The flag is Green now, instead of Red. And the lyrics are different. But the tune is still the same old tune.
When the Reds sang it, the lyrics were that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as “exploitation,” “monopoly,” and depressions. When the Greens sing it, the lyrics are that the individual cannot be left free because the result will be such things as destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and global warming. (Add an extra chorus now for global warming.)
The tune is still that the individual cannot be left free, that he cannot be left free because his peaceful pursuit of his own happiness and prosperity somehow inflicts harm on others, and that only the government’s pointing a gun at his head will save the rest of mankind from some dreadful calamity.
The Red thugs wanted to control the economic system to set things right. The Green thugs want to control the environment, especially the climate, to set things right.
The Red thugs had no idea of what they were doing and neither do the Green thugs. Just consider this statement from a supporter of prohibitions on carbon dioxide emissions in order to stop global warming:
One of the ironies of the Arctic melting is that it runs the risk of flipping the switch on oceanic thermohaline circulation and shutting down the Atlantic current – this could lead to a sharp cooling in Europe (which lies further north than the US), and appears to have happened in the past. (Posted by “Tokyo Tom” on the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s Blog on March 30, 2006 08:24PM)
Here is someone who doesn’t even know if the global warming he wants to stop will turn out to be a continent-wide cooling instead. But that gives him no pause. He still thinks he knows enough to send the police out to stop people from acting on the knowledge they have about the good they can achieve for themselves by producing and buying goods that happen to emit some carbon dioxide into the air. Their knowledge is to count for nothing. The allegedly superior knowledge of “scientists” is to prevail—at the point of a gun.
That’s the bottom line. Pointing guns at people in the name of some higher collective good, and prohibiting them from achieving their own good. That’s socialism. That’s environmentalism.
This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. This article was adapted in part from p. 102 of the author’s Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996). The author is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics
{ 45 comments }
The term I use for the typical “environmentalist” today is watermelon: green on the outside but red on the inside.
CMB,
There is nothing inherently wrong with voluntary actions to limit CO2 emissions. If the collectivist strawman is really a strawman, then there should be no state action to coerce change should there?
Reisman’s thermohaline shutdown counter-argument (that it contradicts the ‘global warming’ label) is uninformed and I’m embarassed to read it here on Mises.
It is logically identical to an inflationist deriding Austrian arguments that we may be facing widespread inflation because we also might say that there will be pockets of deflation in certain assets contemporaneously.
I’m used to seeing these types of rather ignorant postings at the other blog, but the standard here at Mises is usually higher.
But CMB. Justify your mainstream view? Your mainstream view is idiocy.
So you’ve read the other thread with Tom on it. So where is your answer to what I wrote on there?
Only a fool would try and duck the issue of glaciation.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at March 31, 2006 02:35 PM
“Yancey, let’s assume for a moment that global warming is indeed the terrible but reversible man-made thing that the mainstream believes it to be, then simply denying that it is happening is more likely to lead to state action than accepting it and supporting market solutions…”
Well if denial is unproductive what about you LYING ABOUT DENIAL. How productive is THAT?
Whose denying that there might not be some human element to the warming?
I think there is a human componenet and a good thing too.
Now stop ducking and making things up and justify your position.
“Reisman’s thermohaline shutdown counter-argument (that it contradicts the ‘global warming’ label) is uninformed and I’m embarassed to read it here on Mises.”
No no no Duodecimal. Its your credulousness that is the embarrassment. You’ve bought into the most foolish, implausible scare tactic imagineable.
Explain this shutdown business in your own words and the likely consequences. Explain why you imagine this to be a plausible thing to worry about. To try and do so will be to reveal the essential silliness of it all.
CMB you fool. The climatologists are on my side. How about some authentic debate. Rather then hiding behind alleged experts.
Now none of those experts claim that human based warming is definitely going to overmatch the natural tendency towards glaciation do they?
So its check mate.
The movement for the destruction of the Russian nation is a fraud plain and clear.
These are not scientists these fraudsters that you speak thereof. They are merely science workers. And public tit science workers at that. And when you look hard at it you will find very few climatologists. You go on the boards and you will see a ‘computer scientist’ pushing the fraud hard. Like a drummer hanging around musicisians and making a big noise.
Their are currents that wind their way around the globe in the oceans; the Gulf Stream is an example of one and is a part of the thermohaline conveyor.
As the Gulf Stream and other currents bring warm waters into the northern seas, the waters are cooled and descend to the ocean floor. These abyssal currents flow in the opposite direction back towards the equator, in the case of the North Atlantic.
At the end of the last Ice Age, massive fresh water flows from the glaciers melting in North America slowshed down the St. Lawrence valley and cut across the Gulf Stream, blocking its warm waters from going further north.
As you might notice on many standard maps, the European peninsula is significantly closer to the polar regions than comparable areas in North America, in terms of ambient temperatures. The warm weather northern Europe enjoys is due to the Gulf Stream.
Now, I don’t know if there’s sufficient meltwater, or will be sufficient meltwater, to shut down the thermohaline conveyor again. The point is that it was shut down before due to global climate change (long before we were a technological species), and the direct result of the warming at the end of the ice age was an abrubt cooling in Europe — until the Gulf Stream managed to re-establish its northerly flow beyond the Canadian maritime provinces.
