The New York Times has reported that California’s Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, is suing the six largest automobile manufacturers because of their alleged contribution to “global warming” and its resulting damage to the State of California.
“Global warming,” it reports the attorney general as saying, “is causing significant harm to California’s environment, economy, agriculture and public health. . . . Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming . . . .”
The suit accuses the auto companies, in the words of The Times, “of creating a public nuisance by building millions of vehicles that collectively discharge 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.”
Mr. Lockyer and his supporters apparently to not think in terms of principles. If they did, they would realize that the logic on the basis of which he is suing the automobile companies would also enable him to sue Caltrans, the state agency responsible for highway, planning, construction, and maintenance. He could sue Caltrans for its role in making possible the presence of the millions of automobiles in the state emitting carbon dioxide. After all, if Caltrans had not built its roads, the number of automobiles that would have been sold in California would have been far less, and thus the problems that Mr. Lockyer complains of would also have been far less. By extension, he could add to the list of defendants the state legislators who voted for the annual budgets of Caltrans.
And by the same logic, applied at a more fundamental level, he could sue all the millions of individual California residents whose purchases of automobiles over the years provided the automobile manufacturers with the incentive and financial means to continue their allegedly destructive activity of providing people with convenient, low-cost means of transportation. Few things are more certain than that in the absence of their purchases, very few automobiles would ever have come into California.
As the chief law enforcement officer of the state, Mr. Lockyer is armed. His utterly bizarre lawsuit shows that he is also dangerous.
In an earlier era, when confronted with the possibility of encountering an armed and dangerous man, citizens were cautioned not to attempt to approach him but to summon law enforcement instead. The tragedy—the joke—is that today Mr. Lockyer and others of his ilk so often are law enforcement.
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. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
{ 29 comments }
If a terrorist organization wanted to do serious damage to the U.S. economy, they could simply front candidates for state attorneys general in key states–New York, California, et al.–and once elected, have these AGs collude to create a massive recession by persecuting businessmen in key sectors. As Bill Anderson and Candace Jackson pointed out in a JLS article, Rudolph Giuliani’s misconduct in the 1980s helped prolong the 1990-1991 recession. It’s no stretch to say that with enough prosecutorial misconduct, a recession or depression could be created almost out of thin air.
who is John Galt ?
why not go after those that drive the cars?
“government can not rule an innocent man — govt can only rule criminals — and when society is short on criminals — we pass laws to create them “
who is John Galt ?
why not go after those that drive the cars?
“government can not rule an innocent man — govt can only rule criminals — and when society is short on criminals — we pass laws to create them “
By the same logic, he could sue us all for existing. By way of simply breathing, we convert O2 into CO2; therefore, we are contributing to the pollution of the world.
Attorney General Lockyear should be suing the Federal Government.
If it was not hiding the cost of Middle East gas in the Pentagon budget, industry subsidies, and the Feds creating money out of thin air we would pay $5 to $7 a gallon for gas.
The result would be much less gas consumption and less polution.
Also, other energy would be more competitive and used.
See Michael Stieber’s ‘Let’s stop hiding true cost of gas’ in the Aug 13 06 bouldercamera.com.
Clyde Richey
What subsidies do oil companies get from the Feds? The feds did want to institute a windfalls tax. I am just curious.
Roads don’t count because that is sunk cost for everyone (not a subsidy).
Neal:
That’s the answer! Government-mandated extinction of the human race as phase one in a return to plant-only life!
Clyde Richey:
If Person reads your post, get ready for a hissy fit.
I’ve been wondering if this California lawsuit is going to the start of another Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement cartel plan…
banker,
Couldn’t one argue that evironmental and other regulations that restrict entry into the field confer a quasi-monopolistic grant upon existing oil refiners?
Also I don’t understand how roads are a sunk cost. They of course must be continually maintained and replaced over time. This is true of all capital goods. Doesn’t the fact that these goods [roads] are financed via taxation entail that they provided at the expense of one class for the benefit of another?
