguing against the science, a more obvious and compelling case can be made against the idea that government is capable of solving the problems presented by AGW.