Looking for clarity on global warming

April 16, 2006 3:34 PM by Lisa Casanova (Archive)

Reading the thread on global warming below, I see a common mistake that pops up in a lot of arguments at the intersection of science and policy. With all due respect to the participants in the thread, they are largely talking past one another. This often happens in arguments over global warming, and I think there’s a specific reason for it: there are really two separate questions in the global warming debate, and both sides tend to conflate the two, treating them as though they are the same issue with the same answer.

The thread below can really be thought of as two arguments:

Is human-caused global warming taking place?

If human-caused global warming is taking place, what, if anything, should be done about it?

Consider the two questions separately for a moment.

Is human-caused global warming taking place?

There are two obvious answers to this question: yes or no. It’s largely an empirical question, needing scientific inquiry.

If human-caused global warming is taking place, what, if anything, should be done about it?

This question, which accepts that we are causing global warming, is more complex. There are theoretically many answers, but policymakers and people who believe global warming is a serious problem tend to reduce it as though the answer were a simple dichotomy of 1) the government takes action, or 2) we do nothing.

The problem is, it’s easy to combine these two questions and their answers so that it seems as though a particular solution Y follows logically from a particular answer X, when this is really not the case at all. It distorts the global warming debate so that it seems as though there is only one question: Is human-caused global warming taking place? And the only answers are: No, and therefore we should do nothing, or Yes, and therefore the government needs to take action.

When the two essential questions in the global warming debate become tangled up in this way, those of us who oppose government action feel as though we are placed in an untenable position; either we deny global warming is happening or we acknowledge that it is and therefore accept the necessity of government action. I believe that when we allow the debate to be framed this way, we’re missing what’s really important, and we’re missing the opportunity to make a point that desperately needs making in the public arena.

For this purposes of this post, I’m not going to take a position on whether or not humans are causing global warming. But there is a position I can take: if global warming is real, government action is not the answer. State action is too inefficient, too slow, too vulnerable to power-seeking and rent-seeking behavior, too apt to ignore the serious economic consequences of an action that has popular appeal. I am indebted to Dan D’Amico for also making the vital point, in the context of criminal justice, that government is unable to accommodate citizens’ diverse preferences for the handling of large-scale societal problems. That is why libertarians must disentangle the two questions above and stay focused on the one that is most important to us, the question of state action. The presence and cause of global warming is a scientific question that will continue to be argued. That is as it should be; in science, complacency, the sense that we have all the answers, is always our enemy. But the idea that government is the logical, best, and only answer to the largest-scale problems in society is so appealing that it is often treated as though it needs no debate. It’s this idea, not the idea that we’re causing global warming, that is our enemy. Sitting here at my laptop, I freely admit I don’t know the solution to global warming. But that does not mean that millions upon millions of freely acting humans in a dynamic market cannot or will not produce one. That is the central message, the one we need to keep in front of people. If we can keep our eye on that, whichever way the debate goes, we will be ready.

Bookmark/Share | Comments (104)

Comments (104)

Ryan Fuller

"Yeah, that's a bit snide, but I've already been called a liar by essentially everyone here who engaged me in conversation, in some cases with people saying I'm lying for not admitting the very thing I just said in the previous post."

LIES! This man spreads deception as rats spread plague! Believe none of his petty accusations!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

Published: April 16, 2006 8:16 PM
Dennis Sperduto

"But the idea that government is the logical, best, and only answer to the largest-scale problems in society is so appealing that it is often treated as though it needs no debate.�?

I fully agree with this statement and with the overall thrust of the initial posting. However, I believe that the full posting unfortunately (and possibly inadvertently) downplays the science aspect of the global warming issue. It is scientific analysis that determines what is correct, and enables us to understand and explain reality. We should be as certain as possible that we first correctly understand the science of the issue under consideration. An analogy to two topics in economics may help. Despite my strong classical liberal/libertarian ethical and political beliefs, my support of the market economy first and foremost is based on the immutable, apodictic laws of economic science, and not on ethical/political considerations. For instance, socialism is a completely untenable system of social organization under the division of labor most fundamentally because of strict economic considerations. As another example, economic science unequivocally tell us that a shortage will occur if a price cap is placed on a good or service below the market clearing price. In both of these examples, the laws of economic science are operative no matter what an individual’s ethical/political beliefs.

On the issue of global warming, I believe the younger generations have been bombarded with so much one-sided information that some, maybe most of them more or less accept it (possibly inadvertently) as scientific truth, and have decided that the most important issue is what is the most libertarian way to combat the problem.

Respectively, this is not my understanding of how Mises or Rothbard approached matters. Their support of the market economy was first and foremost based on the conclusions of economic science. Analogously, our position towards global warming first and foremost should be based on the evidence and correct conclusions of the earth sciences.

Published: April 16, 2006 9:09 PM
David J. Heinrich

Lee,

Regarding sea-levels rising and theft, you are confused. Even if you can make a good case for global warming, that doesn't necessarily transfer well into a court of law against specific individuals -- which is where injunctions should be made. There is no vicarious liability. If you can't directly and specifically trace various things to specific actors, then they have to simply be considred a byproduct of natural economic activity.

Published: April 16, 2006 11:03 PM
Walt D.

An alternative approach would be to turn to the wisdom of the futures traders on the Chicago Board of Trade. Rather than going to all the trouble of sorting through and interpreting a mountain of fundamental data and technical indicators, try and find someone in the pit who is consistently wrong. Then, ideally, take the opposite side of his trades. Otherwise, sell when he buys and buy when he sells.
We can take this approach with global warming, or at least what to do about it. The environmental lobby has a spectacular track record of being wrong on just about everything they get involved in – banning DDT – millions of deaths from malaria; nuclear power plants – tonnes of heavy metals and radioactive isotopes belched into the atmosphere by coal-fired plants; national park management – huge forests in Yellowstone and Yosemite burned to the ground; giant sequoia trees infested with parasites. If their policy on global warming is to reduce emissions, then it seems like a slam dunk that this course of action is the wrong one.

A perfectly reasonable objection to this argument would be to point out that the action is supported by global warming scientists. However, as a devotee of this site, why should I have any more confidence in results and predictions of government sponsored scientists than government sponsored economists? I could even argue that the event driven nature of climate change is the counterpart of “Free Will�? in the Axiom of Action.
In this case I could condemn the non-linear differential models used in climate prediction as scientistic.

Now for some speculation on my part. Is their some guiding fundamental principle of physics that would be of guidance in deciding whether the hypothesis that human CO2 fossil fuel burning emissions are causing global warming? Le Chatelier’s Principle states that when a system in equilibrium is perturbed, the system reacts in such a way as to attempt to reverse the change. Open a soda bottle – as the CO2 bubbles off, the liquid in the bottle cools rapidly. The principle can also be extended to explain convection, as in the Universal Law of Thermodynamics. This would tend to indicates that changes induced in the climate system due to the release of CO2, would tend to act to reverse the change. Every farmer knows that warm weather produces good harvests. When fossil fuels are burned, heat and CO2 are produced. During photosynthesis, the energy of the sun is absorbed. Is their any evidence to back up my speculation? Dissenters in the scientific community identified a fundamental flaw in the IPCC argument that the solar output is constant over sunspot cycles. When this error was corrected, it predicted an increase in solar output large enough to account for a large proportion of the increase in global temperature attributed to CO2 increase in the atmosphere. This would tend to indicate that the CO2 global warming component was being offset by other components.

Published: April 16, 2006 11:11 PM
tokyo-tom

Lisa, thanks for your attempt to help clarify the debate. I have made the same effort to separate the science debate from the policy debate any number of times.

I think the science is convincing and am happy to try to help people's understanding in that regard, but agree that given the nature of this site perhaps all that can be accomplished here is to focus on the second question, namely that if human-caused global warming is taking place, what, if anything, should be done about it?

Allow me to make several points in response.

1. Unfortunately, the rest of your post is an unhelpful framing of the response to this question as to either the government should do something, or the government should do NOTHING, without seeking any discussion of the possible ways in which the government mights act and their respective benefits or drawbacks.

You have avoided any discussion of what the "something" might be, in favor of a conclusion that the government should do NOTHING, while dodging discussion: "if global warming is real, government action is not the answer. State action is too inefficient, too slow, too vulnerable to power-seeking and rent-seeking behavior, too apt to ignore the serious economic consequences of an action that has popular appeal" and that "government is unable to accommodate citizens’diverse preferences for the handling of large-scale societal problems."

I commend your honesty in stating your position as to policy, while nevertheless admitting that human-induced climate change may be a real and serious problem. It may be that others who are reluctant for the same reasons to accept any government role (concerns that I have stated many times above that I share, by the way) have preferred simply to deny the problem rather that to declare forecefully that the problem is one that lends itself to no solution outside of the private marketplace.

2. While we can and should leave mitigation measures as much as possible to the private actions of individuals, because there is effectively no property rights regime with respect to the atmosphere your position would essentially deny any measures to limit GHG emissions (or to balance them with sequestration other measures) to prevent exacerbating the situation. In other words, there is no purely private solution to this problem of negative externalities.

Would libertarians similarly say that we should eliminate all government laws and regulations concerning air, ground and water pollution, and that society and individuals will all be better off as a result? I for one simlly cannot accept this conclusion, but believe that government action is affirmative needed to solve problems of market failures. While I would like the least intrusive regulation possible, I think that it is clear that the benefits may justify the costs that will inevitably accompany them (rent-seeking, etc.), such as in case of exisiting anti-pollution measures. The focus should be on closely examining and tailoring regulation to keep costs to a minimum (obviously there will be cases where the costs do not justify any possible benefits).

3. There are many possible governmental actions that can be taken to address problems of market failure, and I have previously linked to many, including the websites of PERC, CEA and AEI, which have many resources on free-market-oriented environmentalism.

In the case of climate change, the Pew">http://www.pewclimate.org/press_room/sub_press_room/2006_releases/agenda_release.cfm">Pew Center on Global Climate Change (coalition of corporations)has many resources, and lists these types of responses ():

"While actions are needed across all sectors, some steps will have a more significant, far-reaching impact on emissions than others and must be undertaken as soon as possible.

- A program to cap emissions from large sources and allow for emissions trading will send a signal to curb releases of greenhouse gases while promoting a market for new technologies.

- Transportation is responsible for roughly one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions, and this report addresses this sector through tradable emissions standards for vehicles.