The point of my post was that Reisman’s counter-argument was illogical and uninformed, and his post would have been better off without that sub-section dealing with TomTokyo’s positing of a potential thermohaline shutdown.
I have a feeling geological history is not an area you have much interest in, but if I’m mistaken, I’d like for you to look up info on the Snowball Earth hypothesis. I think it’s one of the most exciting geological detective stories involved figuring out the reason why glacial drop stones were found all over the Earth, even in tropical regions, from the period preceeding the Cambrian.
The reason is that the Snowball Earth led directly (as in caused) a paradoxical period of torrid tropical climate.
“Graeme, You should stop being rude to people and pay more attention to what is written. The point is that global warming and European cooling are by no means mutually exclusive–far from it–”
They pretty much are if we are talking catastrophic cooling. And I thought you guys were worrying about warming not cooling.
So no explanation as to this currents grinding to a halt scare then?
So it turned out that you guys were just going on faith on that one.
“Graeme, You should stop being rude to people and pay more attention to what is written.”
This is what I call leftist projection. You Tom and Duo are being fiendishly rude to the great economist. Tom set the tone from the start. But what’s ruder still is your lack of authentic argument.
You find a plausible study that shows that the tendency towards glaciation has definitely been overmatched and I would, in principle, agree to a carbon tax;
(a) So long as it was a substitution and not a tax increase. And it was done in the context of reducing government depredation more generally.
(b) That we could have no generalised carbon tax in the next thirty years. Since this is the time when we will be substituting away from the primary energy source. And anything that gets in the way of that will inflict massive harm. I mean bodies piling up harm. You couldn’t think of a worse tax then a tax on coal use right now. A tax on OLD oilfields oil might be acceptable under some circumstances.
But no such study exists. Since the movement is indeed a fraud.
Duodecimal….
Right. So you are basing you currents grinding to a halt scare on the basis of the massive months or weeks long deluge of freshwater that proceeded the younger dryas period.
Now how implausible is that?
The lake that had been created was surely the greatest collection of fresh water (apart from ice) that had ever accumulated in the history of the planet. Many times larger then all the great lakes put together. When the ‘dam’ burst the water rushed out in what must have been a flow which made the Amazon look like a trickle. It landed straight on top of the Gulf Stream and physically stopped it cold in a process that fans of liberty can readily picture in their minds eye.
This is an unrepeatable event. And if this is what the environmentalists are basing their global warming equals global cooling scare on then we see the virulence of the environmentalist movement and the secular religious nature of it as well.
Bad science by public tit science workers.
Ah, very well.
The thing is that there are several otherwise reputable authors posting in this and other significant Austrian/Anarchist-Capitalist sites who seem to shut down their reasoning abilities completely when it comes to certain issues that happen to have advocates who are among the worst statists/collectivists.
Since one of the more significant of those blogs does not allow comments, I unloaded some of that pent-up iritation on Reisman’s post here.
The two biggest issues that this archetype of authors seem to have blinders on are climate change and evolution. Just because most of the individuals who predict climate change have a devastating collectivist agenda doesn’t mean that climate change itself is not happening. It’s an ad hominem fallacy.
“The fact you don’t think that any scientists claim that human warming is definitely going to overmatch the natural tendency toward glaciation kind of begs the question what on earth you think this debate is all about!”
Exactly. What is it all about? You tell me. Its a disgrace is what it is.
But the fact is they aren’t claiming this and they cannot claim this. But they skirt the issue all the time. They have to skirt the issue to continue the fraud since this is the key policy question.
And Graeme, my last comment to you, is that I explicitly stated that I do not know if there is even enough freshwater ice melting near the Gulf Stream to replicate the shutdown that occured at the end of the last ice age.
This is my last comment addressed to you because:
1) Your habitual trolling, and
2) Your lack of reading comprehension in both my posts, firstly regarding the actual point of one post, and ignoring chunks of the other.
So, with that, GOOD DAY SIR.
Right.
Good.
Duodecimal has come round. Now how about CMB and Tom?
Wow. I guess I spoke too soon.
Don’t wimp out Duodecimal. Is there anything left here to defend the global warming scare? I don’t think there is. I don’t think there is a single argument left.
“And Graeme, my last comment to you, is that I explicitly stated that I do not know if there is even enough freshwater ice melting near the Gulf Stream to replicate the shutdown that occured at the end of the last ice age.”
There isn’t. So now you know.
The Gulf Stream has the momentum of 20 Amazons. And of course there is no build-up of meltwater that could possibly replicate what we are talking about here.
And when people don’t like or want liberty or property (or want those of others)?
That’s the bottom line. Pointing guns at people in the name of some higher collective good, and prohibiting them from achieving their own good. That’s socialism. That’s environmentalism.
That’s also corporatism and capitalism too.
Is the enforcement of property rights not also a higher good (and it is collective in that even anarchocapitalists will enforce it upon those they disagree with)?
The Red thugs wanted to control the economic system to set things right. The Green thugs want to control the environment, especially the climate, to set things right.
So do the thugs of whatever color here want to control the society to set things right (to create freedom)? Or would that be false imprisment? Leave all the violations of government and private persons be?
Is it the color that makes the thug and the pointing of guns wrong, or are they intrinsically wrong?
