Americans seem hardwired to believe problems can be solved. This classic “can do” approach often works -- but alas not always. Some afflictions are persistent but manageable; we handle gravity and crab grass via rebar or Ronstar.

Other problems, some extremely serious, should only be acknowledged and confronted, not wished away via purported solutions. Success may require terms far beyond our lifetimes. Global warming is one.

Thanks in part to the success of Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, I’ve concluded that most smart and successful Americans are determined we should and will address this problem. I’m consistently told, “If we only care enough to allocate sufficient resources, we can solve this problem.” I can only hope my friends are correct -- but to believe they are, one must ignore a great deal of science.

Assuming it’s real and has serious negative consequences, any solution to global warming must involve and coordinate two distinct fields, the physical/scientific and the cultural/economic. The first set is amazingly complex, but at least in principle, it’s understandable. Certain human activities and natural processes generate greenhouse gases. People burn fuel, bogs and ruminants emit methane, volcanoes generate noxious vapors, water evaporates, and so forth. This is the easy stuff.

In contrast, no one nowhere has the foggiest idea how to coordinate the social and economic behavior required to manage climate change. Naiveté runs rampant over this reality. A recent personal experience well illustrates the problem.

I was in line to buy popcorn while waiting for Al Gore’s aforementioned movie. Joining me in line, a smart, successful, extremely well educated and well intended friend harangued me regarding global warming. He assured me this is a huge problem with immense international geopolitical implications. I agreed. He further asserted a scientific consensus on the matter.

I mentioned the dissent of Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. My friend dismissed the MIT prof’s view. He argued that anyone who fails to conform to the received wisdom on global warming is not a real scientist.

He of course had not heard of Prof. Lindzen or his arguments, but no matter. When important issues are too complex to be readily understood, even smart, well-educated folks normally default to simplistic solutions. Hence, I am sure of this: we will commit significant resources to the problem.

My friend had this proposal. Take the many billions we’ll squander to fix New Orleans (his view) and give it to the Jet Propulsion Lab with a mandate to fix the impending climate change catastrophe. I’m sure he could have thought of more proposals, but the movie was about to begin. How American all this.

Given our growing propensity to “fix” the global warming problem, those serious about social welfare should minimize the adverse consequences of good intentions. For intentions are insufficient and may cause much mischief. When implemented into public policy, they surely will foster plunder via politics.

Many folks advocate energy taxes that bring gasoline up to $6 per gallon and keep it there. Here’s an example: “High oil prices are good for America. The higher the better; I’m rooting hard for $4 and then $5, even $6 gas. It is only when gas is expensive that people start to pay attention to the true cost, which is much higher.”

This price, however, will contribute a little, but only a little, to global warming solutions. It may, however, be good policy. (Viagra failed as a heart medicine.) Madmen with a monopoly on divine wisdom and a mandate to impose Allah’s directives on others (or kill them), are the beneficiaries of $70 oil. Their economies are otherwise so sorry they would collapse from corruption and misallocation without the nearly half-trillion dollars in annual subsidies from oil. Six-dollar gas really does address this problem. Prepare for it.

In mid-September, FREE will host a small, invitational conference involving federal judges and academics to examine the environmental consequences of energy use. Speakers include the aforementioned Richard Lindzen of MIT and Lester Lave of Carnegie Mellon University, among others. Please contact FREE for additional information.