Various public figures have been labeled climate change deniers. In the past few posts I focused on 11 individuals who have been so labeled although it turns out almost all of them actually acknowledge the planet has been warming to some extent and most accept that human activity is at least partly responsible. Where these individuals differ from climate activists is their lack of alarm at the prospect of climate change. Hence, their own label for the Other Side: alarmists.

One can still view climate change as an important policy challenge without considering it an emergency or even a serious threat to the biosphere.  Most of the individuals I’ve focused on have given some thought to this challenge and formulated basic principles on how to approach the possibility of a changing climate: keep energy cheap, reliable and widely available; focus on adaptation more than mitigation; and, let the market do the heavy lifting. I submit it is these principles rather than “denying” climate change that elicits so much vilification from environmental activists and the progressive community.

So let’s look more closely at the principles and the reasoning behind them.

1. Keep energy cheap, reliable, and widely available: without which, suffering and death, especially among the poor and in developing countries, would dwarf anything wrought by climate change. Energy means keeping your food safe and your body protected from the elements.  Wind and solar are nice but unreliable; fossil fuels have to be part of the energy mix. Expensive energy would reduce global GDP growth, which translates to greater human mortality.

2. Focus on adaptation:  adaptation seeks to offset the effects of climate change, while mitigation seeks to reduce the rate or magnitude of global warming. Mitigation initiatives are mostly about reducing CO2 emissions by turning the screws on fossil fuels, which can increase the cost of energy and disrupt economies (see Principle #1). This is not to say that mitigation is bad – after all, fossil fuels are a polluting nonrenewable resource and we need to develop alternative sources of energy – but many of the awful case scenarios conjured up by alarmists take time to develop – enough time to adapt to them as they unfold. Also, there is no consensus on the rate or magnitude of climate change and much uncertainty about effects in any specific locale. Given this uncertainty, better to focus on making crops, species, ecosystems, and human societies more resilient across a range of climate contingencies, for which there is already a pressing need.

3. Let the market do the heavy lifting: this is basically a bottom-up approach to opportunity and challenge, flexible and self-correcting. Are there flooding issues? Insurance rates go up, construction moves further away from the shore. Is drought an issue? Change crops and use water more efficiently. Sure, government regulations are needed to prevent abuse but over-regulation stifles innovation. And when the world is changing, innovation is how you keep up.

Disagree with the above? Fine. I'm not 100% on board myself. But these are interesting points that deserve serious consideration – not to be dismissed as the ravings of “deniers”.