If you are hypnotized, or in the middle of a psychotic episode, and think a bear is coming in the room to attack you, you would probably shoot the bear.
If you think that bear is going to destroy the earth by making it too warm, then the perfectly rational thing is to shoot it before it does.
If you think that bear is stealing food and thereby creating mass starvation (yes, the allusion to Russia, Stalin, and the Ukraine as well as their accusation against capitalists is intentional), it is also perfectly rational to shoot the bear.
If you think the bear is taking hard earned property from the rightful owners, same.
The problem is that if the bear is an illusion or an hallucination, you will likely shoot someone instead.
I need to draw this distinction, because IF there was clear evidence of a clear and present danger, even the capitalists would react differently.
(also when I say “Global Warming”, I’m referring to the theory of climatic catastrophe, not merely a little whatever-the-opposite-of-ice-age is or the yearly or even decadal variations).
The greens and reds are simply wrong. This error in the beginning causes them to do evil, not because they aren’t acting rationally, but because they are acting on bad data or bad logic.
And to ascribe evil motives to them is usually just as wrong as their ideas. Labeling them might give some release for anger, but does nothing to convince them of their error.
They believe that Global Warming is true. We believe that Liberty is true (even more than good). In this we ought to seek the victory of truth by methods which will accomplish the victory (My thoughts go to our 2nd gen army fighting 4th generation war in Iraq and Afghanistan and failing badly).
“That’s also corporatism and capitalism too.”
No that’s wrong and silly. This failure to distinguish between the initiation of force and the reaction to it appears to be at the basis of your whole screed.
The sort of ideology you are trying to put over here cannot work in the real world. No use trying to bring that particular brand of anarchy into a global warming debate. You want to sort out your ideas on the other thread.
Dear Professor Reisman, your latest “flat earth” blog posting is disappointing. It seems you are unwilling to get past your own ideology to learn any of the science or to give credit to any of your colleagues who study environmental economics or environmental political science (public choice theory). You continue to ridicule what you don`t understand, at the risk of showing the world who is the bigger fool.
This is a marvelous economy we`ve created, but there are systemic problems due to imperfect property rights and market problems that lead to environmental problems. One can also readily understand NIMBY problems and the desires of both industrialists and environmentalists to influence decisions relating to the vast federal and state land holdings. Your chasing the collectivist ghosts of the past is not a useful tool to understanding or resolving present problems – problems that are compounded where they require international action. The voluntary actions of nations to address climate change and other environmental problems is not different in principle from the actions the same government leaders take to establish global trade rules.
As to the possibility of a switch flipping in the Atlantic thermohaline circuit, it`s a shame that your lack of knowledge on the subject gives you no pause. It`s easily Googled, but your lack of research betrays your lack of interest in letting scientific understanding get in the way of your hunt for big, bad collectivists, be they red or green. Here is some information off of the web page of the world-renowned Wood`s Hole Oceanographic Institute (or “green thugs”, as you would have it):
Are we overlooking potential abrupt climate shifts?
Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.
Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth`s climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. In addition, these climate shifts do not necessarily have universal, global effects. They can generate a counterintuitive scenario: Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates.
This new paradigm of abrupt climate change has been well established over the last decade by research of ocean, earth and atmosphere scientists at many institutions worldwide. But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.
It is important to clarify that we are not contemplating a situation of either abrupt cooling or global warming. Rather, abrupt regional cooling and gradual global warming can unfold simultaneously. Indeed, greenhouse warming is a destabilizing factor that makes abrupt climate change more probable. A 2002 report by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said, “available evidence suggests that abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies.”
But records of past climates—from a variety of sources such as deep-sea sediments and ice-sheet cores—show that the Conveyor has slowed and shut down several times in the past. This shutdown curtailed heat delivery to the North Atlantic and caused substantial cooling throughout the region. One earth scientist has called the Conveyor “the Achilles’ heel of our climate system.”
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.html
You misstate my position as “a supporter of prohibitions on carbon dioxide emissions”. No, I`d like to establish market mechanisms that allow private economic trasactions pertaining to GHGs to more closely reflect the actual costs of such transactions. No one is calling for “probibitiions”. I am not trying to impose my will on anybody – this is a discussion, right? Neither are the “scientists” trying to impose their knowledge – they simply compete with each other to try to understand the world. Rather, industrial captains and elected governmental leaders are listening to the scientists and are figuring out whether climate change is a problem that merits a response due to market failure, and if so how to craft the appropriate response. Is that not precisely what governments are supposed to do? Or should we do away with government altogether?
This is a global discussion that has extended over decades (not as easily addressed as purely domestic pollution), and the Bush administratin is finally starting to take it seriously. Do you really think that the governmental decisions being made at home and abroad to deal with climate change are being driven by collectivists?
Here`s hoping you will clear away the fog created by your own ideological focus.
Sincerely,
TokyoTom
“As to the possibility of a switch flipping in the Atlantic thermohaline circuit, it`s a shame that your lack of knowledge on the subject gives you no pause. It`s easily Googled, but your lack of research betrays your lack of interest in letting scientific understanding get in the way of your hunt for big, bad collectivists, be they red or green.”
Look champ. Don’t be hiding behind google. You explain why CO2 buildup would make us worry less or more about this switch you speak thereof. You tell us when the last switch was and what were the consequences and so forth.