- Because energy is at the core of the climate change problem, the report makes several recommendations in this area: calling for increased efficiency in buildings and products, as well as in electricity generation and distribution. Incentives and a nationwide platform to track and trade renewable energy credits are recommended to support increased renewable power. In recognition of the key role that coal plays in U.S. energy supply, the report calls for the capture and sequestration of carbon that results from burning coal. Nuclear power currently provides a substantial amount of non-emitting electricity, and is therefore important to keep in the generation mix. The report recommends support for advanced generation of nuclear power, while noting that issues such as safety and waste disposal must also be addressed.

- While most of the recommendations focus on mitigation efforts, the report acknowledges that some impacts are inevitable and are already being seen. As a result, it proposes development of a national adaptation strategy to plan for a climate-changing world.

- Finally, despite the importance of efforts by individual countries on this issue, climate change cannot be addressed without engagement of the broader international community. The report recommends that the U.S. participate in international negotiations aimed at curbing global greenhouse gas emissions by all major emitting countries.

Other recommendations include: long-term stable research funding, incentives for low-carbon fuels and consumer products, funding for biological sequestration, expanding the natural gas supply and distribution network, and a mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program that can provide a stepping stone to economy-wide emissions trading."

4. In a cost-benefit analysis, the costs of doing nothing must also be considered. You implicitly recognize this; unfortunately others here have preferred simply to deny that any problem might exist. Prof. Reisman goes so far as to essentially define away the problem, by concluding that, since any climate change (and presumably other environmental problems) is the "unintended" consequence of private economic decisions, no one has any responsibility for it so it should be treated as an "act of nature". The absurdity of Austrians arguing for irresponsibility on the basis of lack of intention should not be unnoticed or unappreciated.

Published: April 16, 2006 11:21 PM
tokyo-tom

My last post missed the link to the Pew Center. Here is the press release from which I quoted: http://www.pewclimate.org/press_room/sub_press_room/2006_releases/agenda_release.cfm; the main website is: http://www.pewclimate.org.

Regards,

TT

Published: April 16, 2006 11:38 PM
David C

To quote: There are theoretically many answers, but policymakers and people who believe global warming is a serious problem tend to reduce it as though the answer were a simple dichotomy of 1) the government takes action, or 2) we do nothing.
Well, in all fairenss this is probably the strongest argument of all that the "global warming" issue is really a farce. The fact that they feel that they need to frame it that way should be making a screaming statement about the nature of their justifications. Sorta like people demanding official government confirmation of space aliens. If the facts were truely observable, you wouldn't need the government to confirm anything.

Published: April 16, 2006 11:41 PM
quincunx

"Would libertarians similarly say that we should eliminate all government laws and regulations concerning air, ground and water pollution, and that society and individuals will all be better off as a result? I for one simlly cannot accept this conclusion, but believe that government action is affirmative needed to solve problems of market failures."

There is no such thing as market failure - only lack of private property rights.

Yes, we should get rid of all those government laws. But we would obviously incorporate the ones that make sense into private law. In fact we had many - but empire-building took precedence over property rights.

This is not even to mention the fact that the biggest polluters have ALWAYS been governments. It will always continue to be this way - they have no incentive to clean up their own mess.

Published: April 17, 2006 12:16 AM
R.P. McCosker

I know Lisa and tokyo-tom have made passing reference to it, but it can't be underemphasized enough in the the climate (no pun intended) of discourse today:

The issue pertains to *human-caused* global warming. Global temperatures are always trending upward or downward. They always have been throughout the lifetime of this planet.

Right now the trend is upward, which in itself signifies nothing about causation. It's moderate, as such rises go, but undeniable.

Indeed, as a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) physicist I heard lecture a few years ago (at an LBL open house day) pointed out, in the cycle of ice age glaciations and retreats over the past million years, it's perfectly in keeping with the temporal patterns of recent past climate change that we would be experiencing just such a temperature rise right now.

The speaker presented a slide of a detailed chart that made quite clear that nothing about current temperature trends looks abnormal in the context of the last many hundred thousand years. On the contrary, such an increase is entirely predictable, give or take a couple of hundred years.

The physicist offered his conclusion that he saw no reason to either attribute or deny human causation in the current upward trend.

Published: April 17, 2006 3:03 AM
tokyo-tom

quincunx:

I totally agree that governments have been terrible polluters - look at the history of the old Soviet bloc and look at Hanford and Rocky Flats in the US.

I think we have broad agreement that government ownership of resources leads to too much mismanagement and to rent-seeking and -harvesting. The same can be true for economic regulation and environmental regulation, but given exisiting regulation, government action is still needed to move from the status quo.

Informal common property rights may also work as well as private property rights, as noted on the recent "homesteading" blog entry, but either involves the threat of private violence. The acceptance of regulated police allows us to step away from a Hobbesian state.

However, in either case there may still be market failures in cases/aspects where no property rights exist, such as oceanic fisheries and the atmosphere. How would you propose to deal with those cases, except through government action that creates private property rights that can be bought and sold? Or since you see no theoretical role for government, we are forced always to stand helplessly at the sidelines whenever a tragedy of the commons event occurs?

Published: April 17, 2006 3:12 AM
tokyo-tom

David C, as I tried to point out, it is Lisa who has tried to dismiss all arguments by posing a false dichotomy of (i) government action or (ii) do nothing. Obviously item (i) consists of a very wide range of possibilities, some of which I noted above. In addition, of course private, volutary actions are also possible and ongoing - it's just that, given the lack of property rights and the resulting market failure, private actions will necessarily be woefully insufficient.

Published: April 17, 2006 3:25 AM
tokyo-tom

R.P., there may be some who are unaware of climate cycles, but the scientists who are concerned about climate change are well aware of them. I certainly haven't downplayed them - but have in fact referred to them and acknowledged them any number of times, only to be mocked by the likes of Prof. Reisman, who seems to have been totally unaware that the climate is not a linear system and that we may very well end up with some nasty shocks like a regional, sharp cooling in Europe due to a shutdown of the Gulf Stream due to Greenland melting.

The point is that, despite this knowledge, the scientists believe it is quite clear that the human induced forcing of CO2 and methane (and the positive feedbacks of greater humidity, changes in albedo and releases of methane from melting tundra and from coastal seas) are swamping all other factors.

That's the clear scientific view; if you haven't looked at the science recently then I encourage you to play climate change bingo: http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/.

From the economic point of view, Reisman and other libertarians here take the equivalent position of saying to industrial firms and fossil fuel users following - we don't mind that your driving this bus (with us and the rest of creation on board), we're not concerned that none of us can get off, we don't mind that you've got the pedal pushed to the floor, and we don't mind that you don't have a brake. It's all okay, because we right now the ride is rather smooth, and we have a vibrant market economy that allows some of us to make seat belts - if the ride gets bumpy and we all crash, well then those of us that can afford seatbelts (not installed yet by the way) can say later we had a helluva ride. If alot of passengers don't make it through so, well, what do we care (see Pro Reisman's first post)? But please, please, PLEASE ignore those enviros and scientist who say we should really take our foot off the gas and tried to figure out a safe speed - the hubris of those people! The enviros are trying to throw us back to the stone age, and the scientists, who don't really know how our incredible bus works anyway, are certainly not smart enough to see around the corner!

Not a good analogy you say, because there's no body driving the bus, just a bunch of corporations and individuals looking out for their own selfish interests? Oh, I feel so much better!

Published: April 17, 2006 3:57 AM
banker

Even if humans caused global warming, my understanding is that there is nothing that humans can do to stop it. Scientists have said that even if all green house emissions were eliminated that the planet will still warm up. It seems that the inertia of the weather system is to large to change in 5-10 years, or 100 years for that matter.

So, the point is mute if the above is true?

Published: April 17, 2006 4:01 AM
tokyo-tom

banker, see my bus analogy. If we think we're going too fast, should we just say the heck with it and enjoy the ride, or might we be better served by taking our foot of the gas and maybe even getting ready to brake?

Your understanding is about inertia is certainly correct, but even a system with alot of inertia - like a big oil tanker, can still be driven. Even with the existing inertia, we will benefit by not accelerating, and reaching a deal with others to agree to take our foot off the gas (through various market-friendly mechanism that minimize free-riding and find least-cost reductions).

We certainly know how to accelerate later, if need be.

Published: April 17, 2006 4:24 AM
banker

Wow, humans have to stop all greenhouse generating activity, then wait almost 100 years to see any tangible results (not even cooling off, only stop warming). I admit, though, I have never used a donkey cart before. I will be dead, my children will have an extremely hard life and for no concrete reason, only the postulations of government funded scientists. And so what if the weather does warm up, no one can possibly know if that is good or bad until it happens. But again, based on someone's guess everyone will be forced to participate in some arbitrary "market friendly" pollution control program with no obvious benefit to anyone except government bureaucrats who administer the program.

Published: April 17, 2006 4:57 AM
TokyoTom

banker, put your strawman back in your closet; he's not helpful and I certainly didn't ask you to drag him out.

In principle, the point is that the market has no correct pricing signals with respect to negative externalities that are generated by individual economic behavior - and the economy and general welfare improve when externalities are corrected. The market is tremendously flexible and inventive in response to pricing signals; the doubling of the price of crude since the Iraq invasion has not ruined our economy (although it sure as heck has put alot of money in the pockets of big oil).

We have more to worry about from those rent-seekers (who are probably drooling at the prospect of an invasion of Iran and the resulting price disruptions) than we would from tax or other measures than would increase the effective cost of fossil fuels. The Japanese have gas taxes that are multiples of ours and the only way the suffer as a result is from a more efficient export economy that generates earnings so tremendous that they have no place to recycle the dollars except into T bills, further subsidizing US consumption.

Even with the rent-seeking involved in dealing with costly and immediate problems of air, ground and water pollution, I imagine you will concede that our economy functions better as a result of them then without, or at least was not tanked by them? (Granted, we could have less-costly regulations than we frequently adopt, as I noted on a earlier Reisman thread.)

"And so what if the weather does warm up, no one can possibly know if that is good or bad until it happens."

Wrong - why don't you actually read some of the science? You choose to run from knowledge instead - let's deny the science, let's say it's too expensive and let's say it's too late. We know that much of the change will be harmful - we just don't care about those who will bear the brunt of the harm, and we prefer not to go through the painful exercise of changing our minds.

