[url=http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/12/14/3092723.htm]Paul Gilding on Big Government[/url]
Free market advocates have largely ignored advice to do something about climate change ever since the 1980s and their inaction has put us in a position where big government solutions look inescapable and unattractive.
It was back then that the pro-market conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher argued: “The danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.”
The Tea Party in the US genuinely believe the climate threat is a conspiracy cooked up by people with a secret big government agenda but that is not the dominant view of the corporate sector in the US. However the general view in the US is that government can’t be trusted that markets should be left to do their thing and that imposing limits on behaviour is inherently dangerous is widespread and mainstream among those with their hands on the market levers.
Whatever the merits of this argument – and it is certainly true that the record of western governments in such areas is at best mixed and arguably poor – the effect of it being leveraged to resist change is now clear: we will now move into an era of big interventionist government that will last for decades and will impose draconian tight controls on market behaviour. The percentage of the economy controlled directly or indirectly by government will increase and the market will inevitably become less efficient in the process – it being true that government and central planning are generally inefficient.
Why is this so clear?
We can see after the Copenhagen and Cancun climate conferences that the pace of response to the climate threat is clearly not going to keep up with what is needed. There is no dispute on the science – none of any consequence – that is now holding back action. Both conferences saw governments universally agreeing that 2°C is the maximum level of warming we can tolerate although many scientists and an increasing number of countries argue it’s too high but no one credible argues it’s too low.
The world is going to get ugly and the economic cost will quickly follow. We are going to have rising sea levels causing widespread population dislocation damage to infrastructure geopolitical instability and large refugee flows. We’re going to have food crises and resulting social and economic upheavals. We will see ocean acidification and the collapse of fisheries.
And while we won’t be able to prevent all that we will – once it really takes hold – certainly act to stop it getting worse. Guess what that means? Big government.
What do you think is going to happen when large areas of expensive coastal real estate are damaged and even larger areas collapse in value as a result? An insurance crisis a credit crisis and economic costs – all requiring big government intervention. Guess who steps in when there’s a food crisis and asserts new controls over the market? Big government.
What’s going to happen when major infrastructure is threatened by rising seas and extreme weather? Do you think the market will be left to run its course when power supplies airports and freight transport facilities are threatened? No government will step in and fix it. It will be messy ugly and inefficient but it will certainly happen.
By that stage the need will arise for what will by necessity be draconian political action to cut emissions urgently. That too will require the heavy hand of big government.
Soon we will see the return of big government with strong restrictions on our behaviour – because free marketeers ignored the sensible conservative approach advocated by Margaret Thatcher over two decades ago.
So when this trend becomes clear remember it was brought to you not by a conspiracy of left wing climate change campaigners but by free marketeers who so detested big government they have delivered a situation where nothing else will work. Nice work guys.