Gregg Easterbrook’s piece on global warming (“Global Warming: Who Loses—and Who Wins?” April Atlantic) actually made me miss the global- warming denialists—at least their arguments have some kind of logical coherence. The most glaring problem with the essay is the author’s antiquated nation-state approach to who “wins” and who “loses.” Easterbrook does seem to recognize that our current prosperity is based on trade with countries like China (which he predicts will soon be a disaster zone), but he doesn’t follow this observation to its obvious conclusion, which is that any climate change that devastates a majority of the world’s population will not produce many “winners” anywhere. If a drop in the Shanghai stock index is felt immediately in New York, imagine what would happen if Shanghai dropped into the sea!
Worse than Easterbrook’s neglect of the interconnected nature of today’s world are his misguided policy suggestions. He berates The New York Times for advocating increased government funding for global-warming research, arguing that the “real” way to progress is to let the market do its work through tax incentives. Yet as Easterbrook surely knows, that is a false choice. There is no reason why the government could not increase direct funding for basic research while also providing incentives to private industry.
Furthermore, the idea that an emissions market (apparently Easterbrook’s sole favored policy) is a “free market” solution is also wrong. Far from being “laissez-faire,” emissions markets are actually aggressive regulatory devices. The government creates and enforces the use of carbon credits; the idea that companies themselves would follow this regime on their own is absurd.
Tackling global warming will demand action from both the public and private sectors. Easterbrook appears to believe that tying one hand behind our back is the best way to proceed. Why not use both hands instead?
Unless the international scientific consensus is badly mistaken, global warming will have no winners, only varying degrees of losers. The United States may not be among the worst-hit countries, but by the end of the century it could find its great coastal cities flooded, much of Florida underwater, the Southwest burned to a crisp, and the Southeast turned into dry grassland. Even Canada and Russia, Gregg Easterbrook’s supposed big winners, could have nothing to celebrate: A vastly expanded Hudson Bay could put much of northern Canada underwater, and the defrosting of Siberia would hardly be a boon if that territory should find itself overrun by millions of Chinese fleeing the devastation of their homeland.
The idea that a warming world might “favor the United States more” is not just mistaken; it’s dangerous, since it offers an excuse for those who argue that our society and economy need not submit to the restructuring that will be required to avoid serious climate change.
David A. Korn
I agree with Clive Crook (“The Phantom Menace,” April Atlantic) that we’re much better off materially than we were in the 1970s, but his claim that immigration is a big contributor to our prosperity is just plain wrong. Many studies have been done about immigration’s impact on the economy, and they all say broadly the same thing: It’s not significant.
Immigration enthusiasts like to point to a 1997 National Academy of Sciences study, which found that all immigration since 1980 raised the income of native-born Americans by between $1 billion and $10 billion. But that’s at most about 0.1 percent of the gross domestic product, in what was then an $8 trillion economy. A 2005 study from Columbia University, meanwhile, identified a net loss of $68 billion to native-born Americans in 2002. The results from the NAS study, even if we accept them uncritically, merely mean that in return for agreeing to share our country with another 30 million to 40 million people, each of us gets the equivalent of a nice dinner out.
It’s fine for Crook to express his preference for a cosmopolitan country with a fast-growing population fueled by immigration. However, his suggestion that we would endanger our prosperity by reducing immigration levels is not just condescending but wrong.
San Ramon, Calif.
Mark Bowden makes the subjective judgment that the episode in the Philippines he describes (“Jihadists in Paradise,” March Atlantic) was a “small, early success” in the global “war on terror.” But he seems to have overlooked more-objective measurements of its effectiveness.
The U.S. commitment to the hunt involved more than 1,100 military personnel. A helicopter crash killed 10 American servicemen, a bomb killed a Special Forces sergeant, and a retaliatory attack after the mission was over left a captain wounded (two Filipino civilians were killed and 21 injured in the same attack). The armed forces of the Philippines admitted publicly that 45 Filipino soldiers had been killed during the 54-week pursuit, with an undisclosed number wounded.
As an “incentive” to permit deployment of Task Force 510, President Bush had promised a large financial package—in excess of $300 million—to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. During the operation, the United States provided $55 million to the Philippine government for the war on terrorism and $100 million to “fight poverty,” plus five UH-1H helicopters and 13,000 M‑16 assault rifles. And as Bowden pointed out, an additional $1.6 million was paid out to informants.