We are already having a serious impact on global ecosystems, and much of climate change will be disruptive - droughts, heavier rains, less predictible stream flows, etc. Presumably you're also aware of the ongoing sixth wave of mass extinctions? From Wikipedia,

"According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent of biologists believe that we are currently in the early stages of a human-caused mass extinction, known as the Holocene extinction event. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living species could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). Biologist E.O. Wilson estimated[3] in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#Mass_extinctions. Climate change is accelerating this mass extenction.

Of course, what do we care about the the diversity of life? We just want to feed ourselves. The species lost cannot be retrieved - but while we burn the great library of Alexandria, at least we can console ourselves by saying we didn't know what was in it anyway.

Man is the measure of all things - what does it say about us when we're happy to trash our world and fill it with generalist opportunists like rats, cockroaches, scrub grasses, dandelions and zebra mussels?

Published: April 17, 2006 5:38 AM
Graeme Bird

"Climate change is accelerating this mass extenction."

No it isn't. Blocking off nature corridors may be doing this. All sorts of things governments have done indirectly may be contributing to this. Overfishing is even likely doing this. But Global warming is NOT doing this.

Don't use the Wiki again.

Now have you got some evidence Tom. Page after page and no evidence. You are simply trying to be the last man standing. This isn't a debate with you clowns. Its a filibuster. Take it to tiger-droppings. Believe me they won't mind.

Published: April 17, 2006 6:52 AM
Daniel Coleman

Lisa,

You should have known that your post would spark yet another debate with participants largely talking past each other. :)

But I, for one, certainly appreciated your point. A libertarian could very well believe that global warming is human-caused, is bad for our planet, but that the best course of action is not coercion.

cheers,
Daniel

Published: April 17, 2006 7:07 AM
PR

I'd just like to echo what Daniel said. Thank you, Lisa, for clearly stating what the libertarian message should be about. This part sums it up best:

[I]f global warming is real, government action is not the answer. State action is too inefficient, too slow, too vulnerable to power-seeking and rent-seeking behavior, too apt to ignore the serious economic consequences of an action that has popular appeal.

Published: April 17, 2006 7:29 AM
BillG (not Gates)

Lisa wrote:

"if global warming is real, government action is not the answer. State action is too inefficient, too slow, too vulnerable to power-seeking and rent-seeking behavior, too apt to ignore the serious economic consequences of an action that has popular appeal."

BillG responds:

what people don't seem to understand is that the state already HAS acted to sanctify RENT-SEEKING behavior...the neo-classical/marginalist school revolution (of which the Austrian school is throroughly entrenched) PURPOSELY conflated the natural commons (land, water, air, etc) for private capital via government granted privilege within our supposedly "nuetral" legal framework.

classical liberalism treated the natural commons as a seperate and distinct factor in production than labor and capial.

the system is DESIGNED to allow some to accrue benefits via private enclosure (rent-seeking behavior) and SHIFT COSTS on to society (not a problem up to Locke's proviso) which inevitably become NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES...the purpose was to incent capital formation and supercharge turning vast natural resources into consumer goods at a time when we had very low populations and anemic economic thoroughput...

the use of the sky as a SOURCE and a SINK upto the sustainable yield (Locke's proviso) is an inalienable, INDIVIDUAL, equal access opportunity right so long as any individual's access/use does not infringe upon the equal rights of any other INDIVIDUAL.

in the case of global warming the inevitable negative externalities become a defacto TAX on the wages of those being excluded from use - this is the infringement on equal liberty - which violate our absolute rights to our labor.

therefore it is rightful and just for the state to protect the absolute property rights of individuals to the fruits of their labor...the force that the state uses is to protect against the THEFT that is occuring from our wages via negative externalities.

the root cause of the problem is government granted privilege that treats the natural commons as private capital beyond the sustainable yield.

the only solution is to rebuke the neo-classical paradigm and revert back to the true meaning of classical.

simple justice via equal liberty, special privileges for no one!

Published: April 17, 2006 7:58 AM
banker

"banker, put your strawman back in your closet; he's not helpful and I certainly didn't ask you to drag him out."-TT

I am not the one advocating the government confiscate wealth from private citizens based on a theory that has yet to be proven true. No matter what environmentalists call it, all they are advocating is that one group of people (elected politicians) decides how much money to take from private citizens (everyone else).

On a practical level (rather than theoretical/ideal), legislators will decide how to implement any anti polllution/tax/"market friendly" solution. We all know how well politicians do this kind of work (read the tax code). The point is that negative externalities CANNOT be measured in any concrete way, hence, they are arbitrary.

Published: April 17, 2006 8:35 AM
BillG (not Gates)

banker wrote:

"The point is that negative externalities CANNOT be measured in any concrete way, hence, they are arbitrary."

BillG responds:

oh yes they can...

scientists determine what the sustainable yield is of using our sky as a sink...beyond which (Locke's proviso) negative externalities appear (the result of economic rent being privatized).

require any company that produces a product that when used uses the sky as a sink to purchase an annual permit (title) to emit.

limit the number of permits to the sustainable yield.

the purchase price for all of those permits equals the monetary costs of the negative externalities EXACTLY.

return the collected money (economic rent) to the owners of the commons - all of us individuals, equally.

Published: April 17, 2006 8:56 AM
banker

"sustainable yield" = ARBITRARY
scientists = PEOPLE interpreting data, OPINION not FACT
politicians = Really in charge, not scientists

Name one product that you use that does not involve using the sky as a "sink".
->
People paying each other does not produce anything of value. A waste.

All of this effort for something that may or may not be true.

Published: April 17, 2006 9:09 AM
TokyoTom

Daniel, I'm curious where you think I've talked past anyone.

banker, yes we have a fat government and rent-seeking by large corporations, as BillG rightly notes just above. It sounds to me like you agree with my arguments in principle (there may be externalities that result in environmental problems), but disagree in application to this case (climate change isn't happening, or if it is it might be benficial, or if it's bad it is too late to do anything about it, or if it's not too late, you simply don't want the government involved, for fear of rent-seeking or an inability to quantify the benefit to be gained).

I'm happy we got that far - we share saome principles, but disagree on the facts: climate change is happening, most of it will be negative, it's not too late to do something meaningful, and it's not too expensive or too intrusive to do something about it. This is a task that private markets can't solve without government involvement in some way.

What interests me is all of the moaning about the role of government in solving problems that only government can solve, while ignoring the huge amount of rent-seeking going on now with our current government in subsidies to fossil fuel indistries and under the enormous defense expenditures.

BillG does a useful job in pointing out that as the government is part of the problem, it must be part of the solution.

I'd have to say that while I share concerns about rent-seeking behavior it is quite disappointing to hear libertarians say that their positive contribution to a debate over externalities and global and unmanaged commons is that we should do noting at all and just let our problems fester.

Regards,

TT

Published: April 17, 2006 9:16 AM
BillG (not Gates)

banker wrote:

"People paying each other does not produce anything of value. A waste.

All of this effort for something that may or may not be true."

BillG responds:

the private enclosure of the commons beyond the sustainable yield FORCES a monetary obligation on those being excluded and involves no labor hence no wealth creation by the encloser.

the waste and violation of property rights is allowing some to capture the labor products of others who are excluded...denying their right of self-ownership

how can anyone call themselves a libertarian and allow this thieving behavior which is codified into a supposedly "nuetral" legal framework via government granted privilege?

Published: April 17, 2006 9:28 AM
BillG (not Gates)

TT wrote:

"BillG does a useful job in pointing out that as the government is part of the problem, it must be part of the solution.

I'd have to say that while I share concerns about rent-seeking behavior it is quite disappointing to hear libertarians say that their positive contribution to a debate over externalities and global and unmanaged commons is that we should do noting at all and just let our problems fester."

BillG responds:

we have to be very, very careful about what the exact role of the state is...

they have a fiduciary responsibility as the public trustee of the sky to protect it's health as a common asset and to insure no individual's equal access opportunity rights to use as both a source and a sink are not INFRINGED upon.

the appearance of negative externalities DEFINES the extent to which those individual rights to the sanctity of their labor products are being denied.

the sustainable yield of the sky is the same concept as Locke's proviso - private enclosure of the natural commons (land) is just so long as 'enough and as good is left in common for others"

the economic rent collected by landowners and the opposite - negative externalities - imposed upon society DEFINE the extent to which the proviso and hence absolute property rights to labor are being VIOLATED.

Published: April 17, 2006 9:39 AM
banker

"we share saome principles, but disagree on the facts: climate change is happening, most of it will be negative, it's not too late to do something meaningful"

No, we don't agree on this point either. I already mentioned in previous points that NO one knows what the climate is going to be like in the future. NO one knows anywhere close to 100% whether global warming is good or bad (assuming that it will happen, IF). And there is no way to know that any green house emission controls will be of any use in climate change (if it is happening).

You are advocating the government threaten private citizens to change their behavior on a theory that is no where near fact.

Published: April 17, 2006 9:47 AM
Francisco Torres

Lee wrote, on a previous post:
Teh truly relevant question is, are we looking at changes that will be damaging to our current society and economy, and if so, given that we now possible CAN do something about it, what are we goign to do about it.

The best answer to that, Lee, is that we allow people to find solutions through a market approach, as we have been doing for the past 2 million years. If we leave solutions in the hands of centrally-minded bureaucrats, you will receive in return centralist, statist solutions - and we now just how effective are such solutions.

The point is: humans, acting on their interests, are able to come with far more ingenious solutions to problems than what could a commitee of bureaucrats. This is why I am skeptical of ANY interventionist, statist solution to the Global Warming "problem" - I put my money on people, not governments. I suggest you give a chance to liberty and the ingenuity of the human mind.

Published: April 17, 2006 10:08 AM
BillG (not Gates)

banker wrote:

"You are advocating the government threaten private citizens to change their behavior on a theory that is no where near fact."

BillG responds:

and you allow government granted privilege to enclose the commons while shifting costs onto citizens that rob them of the fruits of their labor which is fact.

Published: April 17, 2006 10:25 AM
BillG (not Gates)

Franscisco wrote:

"This is why I am skeptical of ANY interventionist, statist solution to the Global Warming "problem" - I put my money on people, not governments. I suggest you give a chance to liberty and the ingenuity of the human mind."

BillG responds:

and you should be just as skeptical that the state has not ALREADY intervened within their supposedly "nuetral" legal framework in defining property rights as it relates to the use of the sky as a source and sink literally incentivizing rent-seeking behavior at the loss of labor-based property rights.

Published: April 17, 2006 10:28 AM
Yancey Ward

Again, no one here seems to even understand the true scope of the issue in changing from fossil fuels to non-fossil/renewable fuels.

