The ‘benefits’ of a climate crisis

THE ‘BENEFITS’ OF A CLIMATE CRISIS…. About two years ago, former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told reporters that “there are public health benefits to climate change.” It wasn’t a slip of the tongue — Perino used the phrase three times in one briefing in October 2007.

It was an odd thing to say. As a rule, reasonable people realize that global warming is real, and that threats posed by the phenomenon represent a serious threat. On the other hand, we have unreasonable deniers, who pretend the evidence doesn’t exist. But there’s also a strange third category — the earth is warming, but let’s look on the bright side.

Perino endorsed this, and over the weekend, so did Congress’ most pro-pollution lawmaker, Rep. Joe Barton (R) of Texas:

“CO2 is odorless, colorless, tasteless — it’s not a threat to human health in terms of being exposed to it. We create it as we talk back and forth. So, and if you go beyond that, on a net basis, there’s ample evidence that warming generically — however it is caused — is a net benefit to mankind.”

Faiz Shakir explained very well how foolish this is, but I can’t help but wonder how these conservatives believe global warming will be “benefit” humanity.

Less hypothermia? Fewer instances of frostbite? A steep decline in the number of snowball-fight-related injuries?

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation