We'll do the thinking for you

"This is the way we're all going to have to think!" said the representative of the WWF (which I think used to be called the World Wildlife Fund, but has evidently "re-branded" itself, for unclear reasons) making a recent presentation at a business conference in London on climate change. WWF, I thought. Something to do with wildlife I seem to recall. Why was WWF giving a presentation on climate change and the on the new "business model" the organization is developing to address it?

Presumably the problems of wildlife have been solved and now they're on to other matters? Hardly. It seems that like a pantheistic god, climate change is everywhere, an all encompassing phenomenon that will affect everything, that is everything, on the planet, wildlife included. So corruption, poaching, bad land use policies, and the other factors endangering wildlife take a back seat for the WWF. If only climate change could just wipe out the poachers, I thought, and leave the wildlife, how much better things would be. It might also wipe out those who would impose their way of thinking on the rest of us.

That may not be entirely far-fetched. It seems that as climate change has been worsened by human activity, what better way to address it than to put humans in charge of fixing it. Right-thinking, humans, of course. Eventually, I read, geo-engineering will develop to such sophisticated levels that even microclimates will be subjected to the best in human technology. Thus, the green establishment's approach to this serious issue becomes another example of scientism, the reign of the experts, and the extension of man's dominion over nature. Cheetahs should be pleased as their local water hole, rescued from the effects of climate change, will draw all manner of ibex, gazelles, and antelope, and cheetahs will dine very well indeed. Thank you WWF.

The corollary of "we will all have to think this way" is "let us do the thinking for you". This is where consumers need to take action. Good children of the 60s, we have all been told to think for ourselves and to do the right thing. But public policy issues have become complex, we are now schooled in the way economists think about trade-offs, and policy choices are often influenced by organized interests with the resources to drive the debate on a given issue. How, then do we begin to make the connection between a macro-phenomenon like climate change and how we should make choices as voters and consumers to promote sound approaches?

It starts with recognizing that the term "climate change" is used quite loosely and is usually ill-defined, which serves those with their own agendas to promote. If you live in an area subject to flooding, you're probably much more concerned about how to address the immediate issue of flood control rather than the much larger and more complex issue of CO2 emissions which alter the climate which leads to floods. This is where the green establishment and hungry corporate interests intersect to take control, explaining to us that if we impose more taxes, or create carbon trading markets, to address the problem and if we act now, we can eventually change the conditions that produce flooding, well, in 50 years or so, maybe. Resources are thus allocated through the policy process to a problem that is largely insoluble, and still the flood waters rise.

The argument is further extended that the burning of fossil fuels and the resultant CO2 emissions are at the core of the problem. Eliminate the use of fossil fuels thus reducing carbon emissions and we are on the way to solving your local flooding problem. Are you following this line of thought? Oh, and while we're at it, we'll put in place all kinds of tax and other incentives to develop "alternative" sources of energy, such as solar power. Since solar panels will be affixed to your roof, they probably won't be damaged by flooding, unless it gets really out of hand. You'll still have electricity to power your laptop so you can execute your next carbon offset trade while waiting for rescue.

What is at stake in this debate for consumers is how resources are allocated to achieve policy goals. Politicians will respond to the perceived priorities of their constituents. This is where consumers can take control and influence resource allocation so that real problems with real impacts are addressed. It is a perfect example of the green mantra to "think globally and act locally". Consumers have a responsibility to do this in order to keep real, local issues in focus. In fact, there are no "global problems" with "global solutions". All problems are local. The mantra to collectivize issues and the responses to them through notions like "global governance" (more experts) will bear the same result as the collectivization of agriculture under the Soviets, which produced decades of famine and unbearably high costs as grain had to be imported.

As the Founding Fathers recognized, one gives due recognition to the opinions of humanity, while meantime seizing the initiative locally. Consumers need to reject generalized threats of catastrophe and insist that resources be allocated to real problems. This is the very essence of the political process.