In fact if a switch did occur we would thank our lucky stars that we had melted off some of the ice. In fact we should melt off ALL of the ice so that if this magic fantasy switch comes out of a clear blue sky like you are pretending it might then we will go into the super-glaciation phase of the Malinkovitch cycle with a head start.
You are ducking like mad. Explain this magic switch scare in your own words. Its a beat up. And we will see this when you go to explain it.
CMB,
I see your point: The advocating of no coerced collective action is the advocating of a coerced collective action. Very interesting logic.
A market solution to WHAT CMB?
We need a problem before we have a solution. And so far it looks like the human race, through sheer dumb luck, is doing the right thing by the planet when it comes to CO2.
Now we all concede we don’t know this one way or the other for sure right? But being as there has been twenty plus glaciations in the last 3 million years. And being as the glacial periods last roughly ten times as long as the interglacials. And being as all aspects of the Malinkovitch cycle tell us that the period favouring glaciation is coming upon us and getting stronger……..standing right out on a limb now……….. taking a stab in the dark now……. then I would say that the balance of risks is with glaciation and not runaway overheating.
So a market (ie a taxation) solution for what?
Perhaps you are advocating special tax incentives to use more coal right?
I don’t understand what exactly environmentalist want. Do they want people to stop emitting CO2? What good does it do to set an artificial limit to CO2 emissions? All I know is that a lot of people will probably starve to death if this were the case, and not because of global warming.
“”Are we overlooking potential abrupt climate shifts?
Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.”" quote-
If this has happened already, what is the big deal then? Why are people so obsessed with this phenomenom if it has already happened? And if it has happened in the past without industrial pollution, why bother passing laws to fight something that could happen anyways?
Yeah good point banker.
For my own part I don’t think I’m ignoring anything. Dramatic shifts have happened many times in the past without our intervention. Likely they will happen again from time to time.
But my understanding is that the Milankovitich cycles will be giving us the thumbs down for the next ten thousand years. Meaning that there will be the potential for glaciation.
Glaciers retreat slowly. But when they move forward they come on fast like a slow motion river crushing everything in their path.
As time goes on more and more the situation will be one where glaciation is just a few Cool Northern Summers/Freezing Southern Winters away. The potential for glaciation will grow stronger and stronger over the next two thousand years.
So where does the balance of risks lie?
Well if there is to be a sudden shift we want the ice to be melted off when it occurs. We want the ice melted off to buy us time. And it is to our immense good fortune that this appears to be happening.
That we want the ice melted off to buy us time strikes me as so obvious I almost need to pinch myself when I see all the talk running the other way.
Now if the models were SO well worked out. SO Definite. And there was specific action that could be taken to ward off one of these catastrophic climate shifts…….. then we can take the idea of a substitution towards carbon tax (in the context of tax cuts elsewhere and ‘ruthless financial triage’) seriously. And I do take it seriously but only under this situation. Only under the situation where the balance of risks runs the other way.
But until then the bias (in the face of uncertain knowledge) must be towards liberty. Towards the release of the magical substance that plants breathe. And most of all towards not getting in the way of the vastly expanded use of coal. It and nuclear being the only things that can really do the job for us over the next few decades.
Now I am glad that nature is running WITH and not a against Misean ideology. I consider this to be a bit of a fluke. If it was running the other way and we were still in transition towards a minarchist (or yet even an anarcho-capitalist) situation I would accept substitution towards carbon tax on the instant. ON THE INSTANT.
So this is not me being overly ideological. Its just where the chips fall. And its good for the chips to be falling so clearly and in favour of liberty this time round.
Here are a few questions for the freedom fanatics amongst you.
Imagine I buy an old power plant at market price, and then buy a replacement nuclear reactor in a market, buy uranium in a market, supply nuclear power to a market and then dispose of the nuclear waste by crushing it to fine powder and dissipating it into the air or nearby river or ocean.
Question 1: Am I entitled to do all these steps under the Misean laws of freedom since I respected private property and markets at every step?
Question 2: If I am not entitled, then why not (what part of Misean property rights prevents me)? who will stop me? and how can they do this not “at the point of a gun”?
Question 3: What is a Statist?
Does this mean they can predict what the weather is going to be next week? Or how many hurricanes are coming up this season? Are the models simple extrapolations of past historical data? That a scientist of any field can predict the future of such a complex phenomenom 50-100 years in the future is utterly ridiculous, much less the effect that greenhouse gasses have on the weather. I mean, there are only 50-100 years of decent data. Satillites were not even deployed until ~20 years ago. Who knows, in 10-20 years they could make a break through in fusion power or some other clean technology. But instead, everyone on the face of the Earth is being asked to sacrifice a significant amounts of wealth on the predication that the weather is going to be crappy? Get real.
“Question 1: Am I entitled to do all these steps under the Misean laws of freedom since I respected private property and markets at every step?
Question 2: If I am not entitled, then why not (what part of Misean property rights prevents me)? who will stop me? and how can they do this not “at the point of a gun”?
Question 3: What is a Statist?”
One of the Professors, I forget which one, brought to light something he had found in court cases before the Progressive era. And what was revealed was that citizens would sometimes take polluting businessmen to court for setting up next to them and messing with their turf. And the courts in those days would likely come up with a ruling that reflected the property violation implied. But in the Progressive era this sort of development in law (in what we might call NATURAL law) was set aside in the quest for national grandeur.
