There's no such thing as semi-platonic

Everyone who knows anything knows Kevin Costner's big-screen masterpiece Waterworld is first and foremost a warning about the dangers of mutant, water-breathing men entering the human genetic pool. It is also a two-hour fright-fest about the possiblity of global warming and worldwide flooding.

But after watching a re-run of the dry-land-less film yesterday, it became apparent Waterworld is something more. It is not a warning about the threat of global warming, so much as a it is polemic on the failure of free markets to prevent global warming. Humanity's watery future may be inevitable, the film says, but blame it on a flaw in the marketplace.


First, two points about the Supreme Court's resonant 5-4 decision last week.

1) The New York Times' breaking web coverage of the EPA verdict explained there was still some doubt about the connection between carbon emissions and global warming. The story was amended and updated within the hour. The second draft contained no mention of doubt.

The following day, the Times' print version of the story explained carbon emissions are "heat trapping...greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change."

It is doubtful this clarification would have occurred five years ago.


2) The larger issue at hand is the question of why this EPA ruling is even necessary.

Yes, in a post-Inconvenient Truth world, there is heightened awareness of environmental idealism. But this film mostly resonated with those who already preached Pappa Gore's message.

More importantly, the vehicles with the least carbon emissions are the same vehicles that get excellent gas mileage. They are money-savers. And most Americans like the ol' money.

So why has there not been more of a spike in demand for gas-saving vehicles?

One answer is the government's role in regulating supply and demand. Oil subsidies have historically driven down the real cost of purchasing gasoline in the U.S., but that cannot be the entire story.

Costner's answer to the question lies in the economics of information. We forget that while oil is a valuable commodity, information is perhaps the most valuable commodity of all. (Unless we're discussing barrel-aged bourbon or gold. Those tend to hold their value as well.)

When the jet-ski-riding smokers capture Costner on his sailboat near the end of the film, they do not steal the boat. They burn it. The smokers use a very non-renewable source of energy. Yet they destroy the pinnacle of renewable energy in their watery world - Costner's speedy catamaran.

The smokers do not understand their fleeting position in the world. They do not realize the remaining oil in the hold of the floating Exxon-Valdez is finite. Perhaps it was suggested that the "go juice" would someday run dry. But who really wants to listen to proclamations of doom when the alternative is jumping jet-skis over 20-foot sea walls?

In theory, free markets work perfectly when there is a free flow of information. This seemingly self-destructive act on the part of the smokers demonstrates the failure of information's reach. If you do not understand the pillars propping up your existence, you cannot grasp the significance of their tumultuous fall.