Obama and the Climate of Crisis

Barack Obama needs a climate crisis.

Or more to the point, he needs to persuade us that there really is one. In fact, over the past 40 years every major energy-related initiative was undertaken during, or in the aftermath, of what was perceived to be an energy crisis.

Of course most of these initiatives were passed by Congress but this president has decided that he will impose an energy policy, the Clean Power Plan, unilaterally because if he were to ask Congress for authority, they would likely refuse it. But since he is "convinced that no challenge poses a greater threat to our future and future generations than a changing climate," he's pushing it forward. And just in case Congress or the courts seek to reverse the Plan, he is seeking to gin up a sense of crisis in the country.

His "Plan" is necessary because if we don't do it, global catastrophe looms. "[I]f we don't get it right we may not be able to reverse [it], and we may not be able to adapt sufficiently. There is such a thing as being too late when it comes to climate change."

Back in the 1970s, Jimmy Carter promised us a catastrophe that could destroy our way of life if we didn't embrace his energy program. Energy presented "...the greatest challenge that our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly." He was, however, wrong. The "energy crisis" was the result mainly of foolish U.S. policies and the only improvement was to repeal them.

But here we are 35 or so years later, and now we are presented with a new crisis about to overwhelm us "if we do not act quickly." And to forestall catastrophe, we must embrace the Clean Power Plan. We cannot adapt to a warmer world, it seems; we can follow the Plan or watch as the world is destroyed. "We only get one planet," he tells us. "There's no plan B."

Just as an oil substitute from coal was the only way forward in 1979, and biofuels from switchgrass in 2007, so windmills and solar panels and the other components of the Plan are now the only way to save us now. The president is, however, apparently uncertain that his rhetoric can generate the perception of a crisis sufficiently to make the Plan a popular cause. So, like all of the politicians of the past 40 years, his program, he tells us, will not only save the planet but will do so while at the same time saving us money, improving our health, and creating thousands or maybe millions of jobs.

All of that is nonsense, of course. The evidence from European countries is that a policy that pushes renewable energy technologies (such as solar and wind) will raise electricity bills and will hurt poor people the most. U.S. reductions in carbon dioxide emissions will have no effect on health and a negligible impact on global temperatures. In truth, if we really are at the precipice of global catastrophe then we should do everything we can even if it is costly. But what is the evidence not just for climate change, but also for an interpretation of it as imminent apocalypse?

In reality, the evidence is weak. Most climate computer models say we should have significantly higher temperatures by now than we do. Forecast of specific (dire) effects of climate change have so far been mostly wrong. The end of snow in winter in the UK? Many more "Katrinas" smashing into the US? An ice-free Arctic Ocean? The demise of the polar bear? None of these have come to pass.

You don't have to think climate change is a hoax to believe that we will have the time and resources to adapt to a changing climate. In a real sense humans have done that for thousands of years. Nevertheless, President Obama, to use a favorite expression of his, is "doubling down" on the catastrophe rhetoric and by by-passing Congress is taking actions that his supporters must hope will be difficult to undo.

But unless we become convinced he's right, (a heatwave in DC in January?) these actions almost certainly will be reversed no later than January 2017.