Gushing Hypocrisy

When Greenism Meets Realpolitik

Further to the previous post on the unsustainability of greenism as a political movement, we refer to an interesting essay by Robert J Samuelson in Newsweek. It is a frank assessment of the realpolitik concerning greenism and global warming, entitled "Don't Hold Your Breath: Global Warming Promises to Become a Large and Gushing Source of National Hypocrisy".

Samuelson, having talked with both with believers and sceptics, notes the things no-one knows for sure with respect to global warming:

1.We don't know by home much or if temperatures are going to rise in the next one hundred years.
2.We don't know what the effects of warming might be.
3.We don't know how to prevent warming.
4.We don't know if global warming will be a calamity.

But, he argues, politicians can be expected to adopt two “faces” towards global warming. Firstly, they will fulminate against it, warn of its dangers, hector everyone who will listen. They will want to be seen to be engaging with the people and the issue. Secondly, they will do precisely nothing. Politicians know that there are all sorts of unintended outcomes waiting in the wings if action is taken to combat global warming. It would be political suicide to do anything about it.

This analysis highlights the political madness of New Zealand's Prime Minister. She actually does want to do something about it. Worse, she wants New Zealand to lead the world in doing something. She wants New Zealand to set a moral example to humanity. No wonder the Wall Street Journal opined that quixotically New Zealand would be likely to set an example to the world—but a negative one, demonstrating to the world the true price of such madcap policies. Trying to steer the economy to produce less carbon involves one thing and one thing only: more tax. Plenty more. Which means poorer people.

According to Samuelson smart politicians the world over have worked out that the “do nothing” option is the most prudent course. We note that Australia appears to be taking a much, much more cautious approach, highlighting the enormity of the changes required and the extent of the effects and costs. If Samuelson is right, Australia will talk up a big game, but will end up doing nothing. Thus far, the portents suggest Samuelson to be right on the money. Clark has yet to realise this. Prudence appears to be no longer her long suite. The caution for which the media have long lauded her has departed. Why the madness?

No doubt the causes are complex. It is of little relevance to spend time analyzing them because all the indications are she will soon be gone.

Samuelson's account of greenist realpolitik, however, is a salutary example of the unsustainability of greenism. It is a great relief to know that such realpolitik is equally at work in New Zealand, albeit in our case amongst the voters, who increasingly appear to believe that the Prime Minister is from another planet.