Note, I’m not trying to start a big brouhaha. Unfortunatley it seems that many of the threads here on the Mises.org blog are starting to degenerate into screaming matches for too quickly…
Let’s see if I’ve got this correct…
The State expropriates funds from individuals to build roads because it says only it, The State, can. In building these roads and in enforcing apartheid, oops! I mean zoning laws, The State spreads everything out away from everything that individuals do: work, entertainment, and living. In other words, the roads and the apartheid, I mean zoning laws, do not allow individuals to tend to their own geogrphic desires vis-a-vis housing, work, and entertainment. And The State also has decided that only it can provide “mass transit”, legally…
Now, since everything has been spread out artificially, individuals MUST use cars, are indeed FORCED to use cars, to get from here to there. And now The State says there’s too much muck in the air.
Why don’t they just get out of the spreading-everything-out-thus-forcing-us-into-cars business? Seems rather simple to me…
I hate suburbs. I hate zoning laws. I hate “social engineers”. The previous post refers to why I think of roads as a sunk cost. Plus the fact that legislatures use transport as an excuse to have a slush fund.
Dr. Reisman:
Thank you for drawing our attention to an interesting matter. I imagine that you do not oppose the use of the courts to resolve environmental disputes per se, but just the use of litigation in the case of climate change. After all, Miseans not merely recognize but state loudly that the use of the common law (that is, seeking redress through the courts) seeking was one of the chief ways in which parties were able to work out their respective property rights prior to the days when governments gradually restricted those rights through direct regulation that benefitted favored industrial interests.
Do you still share the Misean view that judicial solutions are preferable to legislative/regulatory ones? If so, I wonder if you could help us to understand just when it is that you think that judical solutions are improper. Surely you are willing to leave the decision in this case up to the court?
You might note that there is increasing dissatisfaction with the rent-seeking and rigid over-bureaucratization that Miseans recognize are the inevitable concomitants of government environmental regulation, and increasing atttempts to seek redress for environmental ahrs the old – through common law nuisance suits in the courts. A few recent cases involving interstate matters are described here: http://www.storiesthatmatter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=39.
Concerning climate change, you might also be aware that the New England states are suing major midwestern utilities in the federal courts for harms allegedly caused by climate change. While there are plenty of obviously formidable difficulties in trying to make a climate change case (what damages, who caused them, etc.), can you confirm whether you see any difference IN PRINCIPLE between climate change cases and other enviromental common law cases?
You may also be aware that the resort to common law solutions (litigation) in the case of climate change was recently discussed by these following respected libertarian commentators:
Jonathan H. Adler, Associate Professor and Associate Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland
Steven F. Hayward., F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., and Senior Fellow, Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco
Robert L. Bradley Jr., President, Institute for Energy Research, Houston
Roy E. Cordato, Vice President for Research, John Locke Foundation, Raleigh, North Carolina
Jane S. Shaw, Senior Fellow, PERC, Bozeman, Montana
Julian Morris, Executive Director, International Policy Network, London
Kenneth W. Chilton, Director, Institute for Study of Economics and the Environment, Lindenwood University, St. Charles, Missouri
Allow me to quote a portion of the discussion:
You might be aware that the NE states lost in the federal district courts, but have appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals, wher they may very well fail given the difficulty of the causation, damages and other issues. But I suppose that one of the disturbing elements of the case so far is that it was dismissed by the district court on the basis that this should not be a matter addressed under the common law of nuisance in the courts, but only by the federal government! I would think that this argument should trouble all good Miseans.
You might take further note that Sen. Inhofe, has filed an “amicus” brief in the Second Circuit case, in which his attorneys argue that climate change policy, which he has so fiercely blocked, is “a political question that should be decided by Congress rather than by the courts.” http://www.wlf.org/Litigating/casedetail.asp?detail=410
What do you think of this naked power grab by Sen Inhofe?
TT,
further from Adler, through your link: “…There is no global institution capable of administering such a rule, and we would all rightly fear any institution that had such power. Nor should we have any confidence that current multinational institutions or national governments would handle compensation in a just or efficient manner.”
+the above from Cordato, leads me to ask: Are you finally putting your “Cap ‘n Trade”-fantasies behind you?
Hoffer-san:
I think you are intelligent enough to better understand what I am up to.
I would love to have a serious discussion about what solutions, if any, are practical and would cause the least harm, but first I need to get Miseans to understand that there IS a problem (not only on climate change, but on many other issues where our modern economies pull on chains of destruction elsewhere).
