Global Warming and the Giggle Test

By Fester

Effectively reducing the risk of massive negative impacts from global warming will not be an Apollo moonshot type project, or a Manhatten Project, or a Marshall Plan for Energy Production or any other massive, singular project with an identifiable brand and a few heroic figures to idolize. Those are all silver bullet solutions. Instead, successful efforts to stabilize and then reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases will be part of a silver shotgun approach where hundreds of small methods knock off a fraction of a percent of growth here, or a couple of parts per million there. Some of these approaches will be tough, and some of these approaches are fairly simple if somewhat unconventional.

For instance, significantly changing urban land use regulations towards a presumption of less intervention and less mandating of parking spaces will create far more walkable and energy efficient cities.

Switching the color schemes of roofs from dark schemes to light schemes will significantly reduce power consumption AND make people more comfortable with less air conditioning during hot summers.

And as Publius at Obsidian Wings is struggling with, reducing red meat consumption and switching those calories to either poultry or vegetarian meals will have a massive impact. And yet this basic argument is not being raised. And he is confused.

Ben Adler has a good thorough rundown at TAP on the effects of meat consumption on global warming. Interestingly, he notes that environmentalists have been hesitant to urge people to eat less meat, despite the fact that it's one of the easiest and most effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint. The reason, Adler suggests, is that they're scared of looking like dirty hippies:

To most Americans, veggies and tofu are a laughable substitute. . . . Environmentalists, who know they must change the stereotype that they are all either tree-hugging radicals or self-righteous scolds, may be reluctant to embrace vegetarianism because of those easily caricatured cultural connotations.

This stuff just drives me bonkers. I mean, the environmentalists are right, I suppose -- people do perceive non-meat eaters in these caricatured manners. But this stereotype provides an example of how familiarity prevents you from stepping back and seeing the sheer lunacy of a given perception.

You want to eat a diet that makes you live longer, feel better, help the environment, and even (god forbid) save a few animals? WEIRDO!! Get a haircut, Tofu!

Mark Kleiman a few years ago looked at the the white roof policy non-initiative and provides a convincing explanation:

I think the problem is deeper: the solution seems so trivial compared to the problem that it's hard to believe it could matter. The very aspect that makes it so elegant in policy terms makes it a non-starter in political terms.

The idea simply doesn't pass the giggle test: a candidate who campaigned on it would just be laughed at, like Lyndon Johnson turning off lights in the White House to fight the federal deficit or Jimmy Carter wearing a sweater to reduce oil imports. (As a secondary problem, it doesn't generate substantial revenues for anyone, and therefore isn't likely to be lobbied for.)

The giggle test is strong, and combine that with a bit of American exceptionalism that everything we do is first correct, and then heroic and should be a worldwide example such as our healthcare system, the silver shotgun won't be fired easily.

Comments

[Charles II]

You forgot the best example of all: GasX for cows.

[hernadi-key]

information for you..
=========================================================
Global Cooling or Global Warming ???

There is huge disagreement in the scientific community about global warming. Researchers on either side have no trouble finding data to support their chosen theory. Recent climatic events highlight the importance of not over interpreting short-term data - temperature fluctuations either up or down. The environmental alarmists who have been overstating connections between extreme weather conditions and a man-made warming trend are on the opposite side of other researchers who are sounding the warning bell about global cooling. Both sides of the issue must be careful to avoid distortion of facts to support beliefs...

read more...

http://hernadi-key.blogspot.com

=========================================================