Does Too Much Green Lead to “Greenflation”?

By James Kanter

It’s been a year of remarkable progress on climate change. Just about everyone, it seems, understands the link between carbon dioxide and global warming. But in the wake of so much publicity, are we now undergoing a wave of “greenflation,” where the term “green” is used to justify almost everything and anything, as long as it can make the claim of lowering carbon?

One item that caught my attention involves a group of concerned citizens in Sharp County, Arkansas. They are lobbying to remove a local ban on alcohol sales on the grounds that drivers are emitting more than they would do otherwise if they could buy their booze closer to home.

“The people who live in Cave City have to travel 70 miles round-trip. That’s a long trip just to get alcohol — and that’s a lot of greenhouse gases,” Ruth Reynolds, a member of the group, told The Associated Press. “Every time you burn a gallon of gas you emit 22 pounds of carbon dioxide,” Reynolds said.

Reynolds certainly has a point. Sharp County is surrounded by other dry localities, forcing thirsty citizens to take long drives into Missouri. But it’s also revealing that Reynold’s group is named “Save Energy Reap Taxes” and is aiming to boost the county’s coffers by enabling the collection of sales taxes on beer, wine and liquor purchased locally.

Is the environmental argument made by the citizens of Sharp County a case of “greenflation” cover for legalizing alcohol sales? What other instances are out there? Do such campaigns do any harm?

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Roderick, Paris December 26, 2007 · 8:15 pm

Dear Sir,

You write, rather smugly, that ‘everyone understands the link between carbon dioxide and global warming’.

Indeed, CO2 is one rather minor element in the body of greenhouse gases which keep us from freezing, and indeed many understand this.

But your subtext is that man-made carbon emissions are responsible for the current period of cyclical global warming.

I hold that it is irresponsible and fraudulent to propogate this theory as accepted fact when it is highly contentious, unprovable, and has become little more than a fashionable cover for a broader political agenda, along with a rash of green-validated profiteering.

I am sure you can do better than to follow the sentimental party line.

-RSB.

GD, Maryland December 27, 2007 · 2:33 pm

Agree with RSB…
As a chemist and a physician, I have no particular interest in the politics of climate science, however I do have an interest in the quality of the science itself. When the various climate models used to support the theory of anthropogenic climate change driven by CO2 emission are held to even a fraction of the scientific scrutiny that is applied to pharmaceutical and health sciences; and indeed other physical sciences, the weaknesses and gross uncertainties are revealed. Despite very compelling data that suggest, at the very least, significant questions remain, so many intelligent people are happy to accept putative climate change constructs on faith; it seems they want desperately to believe. I, for one, can not escape the uncertainties introduced by such problematic facts as 1) in geologic time, atmospheric CO2 rises in response to warming postulates of causality? 2) when compared to other greenhouse gases such as methane, CO2 plays a very small role sufficient/necessary? 3) Atmospheric CO2 is in an equilibrium state with respect to the earth’s oceans plausibility? 4) the models used to predict future consequences of current atmospheric states and CO2 emissions apparently fail when applied and compared to current climate phenomena with historic data reproducibility? The list goes on…Interestingly, when current observations are in gross disagreement with what the models predict, many brush these inconvenient truths (sorry couldn’t help myself) aside suggesting that current observations must be wrong and not the model, a profound intellectual leap of faith to say the least. I am also disturbed by how so many people respond with visceral anger when one challenges the idea of anthropogenic climate change. It’s as though one is challenging a religion. Still others suggest that even though the science is imperfect, it should be accepted anyway because the resultant public policies that arise can only be good. I am disturbed by this position as well. When my patients ask me about a new drug or treatment for a serious illness, they have the right to expect that I have reviewed the scientific literature objectively. I certainly do not recommend medications or treatments as cures when I don’t know this to be true. Worse yet, would be the suggestion that a drug should be used simply because I presume it will not cause harm. As physicians know well, no drug or treatment is entirely benign, and many drugs over the years that were presumed safe prove harmful, particularly when rushed to the market. Ultimately, if truth reveals itself through good science that our practices are causing climate change, then I will support wholeheartedly measures to mitigate the problem. However, given the gravity of the question and the far reaching consequences the truth will hold one way or another, if there was ever an instance where the science should pass intellectual muster, it is in this case. An interesting question…what if the earth is warming and we’re not causing it? Would we still feel as strongly about the consequences? Would or should we intervene? Many believe that we should dramatically alter our way of life under the hypothesis that we are causing climate change and that change poses a grave danger to humanity. If it came to light that we are not responsible for climate change, would we perceive the consequences as being equally grave nonetheless and take some action?

rita pluto December 27, 2007 · 8:32 pm

Hey,

Even if this county is using a Green argument to conceal a more mercenary motivation, I don’t see the harm. In the end, they are reducing carbon emissions, and that’s what counts imo.

Being green is my scene!

Nonoy Oplas, Philippines December 28, 2007 · 3:06 am

Yes, “greenflation” is a real thing. The average Europeans can testify that the very high petroleum taxes they pay, up to about 75% of the retail price, is due to their governments’ belief that less emission through less petrol consumption through high petrol taxes is good for the environment.

And I will not be surprised if many countries will retain the high petrol taxes they impose despite the continued spiralling of world oil prices. Some countries might even introduce new or higher petrol taxes, including some form of “emission tax” on airplane tickets.

One drawback that many environmental activists may not realize, is that as LPG and petrol products prices rise, many poor people from poorer countries shift to using firewood and charcoal for their cooking needs, and more trees are cut, legally or illegaly, which again worsens climate change.

Marc, New York December 28, 2007 · 3:48 am

To RSB:

— “it is highly contentious,”

Do you read? Every large and respected body of world renowned scientists agrees that human-caused emissions is the major factor causing the majority of this lightning quick warming (in geologic time).

Ajith December 28, 2007 · 11:52 am

Increasing consumption of alcoholic drinks would result in increasing carbon emissions. Individuals sometimes get upset over others after taking drinks, then families get upset. All these result in irregular breathing resulting in increased CO2 emissions from our body ;-)

Tom L, Atlanta December 28, 2007 · 3:37 pm

Greenflation shows that simple substitution of green alternatives for other, older technologies is not a feasible way out of global warming.

KML, Ottawa, Canada January 4, 2008 · 3:53 am

The FTC warns of risk in carbon offsets recently. It will be null if the green businesses disappears like bubbles.

//energydictionary.blogspot.com