I know many environmentalists will find my position to be fatalistic, but our course was set the day we discovered fossil fuels, and we will not stop using them until they are mostly gone. There is simply no alternative with which to replace them. We can build nuclear plants, windmills, and solar panels the live long day, but we will not be able to build enough of them in a century to replace the fossil fuels we use today, and this doesn't even address the increase in energy consumption that will take place over the next century, which will certainly dwarf what we use today. I am afraid we will simply have to deal with the consequences of global warming, whether we want to or not.

I am certainly willing to consider taxes on fossil fuels that replace present taxes. I would be willing to do this on a slowly escalating scale to prepare for the day when fossil fuels begin to run out, but I will not support increased taxes to fund government directed boondoggles directed at finding new energy sources, or cash incentives to any renewable energy forms. And I will not lend support to any of these absolutely ridiculous capping requirements, pollution trading systems, or efficiency regulations- a simple tax replacement system will accomplish the same thing in a much simpler way that gives the market the maximal flexibility and the government the minimal amount of power.

Published: April 17, 2006 11:09 AM
tz

Government subsidizes cars to the extent that it uses gasoline taxes to build roads, but there is no equivalent to do passenger railroads or other transport.

But the original misses a key third point I went into in a comment on an earlier post. You can only cure global warming collectively, so it brings up all of the "commons" paradoxes. If everyone else gives up their SUV, I can drive one without affecting the enviornment, so where is MY incentive? I can get a free ride and not change my behavior, and let the other billions do the right thing.

The market is specifically bad at solving such problems - it was designed to meet INDIVIDUAL preferences, not collective ones, nor can it weigh things when the two are opposed.

Consider 100 people in a room with a box with a button. The rules are that $10,000 will be evenly distributed among those those who DO NOT press their buttons, but only if at least 80 people DO press their buttons. It is your advantage to be one of the hold-outs, i.e. not press your button under any circumstance. If the 80 condition isn't met you get nothing, yet you also get nothing if you press your button. The incentive is to press other people's buttons either via stealth or force.

How does a market "fix" this?

I don't think someone is pro-market if they demand or even suggest the market do something it is not capable of.

Even if you happen to like Bill Gates, entering him in a marathon won't make him win (and he may not even be able to complete it without training).

The government HAS interfered, and WILL interfere on CO2 emissions. And it has a role.

Here is one for the AnCaps - (for the moment assume Global Warming is occuring - you can substitute some other world wide phenomena if you have trouble with GW). Your use of CO2 emitting vehicles will damage not me, but my grandchildren, and to a small but easily measurable degree (much like leaving a debt that acquires interest). How do I, who desires to merely the normal tort damages from pollution which you would grant in every other case, get money from you and all the other drivers? The damage is a tiny, tiny amount from each individual, and causes a tiny, tiny amount to each victim (and they are worldwide). My property and its use depends to some degree on the climate, so I would assert a right to climate preservation just as I would to a river that flowed through my property - just because yours is upstream, you can't divert it.

Published: April 17, 2006 12:09 PM
BillG (not Gates)

tz wrote:

"You can only cure global warming collectively, so it brings up all of the "commons" paradoxes."

BillG responds:

common ownership is an individual right
collective ownership is a group right.

the state's role is that of a public trustee (a fudiciary responsibility) to protect:

a. the integrity of the common asset - the sky as a sink.

b. to insure that no individual's equal access opportunity right to the common asset are infringed upon.

c. to insure that no individual's absolute property rights to the fruits of their labor are protected.

therefore the state has a duty to limit the use of the sky as a sink to the sustainable yield by selling titles to enclose up to that amount.

the money collected has to be returned directly and in equal amounts to the individuals who own the sky as a common asset to protect labor-based property rights - all individuals equally.

if the state collects and spends the money then they have conflated the common asset our sky as collectively owned as a group right rather in common as an individual right.

there are no group rights only individual rights...

Published: April 17, 2006 12:21 PM
Francisco Torres

BillG wrote:
"and you should be just as skeptical that the state has not ALREADY intervened within their supposedly "nuetral" legal framework in defining property rights as it relates to the use of the sky as a source and sink literally incentivizing rent-seeking behavior at the loss of [b]labor-based property rights.[/b]"

If labor was a base for property rights, my landscaper would own my lawn. It is an absurdity, Bill.

Published: April 17, 2006 12:27 PM
quasibill

tz - your button analogy is badly off-kilter: there is an easy market based solution. All 100 people agree to split the $10,000 evenly, and 80 people push the buttons. Every single person is better off because of the agreement.

Now, as for your global warming argument, the most important thing to know is that there is no broad consensus on the subject (note, I am in the camp that believes 1) that humans are adding to the process, and 2) that the results will cause significant economic dislocation and hardship) and further, no consensus on how to resolve it best. As such, state based solutions are unlikely to be useful (as opposed to cosmetic), and in the off chance that they are useful, they are unlikely to be efficient (lack of knowledge of local conditions). I personally think that if you end the current government interferences in the market place, much of the problem ->would

Published: April 17, 2006 12:33 PM
Lee

On the several statments that free-market solutions will 'take care of it.'

How?

"The sky" is an unkowned, largely unregulated carbon dumping ground. It is in the best interest of every producer fo carbon emissions to dump that externality into the sky, without cost. In fact, fi I dotn do so but my competitors do, I'm at a competitive disadvantage. This means that there is a strong incentive (requirement really, in a 'free' market) to continue the broad and diffuse dumping of that externality, with costs born (highly unequally) by others.

It has already been argued that CO2 consequences are not subject to judicial remedy, because the soruces are so diffuse. As an aside, it has even been argued by Reisman in that other blog article that no one producing carbon bears any personal responsibility for that action, that because production is diffused across a very large number of actors it is in fact an act of nature. Bleh.

So how does the market deal with this issue of diffuse uncompensated externalities? Ownership of the sky? Fine; I'll take it. Carbon producrs can pay me, I make out well, and the problem still exists. Now its just ME passing on the externality. I guess that makes me subject ot judicial consequence, as an identifiable single actor, but there seems no way I can maintain sole ownership of the entire sky. And as soon as we get multiple ownership (how? air diffuses), the diffuse nature of the conseqeunces of selling each part of the sky as a carbon repository returns, compounded by the fact that there are no borders. I'm oversimplifying of course; this is a large issue, but this is an outline.

Markets have problems with dealing with external costs. This is a huge issue of external costs, with potential serious and not close to equally distributed consequences for much of our economy and a very large percentage of our people. Simple faith-based handwaving at "the free market" is not persuasive.

Published: April 17, 2006 12:57 PM
David J. Heinrich

Lee,

You would do well to read some of the literature on this website criticizing the theories of positive and negative externalities, specifically by Rothbard and Block. There is no way to objectively say something is a negative or positive externality, as value is subjective, and interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible. Furthermore, it could be argued that all actions have externalities -- e.g., us writing this, or someone bathing with frequency, etc; externalities are not a justification for State-intervention.

My point regarding diffuse causes is not something you can simply swipe aside. Moral and legal responsibility can only be deligated to those who took specific actions which demonstratably led to specific causes, as a result of their actions. You cannot scientifically trace back a certain level of global warming to me using my car -- certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. And even if you could, you would have to show that that caused a measurable level of harm -- violation -- of others' property rights.

There is no such thing as vicarious liability, or "group liability". Unless a group purposefully cooperated to purposefully bring about a 4 degree increase in global temperature, you cannot place moral and legal culpability on the members of that group for a natural consequence of their economic activity. Individuals are not responsible for some collective aggregate consequence of their actions which they did not plan on happening as a group, nor anticipate. Quoting from Reiseman, George. Environmentalism Refuted:

If global warming or ozone depletion or whatever, really are consequences of the actions of the human race considered collectively, but not of the actions of any given individual, including any given individual private business firm, then the proper way to regard them is as the equivalent of acts of nature. Not being caused by the actions of individual human beings, they are equivalent to actions not morally caused by human beings at all, that is to say, to acts of nature.

Published: April 17, 2006 1:04 PM
Lee

Quasibill, why woudl I enter such an agreement? I'm better off holding out.

If I stand off to the side and dont participate, the other 99 enter this agreement, then I get 1/20 of the money ($500), and the others each get 19/20 x 1/99; less than 1/100th (about $96).

Even worse; as soon as the 80th person enters agreement, there is no incentive for anyoen else to enter, A?ND ther eis a slight incentive to exclude nayoen else form enterinig byu those who already have (16/20 x 1 80 = 1/100 exactly, so $100. Allowing others dilutes the return for those already entered.

It is strongly in each participant's interest to wait until some OTHER 80 people agree, and to be one of the final 20 who are excluded from the agreement by both the agree-ers and his own interests. All you've done is interposed a layer in the dilemma.

Published: April 17, 2006 1:23 PM
Lee

David: so what?

First (and as an aside here) I dispute that diffuse action removes moral responsibility from an individual fo the conseqeunces of actions that harm others. This seems to me absurd, and simply an abdication of the concept of personal responsibility in realsm where one can hide one;s personal contribution, rather like dropping a candy wrapper in teh grand canyon at a trailhead where there is already litter, on teh groudns that others are doing it and no one will se me do it. From my value system, (which clearly is nto shared here) this is morally objectionable, and if the harm to which I or you or many people contribute is sufficient, is morally heinous. But that is actually neither her nor there in this point.

The question I asked is, how does the free market deal with this, as other's have stated it will. This question is in force whether warming is from " an act of nature" or from specific human causes. Even if the diffuse individually-sub-threshold polluters carry no moral responsibility whatsoever, they still benefit from dumping their externalities, and the market still has the same issues in dealing with that.

Published: April 17, 2006 1:37 PM
Graeme Bird

"they still benefit from dumping their externalities, and the market still has the same issues in dealing with that.

Positive externalities Lee. You forgot the word 'positive'.

"they still benefit from dumping their POSITIVE externalities, and the market still has the same issues in dealing with that.

Yes. And what's wrong with that. The rest of us benefit too. What are these issues that the market has dealing with the dumping of positive externalities. The only people with ISSUES are the ones pushing this hateful anti-human, anti-nature fraud.

Published: April 17, 2006 2:09 PM
tz

quasibill - I'm one of the 100, and I don't agree to your contract. You end up with slightly less than $100 (9500/99), and I end up with $500. Worse if you can only get 81 to agree, as they have only $500 to split among all 81, and the other 19 get $500.

