When the Left Lets Us Down

So, I'm a lefty. Like, really a lefty. I believe in Medicare-for-all, I'm okay with confiscatory tax rates on incomes exceeding some benchmark (probably in the tens-of-millions range, but whatever), and I've been saying since the mid-90's that, someday, I'll have to explain to my kids that, when I was their age, two dudes couldn't get married, and they'll give me the same quizzical look I gave my parents when they explained the Jim Crow era and the Civil Rights movement of the 60's to me.

But here's the thing - although I agree with the ends of the left basically universally, I also nearly as universally disagree with their means, and no part of the left demonstrates this better, to me, than the modern environmental movement.

I have a hot-and-cold set of feelings towards the environmental movement, but when it comes to the single dominating issue, greenhouse gases and climate change, I am 100% in favor of the ends, and 0% in favor of the means.

So, let's review. The ends are: reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to slow and hopefully eventually reverse the effects of climate change. Also, make sure that the effects are well-understood, so that we can adapt accordingly (some significant warming is already in the cards, so adaptation will have to be part of the long-term strategy).

So far, so good. And if you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are two ways of going about it, both of which are quite time-tested and proven to work in previous environmental situations:

1. Outlaw emissions. Straightforward, and simple. Probably not very useful today, given that we are a very energy-dependent society, and the only way to get the amount of energy we are quite 100% reliant on right now will result in emitting quite a bit of carbon dioxide.
2. Cap-and-trade. Very effective in the 80's with the acid rain scare (remember when America was going to be deforested due to sulphur emissions from coal power plants?), and other circumstances where some emission is necessary, but it might be possible, given sufficient economic motivation, to find alternatives.

A 'carbon tax' is a slight modification of the cap-and-trade, where the product is taxed at each economic transaction, rather than just at the emission point, and without the more easily-measured trade market for the emissions, but the effect is pretty similar.

You know what doesn't work, and has been proven not to in a nearly infinite number of previous examples? Determining ahead of time what the winner will be, and subsidizing it heavily. The examples here are nearly endless, and not worth going into. I'm not even talking about Solyndra; investment in up-and-coming companies is a totally defensible use of government funds. I'm talking about all the completely unjustifiable love we scatter on electric cars. I'm not up on the current subsidy, but as Bjorn Lomborg (definitely not an unbiased observer, but his facts are pretty solid) notes in Slate, it's not at all obvious that electric cars, at the moment, are actually an environmental win. Between the fact that a huge amount of energy goes into making the batteries, and the fact that a lot (although ever-shrinking) amount of our electricity is made by burning coal, the additional cost associated with these cars is rarely worth it, and I believe our government certainly should not be giving them preferential treatment.

If someone is willing to pay the extra price associated with buying a hybrid or electric car, whether because it makes them feel better, or because of the status it affords them, that's awesome; they should totally do so. And when Teslas are available for under $40K, I'll definitely consider it, because that car looks like a shit-ton of fun to drive. Until then, this is just a huge expenditure, which wildly favors those rich enough to afford the cars in the first place, for negligible environmental benefit. Which means that the left, with the best ends in mind, is embracing the worst means, which is not a compromise I'm willing to sign onto.