I went to the premiere of this film, "An Inconvenient Truth...or Convenient Fiction" at the Embarcadero the other day. I wasn't sure what to expect -- certainly anything that smacks of global warming is certain to arouse passions.
The movie stars Steven Hayward, of the Pacific Research Institute here in SF and the American Enterprise Institute in DC, a couple of free-market think tanks. He introduced the film and did a Q&A afterward. He's a genial guy who likes the debate, clearly.
It's always interesting in the Bay Area to see who shows up to these sort of rightie events. The crowd included my friend Cinnamon Stillwell -- and the guy who ran against Nancy Pelosi and garnered 20% of the vote! The place was full, the median age was maybe late 40's. PRI was the host, and their greeters were surprisingly glamorous.
I found the film, and Dr. Hayward, to be pretty reasonable and not too ideological. He takes a good number of digs, but they have more to do with intellectual honesty vs alarmism, and that's what I found refreshing. I would like to think there is a broad and reasonable middle on the issue -- a group that may vary in terms of prescriptions but who have an honest desire to make their world a better place.
Hayward does a good job of giving credit where credit is due in regard to Al Gore's film. For the most part, he doesn't dispute the science, but rather how selectively the science is presented to the average person.
I do agree that mainstream coverage is vastly tilted toward the alarmist side, and demands a quasi-religious acceptance of a certain future. This is not a vast left-wing conspiracy, but a very typical MSM reaction. Alarmism sells, whether it be overpopulation, killer bees or flesh-eating bacteria.
When I first saw Mr Gore do his "the scientific debate is over" on Letterman, I couldn't help but be offended at the demagoguery. To say such a thing is to claim that our models are perfect and that all predictions are true -- and that we should bet our future on it. I prefer a little empiricism.
Hayward's biggest point is that, when faced with a problem so imbued with risk and uncertainty, where do we find the most promise?
There are two ways to look at it. The first way is to allow people to directly choose how to allocate resources toward solutions. This approach says that, if the people want the problem solved, they will decide how it is to be done. This means that individuals move capital to new research, and the capital is directly tied to success.
The value of any given technology is determined a posteriori. Many approaches are tried, but success is demanded for continued funding -- and every citizen has a direct vote as to what success means. The vote may take the form of buying a Prius, offering venture capital to an ethanol startup, or simply choosing not to take a flight.
The market, as Hayek says, evaluates an enormous amount of information, in near real-time.
The second approach asks government to do this same job. The government will design the incentives and move resources where it thinks appropriate. This, however, is the least empirical (read: scientific) method.
This is an a priori approach -- government is only capable of allocating resources in large chunks based on its best guess of success ahead of time. In an ideal world, it can only function by majority, which is sadly monolithic. In a less-than-ideal world, it functions according to those with the most influence over government, and the interests of government itself.
In the end, a small number of solutions are attempted, and the resources allocated have a less than direct relationship to empirical success.
Put it this way: the hybrid engine, with its combination of technological advance and commercial viability, is the sort of solution that we need more of. Had we depended on government for such progress, we would be driving Yugos.
A free market does for resource allocation what a supercomputer does for climate modeling. Our best predictions for climate change are enormously uncertain. If we intend to spend billions on this problem at the expense of other human needs, certainly we should bring as much information to bear as we possibly can.
Back to the movie. Hayward's approach is, to me, more hopeful than the coverage you will normally see. Certainly, it offers some welcome relief for those who feel intimidated by widespread dogmatism on the subject. I think that's what attracted the crowd.
Hopefully, the producers will be savvy enough to make it available on the web in its full form. In the meantime, here's where you can see it.
