A Party Destroying Policy

Can a political party commit to anpolicy with results so disastrous it can never recover?

Unlike what one might expect, this article isn't about Donald Trump and his campaign, which has fostered racial resentment in the minds of his followers.

Nor is it about President Obama and candidate Clinton for their institution of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (regulation of Iranian nuclear capabilities) or the war against the Islamic State.

Trump's behavior is not a policy which destroys the Republican party. Though gruesome, and backed by a swirling cluster of enthusiastic supporters, he remains a single person. If he fails in his bid for the presidency, those who have excoriated his behavior can reclaim the party from his nativist stigma. Officals of his own party have condemned his comments, and some have even withdrawn their support of his candidacy. Yet, if he surges to triumph in the next two months, it will prove his bluster caused neither him nor the Republican party any harm.

The nuclear deal with Iran so roundly condemned by Republicans, was devised not by the United States alone but with the P5+1 (permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany), the European Union, and Iran. In the modern age of intricate, powerful, and unimaginable technology there are only two ways to deny a nation nuclear weapons. Either a nation must be engaged diplomatically and convinced to halt production, or it must be devastated by near constant war. Any advanced nation can construct weapons of destruction (nuclear or biological), and the ease by which these can be built will only increase. Some, like Israel, might prefer to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by repeatedly destroying the infrastructure and civilian centers of its neighbors, but this behavior will convince the people of Iran of the necessity of nuclear deterrence. Most nations will accept diplomacy as the only acceptable option for preventing nuclear proliferation.

No, the most disastrous threat to humanity, aside from the existing nuclear arsenal, is rising temperatures worldwide. And upon this topic nearly every one of the Republican primary candidates expressed disbelief, denial, or espoused conspiracies as wild as Trump's claim that Cruz's father was involved in President Kennedy's assassination. According to them: global warming isn't real,(or) it is real but the cause is unknown, (or) it does exist but the United States can't do anything of consequence (in spite of being one of the largest producer per capita of carbon dioxide), (and) the Chinese have tricked Western Universities and scientists into mistaken conclusions about global temperatures.

At best they concluded there is nothing to be done, and at worst they accuse the majority of climate scientists of intentionally deceiving the public.

Climate change may not impact Congressmen such as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma who believes, because there is still snow in Washington DC, Earth is not warming. He's eighty-one so objective observers can feel confident he'll avoid personal inconvenience rising temperatures will have on the rest of the global population.

But for the rest of the world it's relevant to consider an analogous question.

Should we act as if God exists?

The famous seventeenth century mathematician and scientist, Blaise Pascal (who also discovered Pascal's Triangle and Pascal's Law of Transmition of Fluid Pressure), coined Pascal's Wager. According to the wager, the listener is given two situations. Either God exists or He doesn't. The listener, without knowing the truth can act as if one or the other is true. The benefit, Pascal argues, to acting as if God doesn't exist is small if correct, but the penalty is infinitely worse. The benefit for acting as if God exists if correct is great, but the penalty if wrong is minimal. Therefore everyone should maximize their benefit by acting as if God exists. Of course, Pascal missed two key points. One, evidence should have an impact on one's actions. More importantly, Pascal created a false dilemma by only offering two options: God (of Christianity) vs Atheism. Considering the religions of the Earth there are a myriad of choices with their own benefits and penalties. The benefits of appealing to one deity on the basis of no evidence (as the wager implies) becomes no better than a roll of the dice.

What does this have to do with the increase in global temperatures?

Imagine there are two options: either the world's temperature is increasing due to human sources, or it's not. In advance of increasing temperatures the United States can act to limit the effect or to do nothing. Choosing to do nothing will be fine if there is no global warming, but will be disastrous to all future life on earth if climate change exists.

Choosing to act, to prepare, to limit the use of fossil fuels will significantly reduce global warming if it does exist. The short term effects, though, could be detrimental as Republican congressmen keep explaining. However, the long term effects of preparing for global warming, even it doesn't exists might be less harmful than imagined. First, a key component of preventing global warming is energy efficiency; producing goods (such as light bulbs but also cars and appliances) which require less energy to do the same work, while also improving the electrical grid. If companies in the United States develop super efficient machines and better methods of conducting electricity, it could lead to a revolution in technology benefiting shareholders, citizens, and the country.

The research into such technologies, the creation of them, and their fulfillment in material form will also create the exact type of jobs the United States enjoys.

Better efficiency will reduced the need for fossil fuels which are costly in many ways. The United States will no longer need to support authoritarian petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, and others because it will no longer need their oil. The nation will also be able to avoid damaging its own fragile and beautiful American landscapes because it will no longer need the coal, oil, and natural gas they contain.

In innovation, the United States can find itself once again a revolutionary leader in new technology. Whether global warming exists and is caused by anthropogenic forces, may not matter as much as what the United States chooses to do. Either it will do nothing, potentially suffer nothing, nor gain anything, but more likely Republican Congressmen will do nothing, while leaving future generations to suffer the fate of their intransigence.

And if in five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years global warming is confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt, what will those Senators and Congressmen, still alive and who voted against important measures to prevent climate change, what will they say to those who live in a brave new world?