Is she?

Before we get into the earthshatteringly important question of whether Anne Applebaum is a dirty hippie or a non-skeptic heretic, a little explanation is in order due to the slightly increased readership of late.

The term non-skeptic (also, "non-skeptical") heretic is attributed to Roger Pielke Jr. It refers to anyone who, no matter what they said before, now states unequivocally that global warming is happening and therefore starts with a clean credibility slate. A central tenet for 'NSH'ers is the idea that though we're contributing to global warming, possible solutions are far too complicated to implement and probably wouldn't make a difference anyway. Therefore, it is by far better to sit around, wringing hands and chatting about what could or could not be done, while doing nothing. Following this definition, Pielke posted the names of those he believes are the moderate 'NSH,' thereby implying that everyone else is either a flat-earther or a dirty hippie. Though I know for a fact that I began using the term "dirty hippie" in this context before David Robert's Huffington Post article, it was the latter that popularized the term in that context. Since then, whenever a piece appears that supports the scientific finding that global warming is happening the game has been to identify the writer as either a dirty hippie or an NSH. Without further delay, Applebaum:

"Worse than we thought." The headline in the British Guardian newspaper on Saturday was almost gloating about the bad news. The tone of the article that followed was no different....Among the coastal cities threatened by the higher ocean levels caused by melting ice caps, the paper noted -- not without a degree of satisfaction -- are London, New York, Tokyo and Hong Kong.

As Kevin Drum points out, derision of the dirty hippie ("not without a degree of satisfaction") puts her squarely in the NSH camp. But is there more to it than that?

Any lasting solutions will have to be extremely simple, and -- because of the cost implicit in reducing the use and emissions of fossil fuels -- will also have to benefit those countries that impose them in other ways. Fortunately, there is such a solution, one that is grippingly unoriginal, requires no special knowledge of economics and is easy for any country to implement. It's called a carbon tax, and it should be applied across the board to every industry that uses fossil fuels, every home or building with a heating system, every motorist, and every public transportation system. Immediately, it would produce a wealth of innovations to save fuel, as well as new incentives to conserve. More to the point, it would produce a big chunk of money that could be used for other things. Anyone for balancing the budget? Fixing Social Security for future generations? As a foreign policy side benefit, users of the tax would suddenly find themselves less dependent on Persian Gulf oil or Russian natural gas, too.

A carbon tax is so not NSH.

The verdict? NSH in training. Watch for follow-up articles about how a carbon tax might force the global economy into a tailspin, thereby contributing to the deaths of the world's poor; and how maybe we should grow more corn and reduce methane emissions since they're 27,000 times more potent than CO2. Once that happens, she'll have attained full membership benefits and privileges to opine about global warming without the slightest hint of tie-dye peeking up beneath her turtleneck sweater.