Let’s take a
simplified example from an extremely complicated issue: global climate change. On one side are those who assert that the
Earth’s climate is changing rapidly, with many areas suffering from increased
surface temperatures and storms; that global warming is potentially damaging to
all life forms on land and in the seas; and that actions must be taken now to avert
climate disaster in the future. In
particular the Paris climate accord of 2015 called for reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions and a shift from the extensive use of fossil fuels with high
concentrations of carbon dioxide to sustainable energy.
Who benefits from such goals in the U.S.? One might argue ideally that everybody will benefit by not enduring climate disasters. Many arguments are based on the high ideals of quality of life, improved health and safety, and environmental stewardship. But behind such ideals are many self-interests, too. Scientists and R&D enterprises might receive more Federal government programs. Insurance companies might reduce their risk exposure to large claims based on extreme weather events such as hurricanes, thunderstorms, and floods. Obviously, there are farming, ranching, forestry, and fishing interests at stake if climate conditions reduce their outputs. The shift to sustainable energy forms particularly favors investors and companies engaged in the production and operation of electricity-generating windmills, hydro-electric facilities, solar panels, geothermal systems, and perhaps large-sized batteries and fuel cells.
In addition, the natural gas industry has been benefitting by the increasing use of methane as a fuel for central station generation of electricity. Furthermore, greenhouse gas emission restrictions might reinvigorate nuclear energy.
Less well-known are shipping and tourism interests that see new business with the melting of the North Pole ice cap. This aspect of global warming may also appeal to oil and gas interests seeking new drilling opportunities farther north.
On the other hand, the opponents of the Paris climate accord and the environmental and energy policies of the Obama Administration denounce the notion of global climate change as fake news and perverted science. They decry the environmental regulations of Big Government and the meddling of Washington, DC, in the smooth operation of the private sector. They argue that global climate restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will crimple the American energy industry, throw millions of people out of work, and lower the annual GDP growth rate. But what are their vested interests? There are the traditional interests in fossil fuels, especially coal. In its extreme form, global climate regulations would virtually kill the coal industry, as coal remains a relatively dirty form of energy with typically high carbon emissions. Five states produce over 70% of American coal: Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. Coal interests are also strong in Ohio and Montana. The industry hit a peak in 2006 and has been in steady decline for over a decade with lost jobs and reduced company revenues.
Many electric utilities continue to rely heavily upon coal to operate central station facilities representing billions of dollars in plant investment. Some electric utilities have claimed that further restrictions on their carbon emissions would result in skyrocketing electric bills for consumers and eventually leave tens of millions of Americans in the dark.
The automotive industry might be severely impacted by global climate regulations on gasoline emissions, but many companies are gradually shifting to more efficient internal combustion engines, hybrids, and electric vehicles, as the consumer demand supports such products.
In addition to the high ideals and self-interests at play, the global climate change debate has exposed deeply held social biases and hatreds: the academic community vs. large corporations, tree-huggers vs. economic opportunists, rugged individuals vs. Big Government, conservatives vs. liberals, Democrats vs. Republicans, and the admirers vs. the detractors of Barack Obama. For example, Vice President Mike Pence once said that the principal problem with Obamacare was Obama – he might have said the same of global climate change and the Paris climate accords.
Who benefits from such goals in the U.S.? One might argue ideally that everybody will benefit by not enduring climate disasters. Many arguments are based on the high ideals of quality of life, improved health and safety, and environmental stewardship. But behind such ideals are many self-interests, too. Scientists and R&D enterprises might receive more Federal government programs. Insurance companies might reduce their risk exposure to large claims based on extreme weather events such as hurricanes, thunderstorms, and floods. Obviously, there are farming, ranching, forestry, and fishing interests at stake if climate conditions reduce their outputs. The shift to sustainable energy forms particularly favors investors and companies engaged in the production and operation of electricity-generating windmills, hydro-electric facilities, solar panels, geothermal systems, and perhaps large-sized batteries and fuel cells.
In addition, the natural gas industry has been benefitting by the increasing use of methane as a fuel for central station generation of electricity. Furthermore, greenhouse gas emission restrictions might reinvigorate nuclear energy.
Less well-known are shipping and tourism interests that see new business with the melting of the North Pole ice cap. This aspect of global warming may also appeal to oil and gas interests seeking new drilling opportunities farther north.
On the other hand, the opponents of the Paris climate accord and the environmental and energy policies of the Obama Administration denounce the notion of global climate change as fake news and perverted science. They decry the environmental regulations of Big Government and the meddling of Washington, DC, in the smooth operation of the private sector. They argue that global climate restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will crimple the American energy industry, throw millions of people out of work, and lower the annual GDP growth rate. But what are their vested interests? There are the traditional interests in fossil fuels, especially coal. In its extreme form, global climate regulations would virtually kill the coal industry, as coal remains a relatively dirty form of energy with typically high carbon emissions. Five states produce over 70% of American coal: Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. Coal interests are also strong in Ohio and Montana. The industry hit a peak in 2006 and has been in steady decline for over a decade with lost jobs and reduced company revenues.
Many electric utilities continue to rely heavily upon coal to operate central station facilities representing billions of dollars in plant investment. Some electric utilities have claimed that further restrictions on their carbon emissions would result in skyrocketing electric bills for consumers and eventually leave tens of millions of Americans in the dark.
The automotive industry might be severely impacted by global climate regulations on gasoline emissions, but many companies are gradually shifting to more efficient internal combustion engines, hybrids, and electric vehicles, as the consumer demand supports such products.
In addition to the high ideals and self-interests at play, the global climate change debate has exposed deeply held social biases and hatreds: the academic community vs. large corporations, tree-huggers vs. economic opportunists, rugged individuals vs. Big Government, conservatives vs. liberals, Democrats vs. Republicans, and the admirers vs. the detractors of Barack Obama. For example, Vice President Mike Pence once said that the principal problem with Obamacare was Obama – he might have said the same of global climate change and the Paris climate accords.
© 2017 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)
No comments:
Post a Comment