Government and energy

Oct. 15, 2007
I should like respectfully to comment on the article in which you attack Rep. John Dingell’s suggestion that the government should take action to reduce consumption as part of a climate change policy.

I should like respectfully to comment on the article in which you attack Rep. John Dingell’s suggestion that the government should take action to reduce consumption as part of a climate change policy (OGJ, Sept. 17, 2007, p. 100). You say that it ought to be left to “market principles.”

Consider the following two propositions:

1. That the US government might decide that the Saddam Hussein government of Iraq so much threatened peace in the region that it is legitimate for the government to assign resources to overthrow him.

2. That the US government might decide that the development of nuclear weapons by Iran so much threatens peace that it is legitimate for the government to assign resources to overthrow the present regime.

I am not concerned here with the rights and wrongs of either policy, but I would argue that these are reasonable positions for a government to take. As we know, the US government adopted proposition 1 at a huge cost to the economy in money (and a huge cost in blood and suffering). Nobody would argue that “market principles” ought to decide the issues.

I suggest a third proposition:

3. That the US government might decide that climate change is so severe a threat to the US economy, and to other aspects of the life of the community, that it is legitimate for the government to take action to control it, and to assign resources.

I further suggest that this is an equally reasonable position for the US government to take. One might argue with the policy but not with the principle that the government is entitled to take action.

Climate change will come with huge and potentially catastrophic costs. Why should it be right for politicians to turn their backs and say that everything can be left to the market? Or for the energy industry to take the same line?

In saying all this, I am not arguing for an extreme position. You were kind enough to publish an article I wrote in 2001 about how we should respond to global warming (OGJ, July 30, 2001, p. 24). I still feel that if global warming is the most severe problem humanity has to deal with in the new century, we shall be very lucky.

Andrew Palmer
National University of Singapore