This of course is a source of bewilderment and amusement for me, since I think that the Misean approach to property rights is the singularly most perceptive tool in understanding the institutional underpinnings of natural resource problems. And their understand of Public Choice analysis (how special interests and the state engage in cycles of theft and mismanagement) are very effective in understanding the incentives that block more effective policy.
But wait, I`m still waiting for you to explain the language YOU speak.
I have some policy preferences, but really have not prejudged, except that I think it clear that a PURE Misean solution, involving solely private action, can`t work given the multiplicity of parties and jurisdictions. The best we can hope for is a quasi-Misean solution that creates some clear property rights and then lets individuals decide what happens after that. Ther are too many corporations wedded to big government, but I would be happy if they accepted a grand bargain by which we junked all of our environmental laws and corporate welfare in exchange for limited government involvement in establishing certain private property rights.
Regards,
Tom
TT,
Sy Syms said it best when he said: “An educated consumer is Our Best Customer.”
The trans-fat episode(chosen, merely, for its proximity on the weblog), re: Fast-Food chains, is a good example: The initiative came from Customers who saw a problem, organized to spread information about it and create awareness, and succeeded in changing the business practices of “corporations wedded to big government”.
Now, do I think the Aims of All such groups are accurate? No. But, Aim they Do, and prove results can be acheived through “solely private action”.
You seem to think that this deal, with multi-various governments/jurisdiction “authorities”, in re: GHG emissions/AGW is necessary and the “last” concession needed to be made. I don’t. It isn’t necessary, and, to me, would, instead of being the “last” concession, be the first of a great many more.
We’ve learned, previously, or need to re-learn, that Individual Action, Liberty, is the only Value that purchases any lasting Improvement.
Hoffer-san:
What you say is indisputable, but do you intend to deny any role for government in anything? To what ends do you consider a resort to government to be legitimate? And how do you analyze environmental problems, except through the terms lack of clearly defined and enforceable property rights? You have still not given me your analytical framework, although you criticize the Misean terms.
As for governments, I am not an anarchist. Individual investors pool their assets and invest through funds and corporations, to which they may provide overarching direction, but do not micromanage, instead using the services of managers. The managers of course have their own interests, but to check abuses the investors have the power to audit and to fire the managers. The analogy is not perfect, but perhaps instructive (despite abuses).
If one lives in a Amish/Mennonite community, condominiun or gated development, one’s manner of living is restricted by any number of rules of that community and to its deliberative bodies, which the individual is required to support as a condition of membership. Are these communities mini states? If not, what is the difference?
Of course I am in favor of coordinated private actions by citizens and corporations to deal with the challenges and opportunities relating to climate change; much of course is happening, but even trying to impose community sanctions in the way of moral suasion is unlikely to be fully effective. Why cannot we not use our governments to step into the gap? They may be unwieldy – and I see much to reform – but on a cost-benefit basis don’t you feel that antipollution laws have been worthwhile?
Tom
TT,
With this: “Individual investors pool their assets and invest through funds and corporations, to which they may provide overarching direction, but do not micromanage, instead using the services of managers.”– You seem to be describing Mutual Fund “investors”, primarily. MutFunds are one of the greater cons, currently going, in our economy. By their very structure, they(MutFunds) strip a valuable piece, the most valuable(?), of the Economic benefit, the Voting Rights, from those, the MutFund (de-)vestor, who paid for it, and charge them a fee for doing so.
Index Funds and ETFs do the same, though less egregiously, yet have a similiar/different problem. The companies, obviously already in existence, the chosen few, that make up those multi-various “Indexes”/”Sectors” benefit from an ongoing lower cost of capital that further entrenches their practices, whatever they may be.
The largest ETFs: DIA, SPY, QQQQ serve to entrench, blindly, the Status Quo, accelerate the Homogenization of the Economy(Mono-Culture=Strength, right?) and gives rise to the phenomenon of “The S&P 500-ization” of U.S.(at the minimum) Economy.
While there are some ETFs, fairly recently minted and very small, that are more “future-focused”, they still suffer from the same defect of structure that leads to passivity and furthers Ignorance.
Also, “community, condominium or gated development, one’s manner of living is restricted by any number of rules of that community and to its deliberative bodies, which the individual is required to support as a condition of membership. Are these communities mini states?” Seems that they could be construed as such, though, So What?