If you cannot force me to sign that contract, I can consider my position as an option for $100 that will either expire worthless or pay $500 (I'm assuming optimal outcomes with holdouts), so I won't. I may prefer the potential payment of $500 (or nothing) to the sure payment of $100.

And note it is still in your interest to contract with the 81 - you at least get something - $6.18. The 82nd person then gets $500 and you then have to convince him why he should only get just over $12 instead of $500.

Or to put it into GW context, if GW is true, then everyone will individually and voluntarily contract to give up their big vehicles and move to mass transit? Not everyone.

BTW, I've already argued that there is nothing close to proof for global warming. I never call any scientific enquiry "rubbish", but only conclusions which require a Kirkegard meets Gaia leap of faith - sometimes called extrapolation, or assumed conditions, or various other labels designed to obfuscate the lack of information.

BillG - you are correct as far as the model - but how do you enforce it? Put CO2 monitors near everyone? If I drive near a forest fire could you tell?

And the problem with GW is that it IS CAUSED by the voluntary actions of individual human beings.

To use another button-box analogy, lets say there is a device designed to execute someone when 50% of the owners press their buttons. At what point does it cease to be murder? 2 people? 20? 2 billion? Each individual decides himself to press or not to press.

Or a more clear and present analogy - voting, normally for either of the two parties. Each individual vote matters little, but collectively they tend to select one of two destroyers of liberty. Many don't vote, yet they are forced to live under the decisions of those who do - and neither the voters nor non-voters will rise to the defense of liberty. Would you (or do you think Reisman) would consider the state of slavery to be "acts of nature" in the same way such environmentalism might be?

Published: April 17, 2006 2:10 PM
BillG (not Gates)

Francisco wrote:

"If labor was a base for property rights, my landscaper would own my lawn."

BillG responds:

presumably you are trading your labor products for your landscaper's - no?

all rights eminate from the fundamental property right of self with labor being the logical extension of self.

if not property rights via labor then by what do you subscribe?

Published: April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
BillG (not Gates)

tz wrote:

"BillG - you are correct as far as the model - but how do you enforce it? Put CO2 monitors near everyone? If I drive near a forest fire could you tell?"

BillG responds:

remember that the collected economic rent for the use of the commons as a sink up to the sustainable yield is owned in common as an individual right...everyone is entitled to equal citizens dividends not as charity but rather to uphold their absolute right to their labor products.

all acts to use the sky as a sink outside of the permit system will be looked upon by ALL citizens as theft of their labor products and reflected in a smaller citizens dividends for themselves.

Published: April 17, 2006 2:22 PM
Lee

Graeme said:
"Positive externalities Lee. You forgot the word 'positive'. "

This from the man who said that the forcible dispossession of tens to hundreds of millions of people as a possible consequence of those externalities would be "a minor issue."

Who's entire response to the issue of carbonic acidification of the oceans (simple chemistry, BTW, with mixing issues affecting local concentrations the only uncertainty involved,a nd with absolutely known pH thresholds for deleteriosu effects on carbonate-shelled organisms), including a link to an entre to the literature , was esentially "oh, I don't think so."

Graeme, your insistence as an article of faith that there are nothing but positive effects of increased anthropogenic carbon, simply has no credibility at all.

Published: April 17, 2006 2:27 PM
Graeme Bird

"First (and as an aside here) I dispute that diffuse action removes moral responsibility from an individual fo the conseqeunces of actions that harm others. This seems to me absurd, and simply an abdication of the concept of personal responsibility in realsm where one can hide one;s personal contribution, rather like dropping a candy wrapper in teh grand canyon at a trailhead where there is already litter, on teh groudns that others are doing it and no one will se me do it."

This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about production and trade entirely necessary for our survival and for the great enhancement of our lives. Now with these millions of voluntary trades, producing enourmous benefits not the least of which is survival, there might come a tiny droplet of bad for each mountain of good. But in the case of CO2 its an extra, unplanned for level of good. A great bonus. Now I think the human race is at least potentially good. Or at least you can find terrific people about the place.

But I don't know that we deserved THIS immense good fortune.

As to the actual NEGATIVE externalities we can see that most if not virtually all of them come down to two or three long-term causes....

1. Inadequate property rights.

2. Long-term effects of compulsion (height restrictions on buildings, non-user payes infrastructure. Or indeed compulsion in the provision of alleged public goods.)

3. Perhaps if we could go back in time we might want a nature corridor around a lot of private property with its own natural rules to stop excessive depletion of critters. So the critters can easily migrate. At least this would be far better then setting aside great natural parks. But on the other hand we might have had this defacto if no.2 hadn't been pursued.

So if there was some interim need to tax externalities we see that:

(a) It ought not be for CO2 since this is a positive externality
(b) It ought to be only tax-substitution
(c) It ought to be sunsetted and correcting the above deficiencies ought to be part of the program.
(d) Consideration should be given to the idea that its probably not worthwhile in the first place.
(e) You have to be ABSOLUTELY SURE BEYOND THE SHADOW OF THE VALLEY OF DOUBT that it is in fact a NEGATIVE externality or you will be creating hardship and to ill effect (as in the case of CO2).

Published: April 17, 2006 2:43 PM
BillG (not Gates)

Lee wrote:

"Graeme, your insistence as an article of faith that there are nothing but positive effects of increased anthropogenic carbon, simply has no credibility at all."

BillG responds:

and further more a positive benefit is only judged individually as "good" (rather than nuetral or evil) if it is a welcome benefit.

Published: April 17, 2006 2:46 PM
Walt D.

Graeme Bird

Thank you for the link to
http://www.john-daly.com

I would suggest that everyone who is interested in hearing the other side on the GW question read and check out the information on this site. I have yet to see anyone take these arguments and try to refute them one by one.

I lived in Montreal for 2 years. I experienced winter temperatures of -40F and summer temperatures of 100F with 99% humidity. The city and houses were well adapted to deal with these extremes. All it took was a little bit of planning and an adequate supply of energy. This leads me to conclude that we need to be prepared to produce more energy not less.

Published: April 17, 2006 2:49 PM
David J. Heinrich

Lee,

You are ignoring a key part of my argument, which is that you must be able to trace something back to specific actors, who contribute specific harm, and this must be something you can prove. There is no way you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my using a car is contributing a detectibable level of "global warming" via CO2 emissions.

Even if you could, that is irrelevant, because I am not acting in planned coordination with others to do this (this is not like the case where A and B both initiate aggression against C, one after another, independent of one-another, and because of their combined actions C dies, where they would both be liable for murder or at least manslaughter). You would also have to demonstrate that such constitutes a property rights violation of others, which you cannot do.

Now, the only conceivable claim you could have here would be on property rights violation. There are examples where we can consider pollution to be a property rights violation; consider the smog-factories in Great Britain which were emitting smog that was killing the orchards of farmers. Farmers took them to court, and could prove that smoke from specific smog-factories was damaging their property. There was a science of pollution-forensics being developed. This was clearly a case of property rights violation: a detectible level of damage to one's property, that one can trace and allocate to specific actors.

Such is clearly not the case with global warming. You could in no way prove that I am causing a specific, detectible level of damage to someone else' property by using a car. All that you can do is make some vague fuzzy argument about how the behaviour of people in general aggregates and adds up to cause some detectible level of damage (and the environmentalists can't even PROVE this yet, by the standards which should be required in law).

Furthermore, we can only say that we have an "environment" problem in the sense of the violation of other's property rights; alternatively, we could say there may be things that no property-holder likes (lets just assume increased UV-rays is one of those). In either case, it is no justification for a State, which by definition necessitates the violation of property rights.

Regarding the free-market solution to environmental problems in general: (1) Injunctions for provable, detectable pollution that can be traced to specific individuals; (2) People voluntarily adjusting to new environmental conditions by their volutionary actions, as Reisman pointed out; (3) Environmentalists are perfectly free to purchase all of the disgusting swamp-lands they want and "preserve" them -- using their own money: of course, many (but not all) environmentalists have never been satisfied using their own money for their causes, but always want to steal other people's money.

Published: April 17, 2006 3:00 PM
quincunx

"Informal common property rights may also work as well as private property rights, as noted on the recent "homesteading" blog entry, but either involves the threat of private violence. The acceptance of regulated police allows us to step away from a Hobbesian state."

The Hobbesian model is logically bankrupt if given two seconds of thought. In order to prevent the possibility of private violence, we must preemptively create a state, and ensure public violence. Because giving someone the right of legal force ensures that they will use it wisely?

"However, in either case there may still be market failures in cases/aspects where no property rights exist, such as oceanic fisheries and the atmosphere. How would you propose to deal with those cases, except through government action that creates private property rights that can be bought and sold? Or since you see no theoretical role for government, we are forced always to stand helplessly at the sidelines whenever a tragedy of the commons event occurs?"

You make the assumption that government has not done anything with regard to private property in the ocean. I disagree - it has done plenty to PREVENT the formation of private property rights. So, yes, you are correct the government can do something: get the hell out of the way.

This is similar to why there is a lack of private space travel. Do you think the private sector isn't capable of doing it with its own non-coerced funding? Or is it the fact that it's illegal or too legally cumbersome to engage in it? What about the international agreement to prevent space homesteading?

The international agreement in the 70's to expand water borders to 200 miles, has made this problem even worse. All continental shelves are government owned.

Published: April 17, 2006 3:09 PM
Lee

David, thank you for acknowledging that THERE IS NO FREE MARKET SOLUTION to diffuse-actor environmental issues.

"Regarding the free-market solution to environmental problems in general: (1) Injunctions for provable, detectable pollution that can be traced to specific individuals; (2) People voluntarily adjusting to new environmental conditions by their volutionary actions, as Reisman pointed out; (3) Environmentalists are perfectly free to purchase all of the disgusting swamp-lands they want and "preserve" them -- using their own money: of course, many (but not all) environmentalists have never been satisfied using their own money for their causes, but always want to steal other people's money.

Posted by: David J. Heinrich at April 17, 2006 03:00 PM
"

Published: April 17, 2006 3:15 PM
Lee

David said:

Lee,

"You are ignoring a key part of my argument, which is that you must be able to trace something back to specific actors, who contribute specific harm, and this must be something you can prove. There is no way you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my using a car is contributing a detectibable level of "global warming" via CO2 emissions."

David, I didnt ignore it. I argued that it was an absurd sloughing-off of personal responsibility for the consequences of one's actions, just because the personal responsibility is sub some threshold and can be hidden. And that I personally find that line of responsibility-absolving reasoning to be morally repugnant.

