Answering Jacoby's questions

Re Obama's new Science Advisor, John Holdren, who has stirred up some controversy with conservatives over his take on Global...er, Catastrophe. Jeff Jacoby, of course, has Eight Questions for Holdren*. Fine, his right. But, given Jacoby's take on science in the past, I really don't see how this is just a twisted version of the pot calling the kettle black. Seriously: our spending on global warming-related fixes/adaptations will hurt the economy far, far, far less than certain imaginative financial products actually did.

Let's examine Jacoby's questions and see how where it takes us:

1. You were long associated with population alarmist Paul Ehrlich, and
joined him in predicting disasters that never came to pass. For example, you and Ehrlich wrote in 1969: "If . . . population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1971, the two of you were adamant that "some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century." In the 1980s, Ehrlich quoted your expectation that "carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020." What have you learned from the failure of these prophecies to come true?

Paul Erlich has been (rightly) taken to the woodshed for being spectacularly wrong. That said, was it wrong to raise awareness of potential problems? Malthusian-type problems have never sorted themselves out: they required the active imagination of people to fix them. And conservatives like Jacoby love to use Erlich to argue that we should have all the kids we want and overpopulation is ridiculous and even racist.** But the effects of overpopulation are too real. Jared Diamond in Collapse argues, very effectively, that the Rwanda Genocide was, at its core, an overpopulation problem. And, seriously, what's wrong in eliciting a worst-case scenrio in drawing people's attention to a serious problem? Erlich deserves our scorn in saying that we are helpless, but at least he got people to pay attention.

2. [and 3.] You have advocated the "long-term desirability of zero population growth" for the United States. In 1973, you pronounced the US population of 210 million as "too many" and pooh-poohed any notion that "the strain of an accelerated arms race will do more damage to the Soviet economy than to our own." But that is exactly what happened, and President Reagan's defense buildup helped win the Cold War. Did that outcome alter your thinking?

Looks like there are 2 questions here. One is again overpopulation - and what is the problem with stating such a long-term desirability? Especially when we are stating concerns with fresh water supply, etc. As we have seen with the rise of the Chinese middle class, we simply do not have the resources for everyone to live like Americans. This inconvenient fact needs to be discussed truthfully, whether it goes against Jacoby's religious teachings or not.

The other question has to do with the nuclear arms race. This is not in the domain of science policy, this is for the military folks. So I don't see the need to interrogate here. But if there were such a need, so what? Did everyone in gov't support Reagan's strategy of build-up? I don't think so.

4. You argued that "a massive campaign must be launched . . . to de-develop the United States" in order to conserve energy; you also recommended the "de-development" of modern industrialized nations in order to facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. Yet elsewhere you observed: "Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others." Which is it?

Both. Affordable energy is energy that we can afford to have, and this means alternative forms like nukes, solar, etc. And we still need to learn how to conserve. I am not in favor of sacrificing our livelihoods so that other countries can make a mess of the environment. I am, however, interested in how to get by with less energy as well as stripping petro-dictatorships of their influence.

5. In Scientific American, you recently wrote: "The ongoing disruption of the Earth's climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable." Given your record with forecasting calamity, shouldn't policymakers view your alarm with a degree of skepticism?

Perhaps, if he were the only one with this opinion. But he is far from that: the great majority of the scientific community is in agreement with this. Jacoby searches for the odd dissenting voice that tries to explain away the melting of polar ice caps and long-term climate data. To whom do we need to apply skepticism?

6. In 2006, according to the London Times, you suggested that global sea
levels could rise 13 feet by the end of this century. But the latest assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea levels are likely to have risen only 13 inches by 2100. Can you explain the discrepancy?

That's one data point by one panel, and at least the data's in the right direction, and more conservative. Better than someone saying there is no problem, and we're left to deal with a rising level of 13 inches with no planning, as Jacoby would have.

7. "Variability has been the hallmark of climate over the millennia," you wrote in 1977. "The one statement about future climate that can be made with complete assurance is that it will be variable." If true, should we not be wary of ascribing too much importance to human influence on climate change?

You got another explanation? I always thought of "conservatism" as something that would plan for a worst-case scenario. But, no, let's live high on the hog just in case the cause of climate change is a secret comet passing over the earth that will be gone soon, or something like that.

8. You are withering in your contempt for researchers who are unconvinced that human activity is responsible for global warming, or that global warming is an onrushing disaster. You have written that such ideas are "dangerous," that those who hold them "infest" the public discourse, and that paying any attention to their views is "a menace." You contributed to a published assault on Bjorn Lomborg's notable 2001 book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" - an attack the Economist described as "strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance." In light of President-elect Obama's insistence that "promoting science" means "protecting free and open
inquiry," will you work to soften your hostility toward scholars who disagree with you?

Sure, I hope so too. But in the end, we need a science policy based on the best data we have, not the best data we can invent. And, guess what, does Jacoby actually think that science will be worse off in an Obama administration than it was during the Bush era? Really?

Jeff Jacoby is a great voice for many things. Science is not one of them.

* Looks like there was a mix-up in the publishing of this article, and I don't believe it was Jacoby's inability to count.

** One of my favorite books on the subject is PJ O'Rourke's hilarious All the Trouble in the World. But it is entertainment, nothing more. O'Rourke himself never really addresses the entire problem, other than attacking Bangladesh's obvious problems in governing itself.