Global Warming Alarmism - The New Marxism and How to Defeat It

Now a foray into Global Warming alarmism. Here's a nice article by Richard Fernandez writing in PajamasMedia

Title: Bali's smog of self-delusion
Excerpt: "Environmentalism has become the political lifeboat into which the survivors of the socialist shipwreck have crammed themselves. The need to “manage the climate” became the new foundation on which to base regulatory structures, impositions, and taxes which were formerly justified by the imperative to manage the “commanding heights of the economy.” Kyoto was the highest expression of the program to “manage the climate” and provided the same new basis for socialistic policies that Marxism once did. As such, Kyoto was too politically useful to discard. But like its socialist predecessor it suffered from the problem that it wouldn’t work. "

So what to do? Actually there is an answer to reducing output of pollutants including greenhouse gases. Independent of whether man-made CO2 (or methane, etc.) actually cause climate change or not, it would seem prudent not to generate more waste than is necessary. It seems to me that here are two ways to do this, either:
1) stifle economic growth, resulting in less energy consumption (and lower quality of life), or
2) continually improve the efficiency of energy consumption as the economy grows.

The first is what happens when economies collapse or incentives other than efficiency exist (e.g. increase output regardless of cost).

Naturally, I prefer the second, which is exactly what free-market economies produce. In the capitalist west, efficiency is favored over waste, which results in an ever improving carbon-footprint per unit of economic value. Ultimately this may even result in a reduction of total CO2 output as efficiency continues to drive forward.

Here is some data on the increase in CO2 output by country from 1990 to 2003:
source: http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/21353758
Russia -22.55%
Germany -12.56%
Switzerland -10.49%
UK -6.05%
France -2.45%
USA 4.95%
Australia 11.27%
Japan 11.25%
Italy 11.91%
Brazil 21.3%
New Zealand 27.3%
India 49.02%
China 53.4%

In the case of Russia, the reduction was during a period of economic contraction. In much of Europe and the USA, economic growth over that period was substantially higher than the increase in CO2 emissions, demonstrating the improving efficiency. In high-growth emerging markets, the efficiency is not yet obvious, but is potentially there as well.

Note also that the USA is doing better than many countries that approved the Kyoto treaty, and that ultimately the high-growth economies of India and China must be a party to any agreement, for it to be worth anything.

But at the end of the day, what will really matter? I suggest it is the cost of energy relative to its impact. Efficient energy is ultimately cleaner, and less use of energy for the same output (e.g. more efficient semiconductor lighting vs. incandescent light-bulbs) ultimately drives economic growth.

In Japan alone, CO2 consumption could be reduced 40% simply by improving the insulation in windows in houses and offices throughout the country.

The right answer, then, is to let the free market run its course. Furthermore, efforts to promote the ideals of western, free-market, capitalist, democracies are ultimately the best way to reduce the potential for human impact on climate change while maximizing individual prosperity for the greatest number of people.

The wrong answer is global bureacracies engaged in wealth redistribution. . .as if that has ever worked before.