Taht last sentence, I am aware, constitutes a de facto challenge to the widely-shared value set and moral system of the people here. I start from a slightly different value set, and therefore derive a somewhat different moral systemfrom it, which is no more a priori provable "right" or :wrong" than yours. My own persoanl value set adn mroal system deduces taht if I or someone else is facing catastrophic personal and economic losses for the convenience of others, even if due to diffuse actions, then I or they have as much right to resist (even to the point of using violence to protect ourselves, if the certainty of impact rises to that level) as does an individual facing a single actor. And incrementally, short of the certainty necessary to justify that, to resist the actions that cause real risk of such forcible impact. By use of state action if need be. Collective convenience (which is what you are arguing for here) dos not justify the massing of externalities upon the head of some subset that the convenienced majority undertakes to ignore.

Dispossesion by force is dispossion by force, wether doen individually or in aggregate.

Published: April 17, 2006 3:34 PM
David J. Heinrich

Lee,

You can use whatever phraseology you wish to use, but the argument you are making is for "group liability"; in other words, you are arguing for vicarious liability, that individuals are responsible for actions not committed by them. That is not a tenable moral position.

The part of my argument around traceable, threshold effects is not some arbitrary sloughing off of personal responsibility. You cannot hold someone morally responsible for something if you can't even proveably trace the cause of whatever it is you're concerned about back to him.

Lets say I use a car. This releases some various chemicals into the air, which immeasurably increases the carbon-dioxide levels in the air. So what? Can you show that I have initiated aggression against anyone? No. Can you show that my actions, specifically, caused any quantifiable proveable damage to someone else' property? No. Simply because you can say that if 6 billion more people also drive cars, this will cause some measurable level of global warming (and neither you nor anyone has proven -- again, in a legally solid way -- this), does not mean that I somehow would suddenly becomem morally responsible. I am only responsible for my own actions, and if I am responsible for any actions as a member of a group, it can only be if: (a) I purposefully collaborated with them; (b) Me and other members of the group -- alone, and by ourselves -- purposefully did some aggression to someone else' property, which cummulated.

Your position amounts to little better than holding people responsible for the unforeseable side-consequences of their actions numerous steps down the road from their actual action.

Published: April 17, 2006 3:43 PM
David J. Heinrich

Lee,

And who the heck said I acknowledged there were no free market solutions to the "problem" of diffuse pollution? I specifically pointed out 3 of them, and I could add also voluntarily funded awareness organizations and the like (free-market non-profit organizations).

What is not acceptable is simply stealing other people's money because you think it is easier than using peaceful, non-coercive, non-aggressive method. That is simply barbarism.

Oh, and also, in case you haven't noticed, States have been the largest and biggest polluters for a very long time now, either in engaging in actions which specifically exempt private polluters from liability (in civil cases) from their pollution (see Great Britain and the smog-factories), or by actually polluting themselves, by socializing natural resources, thus creating the tragedy of the commons. You might not have noticed, but the most Statist societies -- e.g., the former USSR -- have the worst pollution problems. If the State is so great for the environment, how about you go swimming in Lake Baikal.

Oh, also, the last time I checked, no private companies have dropped nuclear bombs on cities, creating enormous levels of fallout.

So much for the wonderful environment-loving State.

Published: April 17, 2006 3:51 PM
Lee

David, that's a straw man. I didnt argue that states are wonderful. I said I and others have a moral right to use the power of the state to defend ourselves if necessary.

"And who the heck said I acknowledged there were no free market solutions...?"

You did.
1) Injunctions for provable, detectable pollution that can be traced to specific individuals;
-IWO, for diffuse action,nothing.

(2) People voluntarily adjusting to new environmental conditions by their volutionary actions, as Reisman pointed out;
-iow, live with it.

(3) Environmentalists are perfectly free to purchase all of the disgusting swamp-lands they want and "preserve" them -- using their own money: of course, many (but not all) environmentalists have never been satisfied using their own money for their causes, but always want to steal other people's money.
-IOW, let soem small number of people sacrifice to mitigate the effects taht other's beenfit from

Those arent "free market solutions," they are exzamples of the lack of such solutions.

Published: April 17, 2006 4:03 PM
Lee

Incorrect, David.

"You can use whatever phraseology you wish to use, but the argument you are making is for "group liability"; in other words, you are arguing for vicarious liability, that individuals are responsible FOR ACTIONS NOT COMMITTED BY THEM. That is not a tenable moral position.

(emphasis added)
---------------

No, I am arguing for INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY for the effects of INDIVIDUAL sub-threshold actions THAT ARE COMMITTED BY THEM that in aggregaate cause harm to others. You are arguing for absolution fo responsibility for INDIVIDUASL ACTIONS, saying that individuals acts are not acts they committed, because they only atter in aggreagate with other actors.

This is equivalnet, with opposite sign, to arguign taht I have no sahre itn the positive result (responsibility) of the successful delivery of the product my group just finished, becaeu my contributins alone woudl not have created taht project, so my contributin was subthreshold.

Every INDIVIDUAL who emits geological-store carbon exhaust does so knowingly. Many (perhaps most) INDIVIDUALS know that doing so carries at least some risk of deleterious effect upon others, even if individuals assign different levels of risk. Each such INDIVIDUAL, every time they make a choice that impacts how much such exhaust they produce, is perfomring an act with moral cosequence an dpotential deleteriosu outcomes for others.
Arguing that it is safe for me to dump my arsentic waste in the river becasue MY waste is sufficiently diluted, as long as no other are slso doing so, WHILE IN POSSESSION OF THE KNWOLEDGE THAT OTHERS ARE DOING SO and my act is therefore contributing to the poisoning of the town downstream, is in fact COMMITTING AN ACT with negative moral value.

Published: April 17, 2006 4:21 PM
Francisco Torres

Those arent "free market solutions," they are exzamples of the lack of such solutions.

Lee, you are now employing sophistry - THOSE were market solutions. It is one thing that you do not LIKE them, another to say they are examples of no solutions.

Published: April 17, 2006 4:42 PM
Lee

Francisco,

1. A statemtn that no option is availalbe is not a statemtn of a free market solution; it is a statemtn of no free market option.

2. "Live with it" is also a statemtn of no free market solution, it is an example of free-market derived excuse to do nothing.

3. "let others sacrifice to mitigate the costs I impose" is also not a solution; it is a statemtn taht in a free market those imposing external costs get to free ride. That is precisely the problem I am asking teh free market to solve, not a solution of the problem.

Published: April 17, 2006 4:47 PM
Paul Edwards

What I think David is driving at is that rather than being a protector of the environment, our rights and our property, the state is a grand and natural polluter, aggressor, and thief. Beyond this, it is also responsible for enabling this behavior in the private sector through its regulation, taxation and intervention in the courts.

I believe he is suggesting that all state interventions in private affairs can be expected to lead to the very opposite results of those allegedly intended. Furthermore, these interventions can be expected to have other deleterious side effects as well that those implementing them will have neither the ability nor the inclination to foresee.

Therefore, it is an illusion to imagine that state coercion could ever succeed in the grand and expansive undertaking of protecting the world from the real or imagined problems of world industrialization and the pollution resulting from it.

The only area in human endeavors in which the state has proven itself more able than the market, is the creation of waste, death and destruction. Only if a partial extinction of the human race is part of the global warming “solution�?, can we consider there to be a place for the state in this issue. Otherwise, voluntary cooperative market action is what we must advocate for an optimal outcome.

Published: April 17, 2006 4:53 PM
Francisco Torres

No, I am arguing for INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY for the effects of INDIVIDUAL sub-threshold actions THAT ARE COMMITTED BY THEM that in aggregaate cause harm to others.

Another case of pure sophistry - guilt by association. We release CO2 just by breathing - and this EVERYONE KNOWS. Should one side of the submarine crew deny permission to the other side for doing something that is "harmful" to them i.e. breathing in and out?

Many (perhaps most) INDIVIDUALS know that doing so carries at least some risk of deleterious effect upon others, even if individuals assign different levels of risk.

Yeah, and this can be applied to basically anything we do. The only way to avoid this would be if we ceased to exist totally. Your contention that some activity carries some risk, somewhere is simply too vague to even grant attention.

The argument that Global Warming is harmfull is without foundation, for unless you can somehow see into the future, the future climate 15 or 30 years from now is unfathomable. Harmfull effects can only be guessed, not known. Demanding coercitive or punitive policies based on guesses is nothing less than criminal.

Published: April 17, 2006 4:55 PM
BillG (not Gates)

lee,

I think it would be wise to argue that we all have an individual equal access opportunity right to use the sky as a sink up to the sustainable yield so long as our individual use does not infringe on anyone else's individual claim to the same.

negative externalities only occur beyond the sustainable yield and violate the property rights we all have to our labor because they ac as a defacto tax.

it is therefore a proper role of the state - who allow the commons to be treated as private capital initially via government granted privilege (see neo-classical paradigm) as the public trustee of the commons to protect it's integrity for future generations and to protect the labor-based property rights of those being subject to the negative externalities.

Published: April 17, 2006 4:56 PM
Francisco Torres

Oh, Lee...
1. A statemtn that no option is availalbe is not a statemtn of a free market solution; it is a statemtn of no free market option.

It is not the only option, Lee, and that is not what David implied: he implied it is the only moral option. Otherwise, you would step on many people's rights just to keep one lad happy.

2. "Live with it" is also a statemtn of no free market solution, it is an example of free-market derived excuse to do nothing.

David did not say "live with it" because that would imply INaction. Adapting is action, Lee, the contrary of doing nothing. An example is the Apollo 13 mission. Commander Lovell didn't pass titles of pollution to his crew or asked them to stop breathing - his crew and him ADAPTED a filter so they could keep their air clean. They ADAPTED, Lee, not whine about the levels of CO2.

3. "let others sacrifice to mitigate the costs I impose" is also not a solution; it is a statemtn taht in a free market those imposing external costs get to free ride. That is precisely the problem I am asking teh free market to solve, not a solution of the problem.

David did not say this - read the third point again. In a free market, polluters do NOT get a free ride - as long as the affected can prove damages.

