Prioritizing Our Problems

Contrast this with global warming. Science tells us that temperatures have risen a bit in the last century, as they have at other times in history, and that human activity -- primarily carbon dioxide emissions -- seems to have contributed to this trend by some unknown amount. An international panel recently reported that, with a considerable margin of error, this could cause sea level rises of up to 23 inches in a century. But it admits that there's a wide margin of error, because we simply don't know enough about how weather works to be anything like as sure as we can be about Social Security.

But for some, global warming is more a tenet of religious faith than a matter of scientific inquiry. Al Gore is sure that the oceans are going to rise 20 feet -- 240 inches. He sounds like Jeremiah: All argument must be over, you must have faith or you will meet your doom; you have sinned, and you must pay the price.

His fellow Democrats are falling all over themselves pushing policies that would have a harsh economic impact. So are many Republicans, notably John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg has a more sensible approach: Do more research; take inexpensive steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions; address other environmental problems on which bigger and more certain payoffs are attainable at lower costs. Remember, too, that some effects of global warming will be good.

The politicians resist fixing Social Security because the short-term costs are well understood by voters and the long-term benefits, while clear to actuaries, are invisible to voters because no one is decrying them with religious intensity. The politicians sprint to address global warming because the short-term costs are unknown to voters and the long-term benefits, while unclear in the extreme to those who rely on science, are portrayed in apocalyptic terms by the prophet Al Gore. Democracy isn't perfect.