At the Little Big Horn in June 1876, one of the Sioux war-leaders was named “Rain-in-the-Face.”  Bjorn Lomborg might be called “Rain-on-the-Parade.”  He’s a “climate skeptic” of a particular type.  He doesn’t doubt the reality of climate change and global warming.  He’s just pretty sure that governments in a panic will do all the wrong things.[1]  This conforms to the general attitude of the Wall Street Journal, so they have published a bunch of his op-eds.[2] 

Broadly, Lomborg believes in the immense value of long-term research on effective and cost-effective responses to real problems.[3]  He believes that the current solutions, exemplified by the climate provisions of the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), are a waste of good money.  Most of the $369 billion are devoted to subsidizing the price of “green” solutions that can’t compete on a level playing field with the established forms of energy.  He also doubts that the spending will be sustained over the long term. 

For Lomborg, all types of “green” energy generation must be seriously explored and considered: “from solar, wind and batteries to fourth-generation nuclear and carbon capture.”  He isn’t soft-headed about the result.  He predicts that many leads will not work out.  However, only a few have to work out for the world to solve its energy problems. 

Moreover, the West isn’t at the heart of our current crisis.  From 2011 to 2030, China is projected to emit twice as much greenhouse gases as does the United States, and three times as much as the European Union.  Throw in India and a host of developing nations and you arrive at the real danger.  The key factor is that the countries are trying to raise their people from poverty to prosperity in a hurry and with thin resources.  They can’t throw hundreds of billions of dollars into subsidies.  There has to be a cheap and reliable alternative to carbon to check the massive emitting of these countries as well as the emitting by other already-developed economies.  Only research can provide that solution. 

In the meantime, the IRA isn’t going to make much of a difference.  Carbon dioxide emitted in the United States has already fallen by about 21 percent from the 2005 level.  That, right there, is just over half of the 40 percent decrease that the climate component of the IRA claims to target.  The decline is attributed largely to the “fracking revolution’s” substitution of burning natural gas for burning coal.[4]  There is no reason to think that this trend will not continue regardless of the IRA.  One left-leaning think-tank has forecast that U.S. emissions will fall by almost 30 percent from the 2005 by 2030 in any event.  The climate component of the IRA will reduce them by a further 8 percent for a total reduction of a scosh over 37 percent. 

In short, we would get more bang for the buck from tens of billions spent on research. 

[1] On Lomborg, see: Bjørn Lomborg – Wikipedia 

[2] Bjorn Lomborg, “The Inflation Reduction Act Does Little to Reduce Climate Change,” WSJ, 24 August 2022.  Getting published in the WSJ doesn’t make someone right.  Doesn’t make them wrong either. 

[3] Think of it this way: How long did it take to produce the atomic bomb?  The standard answer would begin with the letter sent by Albert Einstein to President Roosevelt in 1939 and end with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  A more correct answer would begin with birth of modern physics in the last years of the 19^th Century.  Forty years of scientific research on many fronts were necessary.  Why would the same thing not be true of global warming, especially given the need to divert so much time and energy to persuading democratic electorates of the reality of the problem? 

[4] See the charts in Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States – Wikipedia Natural gas burns slightly cleaner than does coal, but it produces much more energy for the equivalent quantity burned.  So you can get the same energy from burning much less fuel.  It’s a useful stop-gap. 

            Back in the 2016 primaries, the self-proclaimed “democratic-socialist” Bernie Sanders ran doggedly against Hilary Clinton.[1]  He lost, but his left-populist message appealed to many voters.[2]  Other progressives took up some version of the Sanders message.[3]  Republicans figured out that they could tar the whole Democratic Party with “Socialism.  This became a major theme in Republican messaging, aided by Sanders’ decision to run again in 2020.  Basically, it seemed to work.[4]  In a recent poll, 69 percent of Republicans believed that American democracy “is in danger of collapse” as a result of “socialist Democrats.”    

            Thinking this over, old-hand John Podesta and rising-star Navin Nayak[5] decided to try the same thing with the Republicans.[6]  They would define the whole party by their portrayal of an extreme wing of it.  “MAGA Republicans” would be the face of all Republicans.[7]  Probably in support of this effort, in some primary races, Democrats poured in money to support the Trump-endorsed candidate against the mainstream Republican candidate.  Obviously, the hope is that many Independents and even a few Republicans would be driven to vote for the Democrat. 

Starting his kick to the end of the mid-term races, President Biden has called upon Americans to rally to defend democracy against the “semi-fascist” supporters of Donald Trump in the Republican party.[8]  There’s nothing new about this charge.  From as soon as Donald Trump was elected, individuals on the left began proclaiming him a fascist and the leader of other fascists.  They construed everything that he did thereafter as a threat to democracy.  The Russia-collusion investigation dumped gasoline on this fire.[9]  Finally, Trump gave his enemies real ammunition: denying that he had lost the election, pushing schemes to overturn the results, and conjuring the 6 January 2020 crowd, some of whose members attacked the Congress.[10]  The whole Trump term is why 69 percent of Democrats see democracy as “in danger of collapse.” 

The trouble with this appeal is that elections aren’t national referendums on one single issue.  Voters choose between what amount to baskets of positions on many issues.  A vote against a Republican candidate is also a vote for abortion, for gun-control, for federal influence in local school curricula, for aggressive rule-writing in place of legislation, for filling vacancies in the federal judiciary with Democrats, and for expanding the role of government in the economy. 

            So, is this just more politics as usual, or a bi-partisan suicide pact? 

[1] Peter Baker and Blake Hounsell, “Parties Agree On U.S. Crisis, But Not Cause,” NYT, 3 September 2022. 

[2] Just once in my life I wanted to vote for somebody who actually believed the things that he said. 

[3] Notably Elizabeth “I’ve Got a Five-Year Plan for That” Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

[4] Oddly, the chief beneficiary of the Republican campaign seems to have been Joe Biden, who presented himself as the “moderate” who could draw people together. 

[5] On Nayak, see: Navin Nayak – Executive Director – Center for American Progress Action Fund | LinkedIn;  

[6] Maybe there is a buddy-movie in this pairing.  Who gets the Mel Gibson role? 

[7] Necessarily, “all Republicans” would include those Republican officials who played the main role in defeating Donald Trump’s efforts to over-turn the decision of the voters in 2020. 

[8] Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Michael D. Shear, “Biden Portrays Democracy As Under Fire in the U.S.,” NYT, 2 September 2022.  Curiously, the story refers to Biden’s “fundamentally dark message.”  This echoes the frequent references to Trump’s “dark vision.” 

[9] Although its guttering out in what appears to be evidence of a hoax hasn’t produced much sign of a reconsideration by Democrats. 

[10] The House January 6 committee has done a great deal of good work revealing Trump’s machinations.