Thomas Friedman is Naive

In a recent conversation with Christiane Amanpour, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times commented about how we should take strong action against a 1% chance of catastrophy. Also today, I've read that medical researchers doubt that all old men should take daily aspirin, because there may be no clear margin of benefit.

That's another story, but consider the difference in views. Friedman is prepared to spend wildly on the off chance that it will be needed. He sees no downside, just the positives of a cleaner environment and new technologies.

There are huge downsides. One is that government-sponsored research will be ineffective and will be distributed politically. The view that there is unlimited money available for research so whatever increment we achieve is a positive, is simply naive.

The other risk is that governments will gain extra power combating global warming and, coming to enjoy it, will decide not to relinquish it. We have avoided the world that George Orwell foresaw in 1984, because one of the superpowers resisted the encroachment of government.

In the new world order, people like Joe Romm will enjoy added influence. If you asked me whether that frightens me more than an extra couple degrees of heat, I wouldn't hesitate for a minute.