Operative? “mini-”
This: “..even trying to impose community sanctions in the way of moral suasion is unlikely to be fully effective..” Why limit one’s palette of potential action to mere “moral suasion”? Try: “No Play? No Pay!” or: “Defund to Defend!”. ‘Caines, and Peoples the World over, need to remember that there are “Elections” every day and in every way. The way an Individual chooses to spend/invest their “dollar” is, probably, the most valuable and useful Vote they can make(Diebold, not necessary)
Also, this: “..on a cost-benefit basis don’t you feel that antipollution laws have been worthwhile?” Simply, No. Further, at the minimum, it gives Individuals, yet again, the False sense that: “Something’s “Being Done” about it.”/ “That’s being “Taken Care of…”". The type of “solution” you continue to propound simply intensifies the Ignorance–Intervention–Further Ignorance… negative loop.
On the other hand, “…on a cost-benefit basis…”, For whom? The “polluters”? The State? For them, it’s been a Grand Bargain. Yet again “they” have been able to purchase immense Power(the Seen) at the, seemingly, low-cost of an unknowable(the Unseen) reduction in standards of living.
“Why cannot we not use our governments to step into the gap?” See:
http://mises.org/store/Quotable-Mises-The-P218C0.aspx
Interstingly enough, most of the selected quotes on that page are respondant to your Q…
Hoffer-san:
I agree that tools of government must be used cautiously, but disagree that they should not be used at all. I certainly agree that much of environmental llaw should be cleaned up, as I have noted fairly regularly. Suggestions as to what might be a good start can be found here -
Esty: http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/richardstewartresponse.pdf
You argue that indiividual action is the best action, but presumably you approve of participating in coalitions as well. Of course there is lots of consumer action and coalitions of corporations that encourage and support voluntary actions to reduce GHG emission; you approve, I presume. But these voluntary paths of course are restricted by the fact that, due to the underlying propoerty rights failure, there is no private market functioning that prices the costs of using the global atmosphere as a GHG dump. As a result, emissions are free, and users of fossil fuels have no incentives to modify their use or to invest in reducing their use, (other than a personal concern) despite the costs they push off onto others.
Do you acknowledge this, and simply consider it acceptable because of a view that the costs of using government exceeds all benefits?
TT,
This: “As a result, emissions are free, and users of fossil fuels have no incentives to modify their use or to invest in reducing their use,…”–is never true.
“Emissions”, broadly, are result of inefficiency(-ies). The cost of the input/feedstock, the source of the subsequent “emissions”, always provides an incentive to “modify their use or to invest in reducing their use”.
Look, Tom, given that .pdf, and your continual arguments, you’re just looking, it seems, for another excuse for More “government” and Less Liberty.
The History of such courses is well-knowable, they are tragic.
Mark, your unwillingness to engage in discussion is disappointing.
Of course fossil fuel users do have incentives to modify their use and to invest in reducing their use, but only based upon the cost of the fuel itself (and any taxes), which cost does not reflect the costs associated with GHG emissions – since such emissions are now free to the emitter. The same is true of use of other open-access resources, which is the reason why theyse resources are destructively exploited, even when the user is quite aware that the use is unsustainable and contrary to his own long-term interests.
Spare me that crap about looking for more government and less liberty. When ranchers on the high plains realized their use was unsustainable and started to close off the ranges to outsiders, were they looking for more government and less liberty? Consider me an advocate for the closure and privatization of the atmospheric commons.
You, on the other hand, see problems but are an inveterate denier of the causes of them or of the need to discuss solutions. Perhaps it’s because you wish to accomplish nothing?
TT,
I’ve asked you before to give an example of the “commons” you keep referring to…yet, you proffer none.
Are you really, by not doing so, telling (me) that any point on the Globe is already covered by Treaties and/or “Agreements” brokered by your vaunted “Governments”–those that if they just had the “right” regulation by the “right” people, driven by the “right” motives at the “right” time, would bring us blooming deserts and year-round sunny days of 72F weather?
I’m sorry, but those “individuals” have done quite enough, the bloody History of the 20thC will forever attest to it.