Perhaps some sort of holding action is required in the near term. You know. Pollution taxes. Some light-touch regulation. But what we really are after is for the ongoing development and clarification of common law as it relates to property rights.
David Van Der Klauw
Question 1: Am I entitled to do all these steps under the Misean laws of freedom since I respected private property and markets at every step?
If you can find a way to prevent the radioactive waste from entering somebody else’s property against their will, and/or doing harm to any human, then the answer is yes. Otherwise you must pay damages.
Question 2: If I am not entitled, then why not (what part of Misean property rights prevents me)? who will stop me? and how can they do this not “at the point of a gun”?
Maybe the part about ‘peacefully enjoying their property’.
Question 3: What is a Statist?
A person who favours state intervention. In the most general sense it is the antonym for anarchist. On any given issue it is anyone who wants the state to enforce his solution to that issue.
Addendum to the answer for question two. This is also to mr Van Der Klauw.
If you put dangerous stuff on somebody’s property they are entitled to make you pay damages at gun point if you don’t pay voluntarily.
But if sufficiently many agree there are plenty of non-violent ways to enforce something against one person. Starting from the nice/weak end you can
-Refuse to speak to them
-Organise a boykott (thus decreasing their income)
-Refuse to trade with them and convince shops to do the same (so that they have a hard time getting food or whatever else they need)
-Get his neighbours and the owner of his road to shut their property for your target so that he is locked into his own yard until you reach a solution.
Hej,
Your answer actually creates more questions. It seems clear that we need a powerful group to decide what is in fact damage. In my example I was very careful to point out that I placed the pollution into the air, river or ocean. I did not place it directly on my neighbour’s private property.
In Sydney we are banned from burning a pile of leaves, yet may run a wood-fired BBQ, and may smoke a cigarette and exhale. If my neighbour smokes and exhales, how much compensation may I get from him? If he runs a wood-fired BBQ and the smoke comes my way, then how much compensation may I get from him? Which group decides this?
You have suggested I could get the owner of his road to shut the road. Surely this is extortion. Our roads have been legally configured in such a way as to give all property owners (land owners) and all citizens the right to travel on the roads under certain conditions. I cannot get the owner of the road to shut it, because my neighbour is one of the owners. Every citizen has partial ownership, partial control and partial property rights of every “public” road.
Another problem with shutting the road is that the victim may use equipment such as a bulldozer to re-open the road. Only the use of force can prevent him.
I don’t favour state intervention, but I perceive that it is sometimes necessary, like in the case of pollution.
I say that every person should be given a right to a fair share of the planet’s capacity to absorb pollution. Therefore anyone who tries to gain more than their share of this (eg by polluting a lot), should be prevented by the state or forced to pay compensation to others who must consequently under-pollute. Does this make me a statist? – someone who wishes the state to define and enforce sensible private property rights.
KZ: You state that
“The greens and reds are simply wrong. This error in the beginning causes them to do evil, not because they aren’t acting rationally, but because they are acting on bad data or bad logic.
And to ascribe evil motives to them is usually just as wrong as their ideas. Labeling them might give some release for anger, but does nothing to convince them of their error.
They believe that Global Warming is true. We believe that Liberty is true (even more than good). In this we ought to seek the victory of truth by methods which will accomplish the victory (My thoughts go to our 2nd gen army fighting 4th generation war in Iraq and Afghanistan and failing badly).”
It sounds like you are thinking productively. While we might disagree with what our scientists are saying, at least we should be listening to them, right? (As opposed to reds or greens.) And if we are to seek the victory of truth, do you agree that the microeconomics of market failure and commons goods is one of the methods by which we should accomplish the victory?
Others here may disagree with my assessment of the science (which I believe is mainstream), but we ought at least to be able to agree with the economic understanding of which environmental problems occur. That is my chief point, that it is clear Professor Reisman overlooks in his haste to fight red and green thugs.
Regards,
Tom
banker: You ask:
“If this has happened already, what is the big deal then? Why are people so obsessed with this phenomenom if it has already happened? And if it has happened in the past without industrial pollution, why bother passing laws to fight something that could happen anyways?”
Fires occur naturally, but still we pass laws prohibiting arson, and set up courts that enable private persons to seek redress from arsonists (negligent or intentional).
With respect to climate change, the point is that anthropogenic climate change appears to be overriding natural cycles and may lead to warming that is harmful to humans, property and common resources. If we assume, for the purposes of argument, that that is a possibility, then it makes sense to discuss whether we should our change our behavior that is unintintentionally causing the problem. Just as we implement tolls to regulate congestion, so might we establish carbon taxes or tradable emissions permits etc. so that we don’t blindly cause negative climate change – in the same way that we have a trable system for SO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Not all may be ready to agree that GHGs emissions or climate change are such a problem that merits any action – this is a question that is a balance of facts versus our knowledge about the pernicious aspects of governmental regulation. But wwe can still discuss the economic theory of property rights and market failure, and the legitimate role of government without being “collectivists”.
