Although I’m not surprised.
The Freakonomics guys like to think that they think outside the box, but in the original book I read they don’t on some things. They did a chapter on gun control (they seem to favor it) but their criticisms of John Lott were flaccid. By the way, it still boggles my mind that control freaks can’t wrap their minds around the fact that good decent citizens have a better chance at preventing and reducing crime and stopping bad guys with a weapon in their hand (ask any Marine), and they don’t shoot at their wives when they’re angry either. Just because a liberal thinks they can’t control themselves doesn’t mean the rest of us are like that.
But give the Freakos credit here for observing something new (to me anyway). Yes, we’ve pretty much all heard that cows belch like a zillion tons of methane into the air –that’s a “greenhouse gas” so-called.
But they expose professional environmentalists with this one:
Freakonomics » Agnostic Carnivores and Global Warming: Why Enviros Go After Coal and Not Cows
They are baffled because the studies they quote say that if mankind were to become vegan and give up eating meat, man’s contribution to “greenhouse gases” would be reduced, oh, somewhere like ten times more than shutting down coal-fired plants and the rest.
So he asks why they’re going after a pipeline down the middle of the country instead of getting everybody to stop eating meat. He does hit on what is probably the major immediate reason, that going after meat would be going after most people’s individual choices, while going after smokestacks is not so personal.
What do you know, that’s exactly why the EPA didn’t just up and say “carbon dioxide” is a pollutant. That would have made humankind itself a major danger to the environment along with every single animal on the planet, every insect, every worm and octopus, and every summer backyard barbecue. No can do.
But there’s more, in my opinion. If they really truly thought it were a disastrous situation, they would go after the animals. This is a clue.
The main thrust of environmentalism, I have said for a long time, is that they are just going after ways to get us into the habit of letting their pet political-class approved hand-picked “scientists” to tell us to obey the politicians, without letting it look like an order.
Hey freakos, here’s one: Tell the enviros if they’re really truly serious then support the real alternatives like the ones funded by Eugene Mallove’s http://www.infinite-energy.com/ and http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/youtube.html. The “science” [sic] establishment has a billion-dollar gravy train with hot fusion, but this one is an up-and-comer and has shown promise and is making believers out of a growing number of real sceintists around the world.
I’ve just read a couple of criticisms against Levitt on the subject and they leave out a bunch. Over 300 studies already show that an increase in CO2 spurs dramatic growth increases in plants. CO2 does so well at it that they are lots of machines on the market -“CO2 generators”– that make sure your indoor plants or hydroponic beds get plenty of it.