Although tackling the green movement has been accused of siphoning large amounts of global GDP, this blog would like to point out some of the positive externalities. Below is an edited version of my comment on a blog from The Economist:


--


This is a comment to the Economist's World in 2009 blog --

"Environmentalism is the fascism of our time, which has always been a dominant part of Europe's imaginatory utopian world : anti-capitalism, corporations getting closer to state authorities, junk science backing it all up and a witch hunt on those who dare oppose the new church."

fahayek [the commentator] -- you are, of course, referring to The Great Global Warming Swindle? The producers of that documentary owned up to using graphs to misrepresent the data; the largest contributing authority to the documentary protested that his comments were all taken out of context and that he fundamentally believed that global warming was happening. I'm afraid my internet is shoddy right now, so I can't find the name. Nevertheless, Google it.

I agree that the scientific community is in a witch-hunting mood. I agree that there is significant pressure put on those who disagree that there is a global-warming problem.

The science, though, seems correct. Though I too am disgusted by how political and even quasi-religious (your "new church") it has become, I believe that science has it more or less right. Yes, global warming is a theory; but so is the theory of gravity.

But let us leave the scientific argument behind. The issue of global warming has led to at least three potentially good changes: an increasing desire to be rid of our dependence on oil; an increasing amount of global summits and global cooperation; and a decrease in the amount of pollution.

Humanity has to come off oil at some point because it's a exhaustible resource, and it's fast being exhausted. It also makes geopolitics much more complicated because control of the resource makes an otherwise insignificant state one of supreme importance and in possession of amazing clout. I think international cooperation would be much more streamlined without the almighty threat of decreased outputs hanging over them.

Along those lines is the many summits over 'going green'. Broad acceptance that this is a global problem to be tackled by all nations has led to leaders looking for different ways to cooperate. In Europe, that has given Brussels more influence and clout over its nations. The 'green' commands from Brussels that order nation-states around will help cement the idea of a single Europe not affected by individual self interest. On a global level, it forces statesmen to see how they can curb their interest. Keep this 'curbing of self interest' mindset in statesmen on the global stage and leaders on the European stage much longer, and hopefully the world will benefit from a willingness to approach problems multilaterally and a willingness to sacrifice some national interest.

And finally, as an urban dweller, I am right glad car pollution has ballooned into a global threat. Whether it is a global threat or not, you can be sure that every city dweller hopes it is labeled as such.

You may take my word for it: anything to rid the uncanny and singularly unique experience of breathing in air that you can see unaided by equipment is well worth it.