Now the facts are quite complex, and there are some positve externalities as well as the negative ones that have been hyped by environmentalists (let me know if you need help figuring out the bad aspects). Graeme has done a good job pointing out the benefits – more CO2 may mean better agriculture, more favorable northern climes, etc. The questions here are when/whether the benefits are outweighed by the harms, and whether there are market mechanisms by which those who are benefitted compensate those who are harmed (the answer is no – there is no global market in climate).
Regards,
Tom
In other words, you have no idea what will happen. Climate change may happen or it may not? We won’t know until the climate actually changes and if it does change we will never be sure why? Tell me why I should pay a tax because of something you have no clue about?
banker:
Maybe I was being too subtle with you on climate change, to see if we could agree on a principled, economics-based approach to applying our understanding of the facts and the science.
It sounds like you have no idea what will or may happen; if you are actually, curious, the science links in my posts are a good start.
Graeme disagrees, but my personal view is that we are clearly forcing the climate and are looking at substantial and noticeable warming, along with a host of negative consequences. There may be a number of positives, but even in the northern hemisphere these will be counterbalanced by negatives. Read the scientific literature. I think the negatives far outweigh the positives (yes, Graeme, I know you disagree).
And no, I am NOT trying to impose my personal view on anyone. Rather, I am trying to get people to realize that markets are not perfect so in real life we DO have environmental problems, for which economic analysis is quite helpful in understanding. In fact there is ALOT of market-oriented environmental economist literature. A desire to understand the economic roots of environmental problems, and a willingness to act in appropriate cases, does not make one a collectivist.
Tom
Thanks for quoting me, though you completely missed my point/question. The point is that YOU (environmentalist) have no clue what is going to happen in the future. The fact that it is not a fact means there is no reason why anybody should listen to you or any other environmentalist advocating new taxes and regulations. And of course I don’t know what the climate is going to be like in the future because NO ONE does! No one is going to go along with your plan, whatever it may be. You are just going to have to force private citizens to go along with whatever central plan you/environmentalists may have.
Scientists CANNOT predict what is going to happen in the future, no one can. They can guess, but they are probably going to be wrong. To treat climate change and global warming like its the end of the world caused by man, when you yourself admitted that YOU DO NOT KNOW what the climate will be like in the future, is ridiculous. (I can probably quote many scientists that dispute the links you have posted.)
Last point. MARKET = VOLUNTARY. The whole point being that the government does not FORCE pollution quotas or extra gas taxes or any of that garbage.
Your answer actually creates more questions.
Then I’ll try to answer them.
It seems clear that we need a powerful group to
decide what is in fact damage.
Why?
In my example I was very careful to point out that I placed the
pollution into the air, river or ocean. I did not
place it directly on my neighbour’s private
property.
It doesn’t matter if you put it directly there or use some other factor to bring it to them. What matters is if your actions lead to it ending up on their property.
In Sydney we are banned from burning a pile of
leaves, yet may run a wood-fired BBQ, and may
smoke a cigarette and exhale. If my neighbour
smokes and exhales, how much compensation may I
get from him? If he runs a wood-fired BBQ and the
smoke comes my way, then how much compensation may
I get from him? Which group decides this?
If you knew when you got your house that you would get his smoke on you you get nothing. That’s called coming to the nuisance. If you homesteaded a smokeless place and he then comes there and smokes you get as much as you need to get back to a smokeless home + legal costs the first time, then if he continues to smoke on you without permission you get a much larger sum that is determined by your local court after you sue him the first time.
You have suggested I could get the owner of his
road to shut the road. Surely this is extortion.
I believe Walter Block removed extortion from the libertarian legal code. See “Defending the Undefendable”.
Our roads have been legally configured in such a
way as to give all property owners (land owners)
and all citizens the right to travel on the roads
under certain conditions. I cannot get the owner
of the road to shut it, because my neighbour is
one of the owners. Every citizen has partial
ownership, partial control and partial property
rights of every “public” road.
Public roads, like other “public property” is an abomination that comes from taxation. In anarchocapitalism roads are private.
If the road is owned by an organisation there must be some procedure for making decisions in the organisation, right? Then you must use those procedures. If you can’t convince the owner/s/ to shut the road, then you can’t do it. That is a very harsh measure that can’t be done all the time.
Another problem with shutting the road is that the
victim may use equipment such as a bulldozer to
re-open the road. Only the use of force can
prevent him.
And then you would be using force to defend your property against his vandalism. Or defend your lives if you have people standing there to block him.
I don’t favour state intervention, but I perceive
that it is sometimes necessary, like in the case
of pollution.
Then you are a statist on some issues related to pollution.
I say that every person should be given a right to
a fair share of the planet’s capacity to absorb
pollution. Therefore anyone who tries to gain more
than their share of this (eg by polluting a lot),
should be prevented by the state or forced to pay
compensation to others who must consequently
under-pollute. Does this make me a statist? –
someone who wishes the state to define and enforce
sensible private property rights.
Yes. For starters it means that you do want a state to exist, which makes you a statist in the most general sense. Secondly you want the state to define property rights where they didn’t previously exist, I guess through legislation, which makes you a statist on that issue. I guess statist is the ‘normal’ postion, anarchist is more unusual.
Quotes:
“I say that every person should be given a right to
a fair share of the planet’s capacity to absorb
pollution.”
