Climate Change Is Hardest Political Problem Ever

From The Economist ("Getting Warmer"):
Some scientists think that the planet is already on an irreversible journey to dangerous warming. A few climate-change sceptics think the problem will right itself. Either may be correct. Predictions about a mechanism as complex as the climate cannot be made with any certainty. But the broad scientific consensus is that serious climate change is a danger, and this newspaper believes that, as an insurance policy against a catastrophe that may never happen, the world needs to adjust its behaviour to try to avert that threat.

The problem is not a technological one. The human race has almost all the tools it needs to continue leading much the sort of life it has been enjoying without causing a net increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Industrial and agricultural processes can be changed. Electricity can be produced by wind, sunlight, biomass or nuclear reactors, and cars can be powered by biofuels and electricity. Biofuel engines for aircraft still need some work before they are suitable for long-haul flights, but should be available soon.

Nor is it a question of economics. Economists argue over the sums, but broadly agree that greenhouse-gas emissions can be curbed without flattening the world economy.

It is all about politics. Climate change is the hardest political problem the world has ever had to deal with. It is a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one. At issue is the difficulty of allocating the cost of collective action and trusting other parties to bear their share of the burden.

"A plea for liberalism: Lessons from the 20th century"

From The Economist:
Whichever label you use, liberalism or social democracy was the bipartisan outlook that underpinned American and European politics for 30 years after 1945. It achieved a balance between market and state. It oversaw a fruitful truce between business and labour that produced a golden period for capitalism with benefits all round. Then came stagflation, taxpayer revolts, fiscal crisis and a triumphant revival of free-market ideas. For the next 30 years, a new shrink-the-state “paradigm” ruled, with its own promise of open horizons and benefits all round. Now weakened and indebted governments are counted on for handouts from every side, banks and businesses included. Nobody is sure what to believe.

The future is not inevitably bleak for the Euro-American way. As the rest of the world grows richer, perhaps it too will see the benefits of a compact that, for those lucky enough to enjoy it, struck a unique balance between economic growth, social equity and personal freedom. Then again, perhaps not, he says. Mr Judt explores neither possibility in depth, ending instead with an eye cast back to the past century. How easily, he reminds readers, stable-looking societies can totter. His final case for social democracy is a “show-me-a-better-foxhole” plea. Nothing else looks more desirable. Without it, much that Western people value may be lost. “If social democracy has a future,” Mr Judt concludes, “it will be as a social democracy of fear.”