Global Warming, Mental Disorder?

When discussing the latest "crisis," whether its global warming, global cooling, el Nino, la Nina, etc., the discussion can be taken to an extreme.

In an article from the Herald Sun of Australia, titled "Doomed to a fatal delusion over climate change," a poor child was diagnosed with "Climate Change Delusion." Allow me to first offer my deepest and sincerest concern for the welfare of the child and his family. However, I am discussing this article because of the often irrational nature that global warming and "carbon" believers display.

Andrew Bolt writes:

Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".

"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."

Although Mr. Bolt is writing an editorial, he seems to identified some pretty clear characteristics that have recently been displayed by both US and Australian government leaders. US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, "...coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick..." as he discussed the need for alternative energy to replace fossil fuels (good grief!).

Not to be outdone, the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd said:

"If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands."

What empirical evidence does he give for this frightening scene? None specifically, just the advice of another green advocate, Professor Ross Garnaut:

"Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . ."

Wow, it becomes clear, doesn't it. These folks have a vision about how they want people to live. Most people don't agree with that vision, so Rudd and Garnaut are trying to scare people into believing they are in danger and will have to part with their own wealth and lifestyle to fit the deluded visions of the disciples of green.

So, what do China and India, the world's biggest polluters, say about this?

...Ma Kai, head of China's powerful State Council: "China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments . . . our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth."

From India,

... the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases."

In other words, green ideas and carbon cutting are not in the best interest of the developing world. It is refreshing to see governments exercise enlightened self-interest and the well-being of its citizens as guideposts for policy decisions. When will liberal guilt in the West end and common sense return? Soon, I hope.

Carbon Offsets

Whether you believe in global or warming or not, money is being made selling what are known as carbon offsets. According to TerraPass,

A carbon offset is a certificate representing the reduction of one metric ton (2,205 lbs) of carbon dioxide emissions, the principal cause of global warming. Although complex in practice, carbon offsets are fairly simple in theory. If you develop a project that reduces carbon dioxide emissions, every ton of emissions reduced results in the creation of one carbon offset. Project developers can then sell these offsets to finance their projects.

Of course, TerraPass doesn't do this out the kindness of its heart, one has to be a member, which is either pay as you go, or business programs.

What will not be discussed is whether carbon offsets is a moral good or not, rather this is a discussion of whether it is or isn't economically efficient.

In one respect, TerraPass follows the existing model of the market for pollution credits in the US. Power plants and major industrial entities receive pollution credits and are able to sell them to more polluting entities. The incentive to become a lesser polluter is there. However, the incentive must be greater than or equal what that capital could earn versus other projects. It has proven to be a successful program, to one degree or another.

While this program may work for businesses, as there may also be government subsidies, whether it makes economic sense for individuals is another matter entirely. Consumers must be willing to part with $9-$26 to "reduce their carbon footprint." Does that purchase make economic sense?

Arguably, the answer is "no." That money could be used to finance home conservation projects, like installing weather stripping or building a cistern. What TerraPass is making money on is a sense of moral guilt. Those who are most concerned with global warming are buying feel-good credits to tell their friends they live a "carbon neutral" lifestyle.

As stated above, if you are really concerned about reducing your carbon footprint, consider conservation and home energy efficiency projects. I maintain another blog that discusses green roofs, which I think is economically efficient at reducing air pollution and storm water runoff (http://www.cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com)