Can you say with absolute certainty what exactly the planet’s capacity for pollution is?
banker:
Your heart is in the right place, but you really don’t know how markets work or fail. I provided links on environmental economics on another thread; here are some more to CONSERVATIVE environmental economists:
Political Economy Research Center: http://www.perc.org/about.php?id=700
Competitive Enterprise Insititute: http://www.cei.org/gencon/023,05168.cfm
American Enterprise Institute:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24091,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Bottom line? PROPERTY RIGHTS are needed for “voluntary” markets to function. Accordingly, elementary economics means I can predict the future – where there are no property rights, common or “free” resources will be overconsumed and underproduced. The government plays an essential role in supporting property rights, even in some cases creating the property rights, such as SO2 emissions permits under the Clean Air Act.
You also demonstrate you have no understanding of science. If scientists can’t predict the future, then how can they put satellites in space, generate nulcear power and get modern industry to function? We have laws of physics, etc. The fact that some systems are complicated doesn’t mean we can’t make any reliable predictions about them. You might dismiss what scientist say about climate change, but have you actually read any of the literature, other than those telling you what you’ve already decided you wanted to hear?
Tom
Banker,
I cannot say with absolute certainty what the planet’s capacity for pollution is. I would expect there would be a curve with a given level of pollution leading to a given level of degradation. Then of course there is no single simple concept of pollution and degradation.
We all have our own opinions on what we prefer and what pollution is.
Eg I like seeing old car bodies and wind-turbines and would like the planet rid of crocodiles and sharks. Yet many other people consider the first two pollution and seek to conserve the latter.
The earth is a planet that contains many finite resources. The ability to absorb many kinds of pollution is merely one of these finite resources. If you don’t understand how society can allocate a conventional finite resource, then you won’t understand pollution either.
hej,
It seems that I am an anarchocapitalism statist.
I believe that since a most powerful gang will form and will define and enforce its preferred property rights, I encourage the formation of a most powerful gang to define and enforce property rights that I prefer. In other words I ask the govt to do the right thing by me – which to the extent that I am unselfish includes me asking the govt to do the right thing by others. If that makes me a statist so be it. I’d say it is being realistic and just acting naturally as a human.
What is the alternative?
A) Hope that no gang forms?
B) Try to convince all people to voluntarily respect the property rights that you prefer?
If you aim to convince 100% of people to respect your preferred definition of property rights then you are a statist because you are trying to create a all-encompasing govt out of 100% of the people.
If you try to convince a most powerful section of the people to respect and enforce your preferred definition of property rights then you are a statist because you are trying to create a standard govt that must use force against the weaker people that do not support your preferred definition of property rights.
It seems to me that being a statist is an unavoidable part of living with other humans.
If you are shipwrecked on an island of 10 people then there will likely be 10 different preferred definitions of private property to select from. How to decide which one to stipulate and enforce? Easy, the most powerful gang that forms will have its way – fact. Anything else – fantasy.
“The earth is a planet that contains many finite resources.”
Put a price on these resources. Putting a price on them makes them infinite for all intents and purposes. Since you will always be able to get as much of the resource as you want for a price.
Tokyo-tom – You have identified the problem of the commons as the one which would apply to the Global Warming (or most other environmental problems), provided the problem is an actual one. I would say listen to the scientists, but many who hold to the theory aren’t climatologists (does an organic chemist’s opinion have equal weight?), and there is division, and the predictions are based on extrapolations on models which may or may not be flawed.
I don’t know of any that they put the data from <1900-1970 in which correctly predicted 1970-2000, or some other range, so aren’t the kind of prediction that demands attention because the model and/or method hasn’t been shown to be reliable to within X%, where X needs to be over 80.
But the others here also misstate the idea of prediction. I can’t state with certainty what the value of the DJIA or Gold will be one year from now, but I can look for indicators (Actually, Technical Analysis is probably a good analogy for climate models). Companies are historically overvalued, investor sentiment is extremely bullish (which is extremely bearish). I could go on. Or, if you have certain things going on in your bloodstream, it may not mean your kidneys are failing, you have diabetes, or something else, but the probability is usually known and often calls for decisive tests.
The scientists are subject to the standards of logic and reason and can make their case. They haven’t so far. They have opinions, but these are educated guesses and their predictions are not unlike the “new ice age” which was on all the magazine covers in the 1970′s with “all scientists agreeing”.
They merely have to show a chain of causality. They can’t.
(Sorry for being derisive, but to give an example of pseudoscience: We ban CFCs, though they are heavier than air, sink into the soil, and are digested by bacteria. Mt. Pinatubo which in one eruption injected more chlorine into the stratosphere than the entire earth’s production of CFCs can’t possibly be responsible because these are good little natural chlorine molecules. Oh, but ozone molecules, when they see a CFC molecule 50 miles below swoon and decompose; of course the patents on CFC were running out, but not their substitutes…; The “global warming” science is better, but not by much).
But the big problem with something like a Global Warming – or national defense – is that it tends to be a Prisoner’s dilemma writ large (if I turn you in, I go free, if you turn me in you go free, if we both keep silent we both go free, if we both turn each other in neither go free). Action can only be collective, as will be the benefits. You can’t have only those who didn’t act to prevent environmental damage or an invading army’s conquest have their land affected. Either the whole will be saved or lost. If enough people rely on others to act, and instead free-load, it will be lost, but if they knew it would be lost, they would act.