The GHG emissions(“excess” thereof), that you seem to think are sooo important, can All be traced back to “Government”, and its queering of the Marketplace. i.e. Do you think “the Market” centralized Electricity generation?
I’ve told you a long time ago, on different thread: If the “Government” was soo interested in “curing” this “problem”, it would dump its data, literally decades of it, into the Nation’s classrooms, corridors, and concourses and make it Plain as Day: Who the “responsible” parties were and where they are.
Themselves, inclusive.
No, not good enough, right? Too many jobs lost for the too few? The too many might learn too much? GMAFB
Though, I’m: “an inveterate denier of the causes”
Right, TT, of course I am~
The market for weather derivatives is already well established. If Bill Lockyer thinks that CA will be negatively impacted by global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, he can hedge off the cost in the OTC Derivatives market. The only problem is that he will have to accept the contact terms that will be specified in terms of actual measured temperatures.
If he is wrong he will have to pay.
On the other hand, the shakedown approach has very little risk, except for the fact that Calpers and Calstrs are major shareholders in all the big oil companies.
Check out this article by Michael Crichton in which he compares the current global warming hysteria with the “science” of eugenics: http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html
Mark, I agree with this*
“”Government” was soo interested in “curing” this “problem”, it would dump its data, literally decades of it, into the Nation’s classrooms, corridors, and concourses and make it Plain as Day: Who the “responsible” parties were and where they are.
Themselves, inclusive.”
I would be delighted if the government would provide the information that would show that it is really a part of the problem. But of course they don`t want to, since it would bring a heavy political price.
You seem to believe that disclosure alone would solve the probelm. What gives you reason to believe so?
My own view is that as the atmosphere is an open access resource, neither private property rights or community management would evolve without government involvement. The common law is simply inadequate, and lawsuits such as those decried by Reisman are a waste of time except as a means to push the firms that profit from GHG dumping to seek a federal solution.
Why don`t you tell me how you think a solution will develop otherwise? Simply from consumer pressure? Such pressure is fine by itself, but simply insufficient.
Here`s some more info on commons and the management thereof:
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4064
http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps19.pdf
http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=652
http://www.easibulgaria.org/guide/stroup2_en.php
Regards,
TT
Nice, Roger.
Crichton says:
“I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. …”
“One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.”
“In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.”
So Chrichton trots out this tale about eugenics and Lysenkoism, for the purpose of trying to imply that the science concerning climate change – including historical records – is all a crock, but then says that his analogy may be wrong??? Why bother? Can he seriously be suggesting that all of the world`s major scientific bodies are acting without any scientific basis, simply to achieve some unstated political purpose and to oppress all who disagree?
And is Crichton a climate scientist? What gives him any credibility at all?
About the only thing he says that makes any sense is that “In science, the old men are usually wrong.” and “in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.” The old men disagree not because they can`t get grants, but because agreeing would mean throwing away the world view that they`ve devoted their careers to and admitting they were wrong. So they hold out. That`s why they say that science makes progree one death at a time, as the old guard gives way to what is more recently established.
The old guard may be now outside the mainstream of their colleagues, but if they`re not getting grants it`s not the fault of their peers, but the fact that the sponsors – including a government that has been in stark political denial of climate change and funders such as Exxon, which has committed $100 million to climate change research at Stanford – don`t think they have anything useful to offer. What does this market information tell you about “repression”? And don`t forget what scientists the government is actually suppressing.
And are these old men actually counselling “caution”? We`ve got only one world to experiment with, most climate scientists say we`re running into dangerous territory, and they say – naw, don`t sweat it – let`s just keep running this experiment. If we finally run over a cliff, well then we`ll know it`s time to do something! Don`t these guys sound a little bit more like teenagers?
“We`ve got only one world to experiment with, most climate scientists say we`re running into dangerous territory,”
Funny thing how you regard the act of billions of human beings LIVING THEIR LIVES as “experimenting” with the planet.
“The old men disagree not because they can`t get grants, but because agreeing would mean throwing away the world view that they`ve devoted their careers to and admitting they were wrong.”
That is ludicrous. The disagreement is not on the issue of whether global warming is a real phenomenon or not, but on the particulars and the “gloom & doom” scenarios some cranks advocate. Whenever someone screams “We must do SOMETHING!” with regards to a highly complex system such as the weather, I can only think that person is high on something or has read way too many comic books.
