Robert Samuelson the WP's "special" economist op-ed writer gives us a wonderful denialist piece of tripe this morning. He's decided to tackle global warming and the Stern report. Here are his arguments.

First: With today's technologies, we don't know how to cut greenhouse gases in politically and economically acceptable ways. The world's 1,700 or so coal-fired power plants -- big emitters of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas -- are a cheap source of electricity. The wholesale cost is 4 to 5 cents a kilowatt hour, says the World Resources Institute. By contrast, solar power costs five to six times that. Although wind is roughly competitive, it can be used only in selective spots and supplies less than 1 percent of global electricity. Nuclear energy is cost-competitive but is stymied by other concerns (safety, proliferation hazards, spent fuel).

This is the usual denialist BS. This is a total red herring and has nothing to do with anything. Right now we use coal power, and other sources are expensive. So what? In what world do we live in that economists are now denying the existence of innovation? Or in which investment in certain technologies leads to reduction of cost? This is a total selective reading of the data. Many clean technologies are expensive because they have a limited distribution, and there hasn't been a large investment in making the technologies cheaper and more universal. It doesn't mean we can't make them cheap and universal just because they're more expensive now, and the coal figures don't take into account the costs of coal-emissions - like fish laden with mercury, and ever-rising greenhouse gas problem, soot, acid rain, etc.

Second: In rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionally "enlightened" (read: "unrealistic") ways. They have to accept "pain" now for benefits that won't materialize for decades, probably after they're dead. For example, we could adopt a steep gasoline tax and much tougher fuel economy standards for vehicles. In time, that might limit emissions (personally, I favor this on national security grounds). Absent some crisis, politicians usually won't impose -- and the public won't accept -- burdens without corresponding benefits.

Is he saying we're incapable of responding as a people to anything more than our immediate interests? What is social security then? Samuelson makes it sound like the public is completely incapable of acting in a way that will preserve the world for future generations. Maybe it's just his economist mind, but yes, some people irrationally would like their offspring to live after they die. Crazy no? This is just the typical unscientific crap you get from economists with a political motive. People won't act against their economic interests? Explain why poor people have voted Republican for the last 5 elections asshole.

Third: Even if rich countries cut emissions, it won't make much difference unless poor countries do likewise -- and so far, they've refused because that might jeopardize their economic growth and poverty-reduction efforts. Poorer countries are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, because rapid economic growth requires energy, and present forms of energy produce gases. In 2003 China's carbon dioxide emissions were 78 percent of the U.S. level. Developing countries, in total, accounted for 37 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in 2003. By 2050 their share could be 55 percent, projects the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Ah, unless everybody acts responsibly no one can act responsibly. This also is a BS argument, as countries become more economically developed they demonstrate an increased interest in preserving the environment. This is a lesson China is learning right now for instance.

Finally, he ends with a denialist classic:

The other great distortion in Stern's report involves global warming's effects. No one knows what these might be, because we don't know how much warming might occur, when, where or how easily people might adapt. Stern's horrific specter distills many of the most terrifying guesses, including some imagined for the 22nd century, and implies that they're imminent. The idea is to scare people while reassuring them that policies to avert calamity, if started now, would be fairly easy and inexpensive.

We don't know what the effects are and who knows, we might adapt to them! What bullshit. We know what enough of the effects are to be highly worried, and we have very good models that have tracked climate excellently for a couple of decades now so we know where and when this stuff will happen. This is pure denialism. We have plenty of reason to be concerned, and just because people in rich countries may be able to adapt (although this is questionable), the areas of the world most affected are likely to be poor and struggling to get by already.

This entire essay is unworthy of the post.