Nevertheless, Lee, the atmosphere is not a strip of land upon which you can impose a title - and the contention that harm done on some by the "aggregate" activity of others is asinine, especially when the so-called affected cannot AVOID the same activities, like BREATHING. If CO2 release is HARMFUL, then for the sake of CONSISTENCY, ALL CO2 releases MUST be harmful, even those coming from breathing, cooking and keeping us warm. If your arguent is that such acitivities, in the aggregate, are harmful to others, then they should be avoided - please, explaing to me HOW.

Published: April 17, 2006 5:09 PM
BillG (not Gates)

Francisco wrote:

"In a free market, polluters do NOT get a free ride - as long as the affected can prove damages."

BillG responds:

they get a free ride in that they are allowed via government granted privilege 9see neo-classical revolution) to pollute beyond the sustainable yield of using the sky as a sink.

the damage (economic harm) is being subjected to negative externalities which is a defacto tax on our labor violating our property rights.

Francisco wrote:

"the atmosphere is not a strip of land upon which you can impose a title"

BillG responds:

no but what we can say is everyone has an inalienable, INDIVIDUAL equal access opportunity right to use our common asset the sky as a sink up to the sustainable yield so long as any individual's use does not infringe on any other individuals equal access claim.

Francisco wrote:

"If CO2 release is HARMFUL, then for the sake of CONSISTENCY, ALL CO2 releases MUST be harmful, even those coming from breathing, cooking and keeping us warm. If your arguent is that such acitivities, in the aggregate, are harmful to others, then they should be avoided - please, explaing to me HOW."

just as Locke's proviso (sustainable yield of occupancy) postulates the point at which enclosure of land is unjust...the same sustainable yield of using the sky as a sink delinates what is just.

prior to is just.
beyond is unjust.

as breathing is using the sky as a source and sink it is like occupying a space the sine qua non of human existence it will always be free to be used this way.

all other human activity will be limited to the sustainable yield.

Published: April 17, 2006 5:39 PM
tz

BillG - let me paraphrase your answer - you won't [enforce] the right.

all acts to use the sky as a sink outside of the permit system will be looked upon by ALL citizens as theft of their labor products and reflected in a smaller citizens dividends for themselves.

1. Volcanoes do this too, but they can't be assessed.

2. There is some cost of assessment. What about people who say "no" to the permit system, or get a permit, but exceed the boundary in a stealthy way (Something invisible cannot be "looked upon").

3. The differential dividend for one payee v.s. a polluter getting caught (with the payee testifying, etc.) is likely to differ by several orders of magnitude. Maybe you would hire a lawyer and prosecute me if I stole a dime from you, but it would be irrational to do so.

You either end up with a private nightmare big-brother state as Stephan Molyneaux has described in some articles at LRC, or you get freeloaders, or the problem is unsolved.

If you have some practical mechanism, please detail it. Otherwise you system depends on a magic amulet that allows omniscient assessment without cost - and it is right next to the one that will allow socialists to do economic calculation without a market to set prices and quantities.

(there was a big thing about the possibility of micropayments on the internet, but even that hasn't happened and it is not because the technology isn't there).
---

I think Lee is right to point out that the market does not "solve" the problem of pollution in the sense that it is still there after the market has acted. If there is a massive plague, environmental catastrophe, etc. which would be completely preventable (or even a nuclear war), the market will allocate resources among the survivors, but it will have done little to prevent the deaths which might have only required some collective action.

If the market (individuals acting in their own interest) wants something which will result in a collective Armageddon, the market hasn't failed when it has delivered Armageddon, but at the point they are dying in masses they might have preferred a different outcome.

To summarize the points:

A. The market can not always provide the legal or informational infrastructure which assure property rights upon which the market depends (the pollution permits need definition and enforcement, and that is now world-wide).

B. There are paradoxical cases where individuals acting in their own specific interest cause general harm which exceeds the gain of the individually desired acts. Not completing a regimen of antibiotics is an existing example - The bacteria that now can't be killed won't stay with you, they can kill me.

The problem is very specifically that the market does work. It just produces a bad outcome. Just as the cell's machinery works properly when a virus enters, but the cell is destroyed. Or when the internet works properly to spread computer worms.

The market has no internal standard of morality or even virtue. It will provide things to destroy others or yourself efficiently. It will make enforcement or denial of property rights equally available to the highest bidder.

Published: April 17, 2006 5:43 PM
Lee

Oh, Francisco...

Is this libertarian philosophy that devoid of ability to handle quantitative reasoning?
---
""If CO2 release is HARMFUL, then for the sake of CONSISTENCY, ALL CO2 releases MUST be harmful, even those coming from breathing, cooking and keeping us warm. If your arguent is that such acitivities, in the aggregate, are harmful to others, then they should be avoided - please, explaing to me HOW."

The fact is that for purposes of disturbing the equilibrium concentration of atmospheric CO2, that CO2 cycling in biological time has a DIFFERENT effect than CO2 cycling in geological time. The fact is that the tiny amount of CO2 I exhale, which came from recently-biologically-fixed atmospheric carbon and is taking a brief sojourn through biological systems, is insignificant in quantity and of different effect in reality than the literallyhundreds of pounds of geological-store-derived carbon that my and your car emits during commute, probably per week.

That is why I restricted to exhaust from geological stores, not CO2 in general; itis GEOLOGICALLY_DERIVED CO2 thatis altering the quilibrium concentration. This sophic denal of teh importance of quantitative and source inputs is again, simply a way to try to twist off th ehook for the INDIVIDUAL responsibility to take MORAL responsibility for th econsequences of ones MORAL CHOICES at the time one commits an action. Such as choosing how many thousands of poiudns of geological carbon one will emit per year when one is buying a car.

i wil freely admit that we cant get away from contribution to deleterious actins. That does NOT relieve us of a responsibility to try to mitigate or reduce as much as possilbe the consequences, and I clearly made taht point:

"Each such INDIVIDUAL, every time they make a choice that impacts how much such exhaust they produce, is performing an act with moral cosequence an dpotential deleterious outcomes for others."

Note that I am amking \two points; One is aboutindividual moral responsibility for foreseeable (even in aggregate) outocmes of one;s actins, that it apears you ala re tryig to deny or excuse. Teh other is the right of peopel to defend themselves agaonst th edeleterious outcomes of other's actions, even action sin aggregate, which yo are ALSO denying; Assuming GW (which I presumed we awere assuming for the sake of the moral argumetn aobut consequences) your argument would force a bangladeshi to give up his land to flood,a dn become a refugee, WITHOUT RESISTANCE, to an act that is the IDENTIFIABLE aggregate result of OTHER PEOPLE who are deriving peronnal advantage from theri actions, and to do so WITHOUT RESISTANCE. "step on many people's rights " indeed. IMO, any moral system that reaches such a conclusion has a deep hole somewhere within it.

Published: April 17, 2006 5:58 PM
Lee

TZ, I would add that if the pending Armegeddon, or even a realistic substantial risk of it, is forseeable as the otucome of individual actin int eh market, then those who will be affected by it have the moral right (even the moral obligation, when it comes to families and those we are responsible for) to defend themselves from that doom, and that this right and the mechanisms it make morally available must be equivalent to those avaialble to the person being held at gunpoint in fear for their life.

Adn further, taht any moral system the denies such a right to a pending victim of foreseeable armageddon caused by the actions of others (no matter how diffuse) is itself immoral.

"If the market (individuals acting in their own interest) wants something which will result in a collective Armageddon, the market hasn't failed when it has delivered Armageddon, but at the point they are dying in masses they might have preferred a different outcome."

Published: April 17, 2006 6:15 PM
BillG (not Gates)

tz wrote:

"Volcanoes do this too, but they can't be assessed."

BillG responds:

it was presumed we are refrring to human behavior.

tz wrote:

"There is some cost of assessment. What about people who say "no" to the permit system, or get a permit, but exceed the boundary in a stealthy way (Something invisible cannot be "looked upon")"

BillG responds:

the permits will be required as close to the wellhead as possible.

tz wrote:

"The differential dividend for one payee v.s. a polluter getting caught (with the payee testifying, etc.) is likely to differ by several orders of magnitude. Maybe you would hire a lawyer and prosecute me if I stole a dime from you, but it would be irrational to do so."

BillG responds:

not if the purpose of the prosecution was to keep others from considering doing it...

tz wrote:

"your system depends on a magic amulet that allows omniscient assessment without cost"

BillG responds:

1. scientists set the limit
2. annual permits (titles to pollute) are required to sell goods that when used liberate CO2 into the sky
3. the market sets the price which is passed onto consumers.
4. the money collected (called economic rent) is returned to all the owners equally.

this sets up a powerful negative feedback loop where the owners of the commons via their self-interests will demand higher citizens dividends which will then restrict the numer of annual permits sold.

Published: April 17, 2006 6:27 PM
Graeme Bird

Lee. Why the relentless fillibustering as to the matter or evidence. CO2 has to be an overwhelmingly (net) postive externality. Due to the warming itself. The higher rainfalls this will entail, the more arable land that will be claimed back from the cold and the higher plant yields.

Page after page we see leftist projection. What we never see from you and tom is some sort of quantitative evidence that could overcome these rather obvious conclusions.

The last few millions of years of climate history we have been in an in hospitable iced over world except for the brief interglacials. ALL of climate history tells us that it is the cold times that are the nasty, arid, inhospitable times for the planet.

Now you simply have not come up with the evidence to overturn all this that is well understood. Start with the easy stuff first.

Tom and Lee won't be interested of course. But anyone who wants to get some actual evidence might go here:

http://www.cato.org/events/gw031212.html

or here

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

Published: April 17, 2006 6:41 PM
Graeme Bird

"Graeme said:
"Positive externalities Lee. You forgot the word 'positive'. "
This from the man who said that the forcible dispossession of tens to hundreds of millions of people as a possible consequence of those externalities would be "a minor issue.""

Well you see that's just you lying again Lee.

So lets sidestep your lie and press you further on why you keep pretending that CO2 output isn't a POSITIVE externality?

Increasing crop yields may be of no utility to a wealthy scientist sponging off the taxpayer. But surely you can see how it will benefit hundreds of millions of people the world over!!!

Published: April 17, 2006 7:01 PM
Graeme Bird

"The fact is that for purposes of disturbing the equilibrium concentration of atmospheric CO2, that CO2 cycling in biological time has a DIFFERENT effect than CO2 cycling in geological time"

I would say ENHANCING rather then DISTURBING. And the current setup must be enhanced or else we are in a state of perpetual bias toward glaciation.

This ought not be controversial either.

Published: April 17, 2006 7:07 PM
David J. Heinrich

Lee,

Briefly responding...