By the way, you left out something out of Crichton’s book, that many of the “Let’s do something!” crowd are usually people of high standards of living who want everyone else to become poor – I got mine, I don’t want you to get YOURS. Such is the level of hypocrisy among the climate cranks.
TT,
What’s up with you? The article, in your first link, from FEE, argues, exactly, against the take, Gov’t Command and Control/ “Cap ‘n Trade”, you’ve been propounding.
As such: “For centuries before anyone in the United States thought much about environmental quality, our common law defined and protected the environmental rights of ordinary people.[10] Enforced by judges in courts across the land, common law protected the right of downstream property owners to receive water and air in undiminished quality for reasonable use. At common law, rivers could not be treated as open sewers if doing so imposed costs on downstream rightholders. Industrial plants could not blow smoke and emissions onto the land and property of ordinary people. The record is filled with cases, here and in Canada, decided under English common-law traditions: where farmers sued industrial plants and won; where citizens of one state sued polluters in another state, and won; and where common-law judges ordered polluters to clean up or shut down. There are also cases where this did not happen, where judges turned away from property-rights enforcement and behaved as policy makers. But when the judges got it wrong, their decisions affected a small number of people, not an entire nation. This, of course, changed with the advent of legislation.
Prior to the passage of federal pollution-control statutes, every major city in the United States had taken steps to define public property rights to air quality. Many states, including California, had taken a river-basin approach to the management of water quality, this in addition to the use of common law. Multi-state compacts were forming. By the 1960s, environmental quality was improving rapidly in many locations. The property rights institution builders were on their way to avoiding a tragedy of the commons. Common law was converting the commons to private property.
This was changed with the passage of federal legislation that effectively nationalized air and water quality in the United States. What was becoming private property was made public property, almost a commons. The new system of command-and-control regulation allowed polluters to operate legally if they had a permit. With permits in hand, new polluters could enter already crowded river basins. The new regime provided political access to industries and municipalities that hoped to postpone the day of reckoning in common law courts. Environmentalists ran interference, since they typically preferred political solutions to remedies based on property rights, markets, and the rule of law. A triumph on the commons was reversed. Tragedy once again reared its head. ”
And, with this: “You seem to believe that disclosure alone would solve the probelm. What gives you reason to believe so?”
TT, when has Ignorance solved any Problem?
Don’t misunderstand, I’m a grand believer in Asymptotes and Short-Run Inefficiences, though, toward Perfect Information lies Better Outcomes.
Mark, you`ll note from Dr. Reisman`s post that we`re moving to a litigation model again, as Congress has proven incapable of handling many environmentla matters well. I presume that you support that, and believe that Reisman is wrong? That of course was part of my point – to tease out what, if any, was the principled basis for objections to litigation dealing with climate change.
Of course I agree with you that information and transactional costs underlie environmental problems; I just don`t think that disclosure, or private transactions are sufficient to do anything meaningful.
I think Francisco has rather capably demonstrated why litigation of course is insufficient to deal with climate change – we are not dealing with a river basin or local air issue, but the global atmosphere, oceans and land use. They are hardly suceptible to resolution in any set of courts, or to puerely private transactions.
Hi, Francisco.
You say, “Whenever someone screams “We must do SOMETHING!” with regards to a highly complex system such as the weather, I can only think that person is high on something or has read way too many comic books.” Some no doubt are. But why do you feel that way when the science academies of the US and all our allies, many major US and international corporations (see the Pew Center, Boeing, Dupont, Exxon and others), the leaders of our allied nations and Bush all say that we should be concerned and maybe do something?
You also say “many of the “Let’s do something!” crowd are usually people of high standards of living who want everyone else to become poor – I got mine, I don’t want you to get YOURS. Such is the level of hypocrisy among the climate cranks.” Do you group all of the people I noted above into this category too? I mean, okay, there are cranks. We don`t have to listen to them. Does that mean we dismiss everyone else, simply because they say what we don`t want to hear?
On the flip side of your comment, do you really think that those who want to do nothing about climate change are taking that stance because they have the best interests of the rest of the world foremost in their minds? COuld it perhaps be that they care about their own self-interest – economic and political – first?
Regards,
Tom
Comments on this entry are closed.