I’m evermore skeptical of the policy prescriptions demanded by those convinced climate change threatens civilization. Al Gore, the leader of this pack, asserts that if we do not act “within 10 years” (to reduce CO2 emissions) we are likely to reach a “tipping point” making it impossible “to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability.”

He calls for a “90 percent [reduction in CO2 emissions] in developed countries and [a reduction] by more than half worldwide.” Here’s a reality check for Mr. Gore. Only Haiti and Somalia have emissions even close to these demands.

Since all behavior conceivably contributes to climates change, “progressives” claim license to impose their visions on America. Hence cries to “outlaw SUVs, mandate recycling, and require 30 percent of the food consumed in Montana be grown, harvested, and processed in state by 2020!”

Apparently not even divorce is immune. Jiangou Liu of Michigan State University finds that divorced couples occupy more housing, some 38 million more rooms worldwide to light, heat, and cool. In 2005, people who divorced used 73 billion kilowatt-hours more electricity and consumed 627 billion gallons more water than if married. Liu asks that before divorcing, couples consider the environmental impacts. (Environmental impact counseling before divorce? Good luck with that.)

Another climate fad, one that will surely harm the world’s poorest farmers, is to reduce the “food miles,” and hence the carbon footprint, of agricultural products. The New York Times reports a surprising result:

“Instead of measuring a product’s carbon footprint through food miles alone...scientists...include[d] other energy-consuming aspects of production...like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation...and dozens of other...inputs.

... [S]cientists...found that lamb raised on New Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280..., in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit.”

Oops! The activists promoting this campaign fail to understand that the market process does a pretty good job of sorting this stuff out. If fuel prices rise high enough, then an expansion of local agriculture would surely make sense. The best thing they could do for poor farmers and the environment is to launch a campaign to scrap the environmentally and socially damaging agricultural trade policies in developed nations. But this is difficult, and un-sexy work.

The vision of an ideal society ruled by disinterested philosopher kings is a fatal conceit with a long and sorry history. In his book Visions of the Anointed, economist Thomas Sowell describes the process. Here it is:

“The Warning of Danger: A great danger to the whole society is asserted, a danger to which the masses are oblivious (but to which the anointed are uniquely sensitive).

“The Call to Action: Urgent action is demanded to avert the impending catastrophe. Again, while malevolent forces try to preserve the status quo, the anointed—wiser and more caring than others—are fighting to rescue you.

“The Invocation of Authority: The government is called upon to set stringent limits on the dangerous behavior of the many.... Since most people aren’t as enlightened as the anointed, it stands to reason that they are part of the problem. ...[F]or their own good...they must be forced via the threat or actual application of state power to comply with the new required behavior.

“The Demonization of Critics: Arguments which criticize any aspect of the crusade are dismissed as uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes. ...[A]nyone who threatens to reveal the truth—that the solution was worse than the supposed problem—is by definition evil. Destroying such critics is a commendable act of ‘courage.’”

I fear creeping climate paternalism. History shows that the concentration of power in the hands of the few makes this sort of government "benevolence" dangerous. I’m with H.L. Mencken who said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”