I don’t know the right name for this, but it strictly isn’t a “commons” issue, but is related.
It is in everyone’s individual and personal interest to ignore or avoid dealing with or actively confronting such a threat (since they get the benefits but pay no cost), while it is in everyone’s collective interest to do the opposite (because the ultimate cost will be greater, i.e. no benefit and lots of damage if too few act).
10% can get a free lunch from the 90%, but then another 10% will say why shouldn’t they too get the free lunch, and eventually you have 90% who want the free lunch, and 10% who can’t provide it.
On Global Warming, I misspoke can’t for haven’t:
[Scientists] merely have to show a chain of causality. They can’t.
They can’t from EXISTING data and analysis. I.e. they haven’t demonstrated they can predict climate to the extent necessary to take action on global warming, AND they would have to show that the actions will result in a cure. Banning fossil fuels might be like throwing people into volcanoes. The natives might feel better, but the volcano will continue or stop on its own.
This is the second part of the problem. If a Doctor said you needed chemotherapy, with all the accompanying symptoms, you would really like to be certain first you had cancer. Most proposed GW cures are economic chemo, not a little pill. If the Doctor is wrong about my rash, either I’ve spent a few dollars on some skin cream I didn’t really need, or it might annoy me for some time longer. If I didn’t need to go through expensive rounds of chemo, I would be more than annoyed.
The symptoms in our climate are not inconsistent with decadal oscillators in the oceans, solar output, etc. and we can’t even model those correctly. We still haven’t had a “great hurricane of 1938″ or the one that destroyed the Key West railroad which recorded the lowest barometric pressure reading. But that was last cycle, and we’ve been in the calm part from 1950-1990, but are going back to the nasty part. Think 1929 when stocks were still considered safe until oops – we repeat our grandparent’s mistakes.
Maybe there is a problem with “Greenhouse Gases”, but diagnose it properly first. Rational people will pay to cure potentially fatal diseases. But the greens cry wolf. That doesn’t mean there is no wolf, but I want clear evidence, not a poll of interested parties, educated guesses, or carefully tweaked models that were wrong about today 5 years ago.
We need good information to make good decisions, e.g. what percentage would we need to reduce emissions to prevent things from getting too bad – and do we include China and India this time? If a 20% reduction would give 80% of the benefit – saving farmland, not melting the icecaps, etc., it is far more doable than the demand for 95% reductions but the current science can’t even begin to provide these answers.
Still, the market would be better at providing a solution if it is a problem. How to harness the market to solve a collective problem is a topic for discussion, but the problem has to be real and defined.
The attitude (as with CFCs) is ban first and hope things are right. But the ban kills people – the elderly and disable who cannot now afford the more expensive A/C die in heat waved. Yes, just like throwing people into volcanoes. GAIA is as bloodthirsty as any of the old Aztec gods, just more subtle. I for one am not willing to bend for her demands for human sacrifice. That is not science, it is religious dogma.
My advice is to never talk about this issue without mentioning glaciation and plant yields. The left has gotten this issue pinned down as one of denial. And debates can go on for thousands of posts without either side getting to the nub of the issue.
“If a 20% reduction would give 80% of the benefit – saving farmland, not melting the icecaps, etc.,”
I know that’s just an example. But you have things ass-backwards here. CO2 should be expected to thaw out farmland and increase crop yields. And if you don’t want glaciation then melting ice is rather a good thing. if not something of a priority.
tz, interesting comments.
On the science, I would encourage you to read some of the science I’ve linked to. Just because it’s hard for a layman to understand or explain is not a reason to suppose the bulk of the scientists have it all wrong. It is clear that GHGs have been rising sharply, and temperatures as well. Growing seasons and plant ranges are shifting, the Great Lakes no longer freeze, the tundra is rapidly thawing (releasing more methane), and the Arctic Ocean and Greenland are melting – which leads to further melting as more ocean is exposed to the sun and is warmed as a result.
Here is an interesting and exhaustive site by a Stanford climatologist that explains alot: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html.
On the political economy of dealing with climatre change, I think you’ve hit one of the key issues relating to environmental problems generally – there are ofter “free rider” problems with trying to make changes. [You say "But the big problem with something like a Global Warming - or national defense - is that it tends to be a Prisoner's dilemma writ large (if I turn you in, I go free, if you turn me in you go free, if we both keep silent we both go free, if we both turn each other in neither go free). Action can only be collective, as will be the benefits."]
This is one of the reasons why the Bush administration prefers to do nothing – actions that we take may impose a cost on us, but will benefit everyone. Accordingly, it makes sense to arrange for others to agree to a joint, binding regime before taking any action; unless such an agreement is reached, the various parties prefer to take steps that look good, but don’t have much meaning – such as the Kyoto protocol.
The newly-announced partnership with India and China is one step by the Administration to build bridges to meaningful GHG actions. In the meanwhile, the Administration has been throwing money at the problem – as governments are wont to do, both to provide a gravy train and for the political cover it offers (see, we’re doing something).
However, there are unilateral steps that still make economic sense, given the domestic externalities relating to fossil fuel consumption (and the defense and exploratio/consumption subsidies already in the market).
Regards,
Tom
Comments on this entry are closed.