For those of you in the path of Sandy, I hope life is starting to return to normal. Part of the disaster’s fallout was an effort by the left to use Sandy to push a green agenda. Holman Jenkins properly mocks that attempt in a recent column:
When the high tide of political enthusiasm for climate action began to recede around the time of Al Gore’s Nobel, it receded for good reason, and not because of Republican intransigence, or any “climategate” email scandal, or even because of the inconvenient absence of warming from the temperature record after 1998.
The moment passed because even a political system as prodigal as ours could not bridge the chasm between costs and benefits. Even many Democrats were stopped in their tracks by the question: How much should we spend on climate change in order to have no effect on climate change? Likewise, whatever the truth of man’s role in global warming, whatever the merits of regulating CO2, making climate policy the answer to hurricanes can’t be anything but a fraud on the public. Doing so, literally, is like proposing to spend trillions to reduce by an inch or two an 11-foot storm surge that might occur sometime in the next century.