March 2001
Recently the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a panel made up of hundreds of the world’s top climate scientists updated its assessment of the impacts global warming could have on future generations. The report predicts devastating droughts, floods and violent storms over the coming years caused by air pollution that is raising the earth’s temperatures. According to these scientists, our continuing penchant for burning fossil fuels has increased the level of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants in the atmosphere to levels not seen during the past 20 million years. The scientists conclude that these levels of pollution will heat the planet by as much as 10.4 degrees by the end of this century, which would leave our grandchildren inhabiting a sizzling, harsh world unlike any that humanity has ever known.
Just days later, the Washington Post and other newspapers across the country announced, “Greenspan Supports a Tax Cut” and “Bush’s Hand Greatly Strengthened.” Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee, the fiscally cautious Federal Reserve Chairman reversed his previous opposition to a large tax cut and joined the chorus for immediate relief. Greenspan apparently became convinced that the growth in labor productivity we have recently enjoyed is permanent and the latest estimates for the federal budget surplus are so strong that we could experience long-term economic harm if we do not get rid of a chunk of the money now.
Does anyone out there see a disconnect between these two forecasts? Granted Greenspan’s proclamation repeated the mantra that we need to set aside some of the surplus to pay down the national debt and ensure the solvency of Social Security. But nowhere was there a word about what is lurking on the horizon¾namely, the massive financial, social, and environmental liabilities we will face from the damage caused by a world that is warming at a rate without precedent during modern times.
Over the next few months, we will hear politicians and economists debate how they will save the country from the risks of being awash in surplus cash. Meanwhile many of those same politicians and economists will argue that we must not participate in international efforts to curb global warming pollution because it will cost too much. No one is really sure what the actual costs of implementing a meaningful plan to reduce the pollution will be. But most estimates suggest the costs will represent only a tiny fraction of the $3 trillion or so the Congressional Budget Office now predicts will be surplus over the next 10 years. And the price of investing now in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and the new technologies that are essential for solving the problem
will be far less than leaving the mess for our children and grandchildren to fix.
Like many Americans, I am a parent. I work for a living, live on a budget, and watch my spending. A few less dollars withheld from my paycheck could come in handy. But I want to see the deficit paid down and Social Security protected. And I hope that my two-year old daughter will be able to raise her children in an environmentally secure world in which they do not look back at our time and curse our selfishness. My share of the surplus will be worth that.