1. Simply because you don't like the solution of the free market, doesn't mean there "is no free market solution". What exactly do you define as a "solution"? Eliminating all pollution? Well, I guess if you think that the resultant mass-starvation that would follow is a good thing, then that's a "solution". Regarding pollution, we have basically two options: (1) The State can try to regulate it; (2) The State can let the free market deal with it, as much as is possible in a world of States.

The first option mandates thievery and robbery on a massive scale, and has been proven to be a complete and total disaster -- the more State-intervention in environmental matters, the worse the environment. Furthermore, any alleged environmental problems you may come up with do not provide justification for the existence of the State. I say this because the ends do not justify the means; Utilitarianism is a worthless moral "philosophy".

2. I argue that in a purely free market, there could be privately (voluntarily) funded environmentalist groups dedicated to reducing pollution, preserving valuable wildlife, and educating, the public. There are even some areas of this which interest me (I am fascinated by sharks).

However, you responded that this is not a solution, because a group of others would have to sacrifice to mitigate the costs that polluters impose. Well, if that's your criteria for a solution, then by definition the State can never be a solution to any problem, because it forces -- at least in my system it's voluntary -- groups of others to sacrifice to mitigate the costs those other than themselves create.

3. You continue to ignore the burden of proof. It is on you, as the person suggesting that all us evil polluters pay some penalty for polluting. You assert that my minute pollution (in combination with the minute pollution of everyone else) leads to some measurable impact on a macroscale. However, when reduced to the invidiaul scale, all you can argue is that my minute pollution leads to some immeasureable unproveable level of damage (presumeably to another's property).

The strength of the punishment you can enforce upon me rests upon the strength of your argument against me. As I do some minutely immeasureable, untraceable, unproveable level of damage to some non clearly proven victims, these unidentified not clearly proveable victims are entitled to some unmeasureable amount of compensation from me. That is, some amount that is not measureably different from $0. I suspect these unidentified unproven victims will not deem it worth their time to cash the check for lets say 100,000th of a cent.

Of course, I doubt many environmentalists would be satisfied with this.

4. For those environmentalists that think the voluntary environmentalist organizations in a free market would be very small and thus meaningless, this is an admission of their own belief in the weakness of their arguments. Namely, such a position is tantamount to saying they can't convince people voluntarily.

Published: April 17, 2006 7:49 PM
Graeme Bird

" I argue that in a purely free market, there could be privately (voluntarily) funded environmentalist groups dedicated to reducing pollution, preserving valuable wildlife, and educating, the public. There are even some areas of this which interest me (I am fascinated by sharks)."

Yes. Look at the massive amount of cheap land in far northern lattitudes, that now with the warming and extra CO2 will eventually open up for much extra plant growth.

Wealthy envorinomental types might easily buy up some of this, try to expedite the growing of various trees and things to serve as a CO2 sink, try to set up some sort of ecology for one or two appropriatly endangered critters and even make some money on the sly.

Its if things start running the other way that we could lose any real handle on the situation.

Published: April 17, 2006 8:53 PM
R.P. McCosker

David Heinrich writes:

"You [Lee] assert that my minute pollution (in combination with the minute pollution of everyone else) leads to some measurable impact on a macroscale. However, when reduced to the invidiaul scale, all you can argue is that my minute pollution leads to some immeasureable unproveable level of damage (presumeably to another's property)."

"[M]inute"? Hey, Lee has a link in the earlier Reisman global warming thread to a Wikipedia page (supposedly derived from the UN, though no link to that is provided) saying that Americans average 20.6 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

We know this is true because Wikipedia and the United Nations are the ultimate sources of truth. Golly, a person tries to avoid releasing CO2s -- traveling only by bicycle, recycling whenever possible, quitting smoking -- and then you end up spilling out 21 tons of CO2 every year. Very frustrating.

At least this isn't as bad as that smoldering industrial hellion, Qatar, with 70 per capita tons. Far better that we should live like the happy folks in Rwanda and Sierra Leone, who tread so lightly on the earth as to release only 0.1 tons of CO2. Or, still better, Burundi and Afghanistan, who don't release any at all!

(Hmm, environmentalists *used* to worry about the burning of firewood in the Third World -- how this caused deforestation. But wouldn't this release a lot of CO2s too? Funny we don't hear about this practice anymore: It must've stopped, since Lee's authoritative UN and Wikipedia sources don't record little or no CO2 releases from those ecological paradises.)

Let's each of us do what can be done to cut back on our 21 tons. (Say, that rhymes. There's gotta be a jingle there to go with a new major advertising campaign by the feds. Let's put our tax dollars to good use!)

Published: April 17, 2006 9:36 PM
averros

It is totally silly to claim that there has to be a state to deal with aggression on the property rights of masses of people.

First of all, the pollution must do some tangible harm to property, otherwise the "aggrieved" parties like environmentalists have no claim whatsoever to justify forcing others to conform to their beliefs.

In the case when most people do both pollute and suffer from the pollution, roughly three camps emerge: one is Polluters (coal power plants & such), another is Victims (say, owners of nature preserves or land flooded by raising sea), and the rest is most rank-and-file people whose pollution roughly balances their losses from pollution.

In this case we really want to deal with Polluters and Victims: nothing much can be done about the rest of the humanity, as any claim against any member of that group would be balanced by his counterclaim.

The coercion-free solution is called "free association". The aggrieved parties can form one or more groups pooling their damage claims and (having big enough claim to justify the costs of the enforcement) go after the big polluters.

Similarly, faced with the costs of the defense, the polluters may form groups to negotiate some settlements and thus reduce the costs of litigation (and show the good will, too, which will turn the premediated aggression into simple business negotiation).

The judges and arbiters then can compare the claims of these sides and offer just schedules of
compensation and such. Of course, if any party feels unhappy at the group-level decision, the party may leave the group and deal with the litigation alone - but there's a strong disincentive to do that, suing or defending against many other parties is not going to be cheap. (Also, refusal to engage in the good will negotiation would open the polluters to the justified self-defense by the victims and their representatives).

This approach both creates economic pressure on polluters to reduce pollution - and have the price of their products to reflect the true pollution costs; and also provides compensation to those harmed by the pollution, which can be used for the nature conservation purposes and such.

All without any state thugs brandishing their batons and guns. Without prohibiting any activity outright or imposing some trade barriers or arbitrary quotes skewed in favour of those who has bigger nukes.

Any objections to this scenario?

Published: April 17, 2006 9:40 PM
Lee

Graeme, you despicably dishonest little piece of festering runny shit, its RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THIS THREAD!!!!

I almost deleted that (there are at least a handful of honest people who are willing to act as if disagreeement isnt evidence of evil wrong, and actaully discuss value-based differences in ideas, adn they dont deserve this), but decided to let it stand. If the moderators want to kick me out for that, go for it. But I'm fed up with this Graeme asshole, who lies often and transparently in his tiresome and slanderous accusations, in this case IN THE FACE OF THE EVIDENCE SITTING RIGHT THERE AT THE TOP OF THIS THREAD. If he is representative of this site and community, or even if no one bothers to denounce him, no wonder no one takes y'all seriously.

---
I said, in the 6th post at the top of this thread:
---
Graeme:

1. ...

2. High-probability sea level rise, leading to the dislocation (and **forcibly** as an external effect of others' actions, loss of the lands they own) dislocations of tens to hundreds of millions of people. Saying, as others here have done, that they can just go elsewhere, is simply saying they have to bear the forcible sacrifice of thei lands for the benefit of others. Even assuming such benefit exists.

3. ...

---

Graham responded, in the very next post (and it is right up there for everyone to see):

I don't know about 1. ...

2. A minor issue.

3. ...
----

And now, right above, Graeme exhibits the extraordinary stupidity and base dishonesty to accuse ME, in the face of the evidence lying right there, of lying. He says this:

"Graeme said (quoting me at first):

This from the man who said that the forcible dispossession of tens to hundreds of millions of people as a possible consequence of those externalities would be "a minor issue.""

(and now G)
Well you see that's just you lying again Lee.

----

This man appears to be a respected member of this community and site. He relentlessly brings baseless acusations of dishinesty (based apparently on nothing more thandisagrement), and he lies overtly,as demosntrated here.
Why do you all tolerate this discrediting shit, without at least denouncing it?

Published: April 17, 2006 9:51 PM
Lee

WRong, david, on almsot everything.

Briefly responding...

1. Simply because you don't like the solution of the free market, doesn't mean there "is no free market solution". What exactly do you define as a "solution"? Eliminating all pollution?
{ - If yo uremember taht teh scenario ws a devestating consequences on a subset of people (ie a concentratin of external effecgts on people o tthe beneficiearies fo teh benefits), then dealin gwith it woudl be to mitigae that massively misallocated burden of cost. I woud have thoguht this was clear, from teh swcenariion and argument Thae stuff abut "ending all polllution" is just straw man diversion from a descriptin of the (assumed for the sake of the moral arguemnt, as Ive said I beleive twice in thsi thread, and as was Lisa'a point in the article) consequences of warming..

2. However, you responded that this is not a solution, because a group of others would have to sacrifice to mitigate the costs that polluters impose. Well, if that's your criteria for a solution, then by definition the State can never be a solution to any problem, because it forces -- at least in my system it's voluntary -- groups of others to sacrifice to mitigate the costs those other than themselves create.
L - Perhaps I wasnt clear enough about this. My point is taht ideally costs shoudlb epushed onto this eimposing the costs. Teh problem with fvoluntary response, si taht it specifically REMOVES teh costs from those imposing them. And, in the real world, this encouragement of free riding, woud lincrease teh size of the free ride, elading for any large-scale issue to inevitably overwhelmin g th epossibliity f the vomunteers to suport the free riders dumping their external costs.

3. You continue to ignore the burden of proof.

L - No id ont ignore it. As Lisa said, tehr are TWO issues; the scientific one and th epolicy one. I am exploring the policy issue, assuming the scientific case for thsi aprticualr argument. as Ive said before. I ahve addresses some small aprt of the scientific evidence,and offered to do a review of the literature I know when I have tim eto put it together. I'l probbly do this anyway; it woud lbe useful for me. But I have to say the relentless personal attacks, (as opposed to disputes about my ideas, which is pretty much the reason I seek out discussion with people who's ideas are not the same as mine) I am gettting here makes me tend to care a hell of a lot less about doing this for any of y'all.

The strength of the punishment you can enforce upon me rests upon the strength of your argument against me.

L - Finding a way to charge people for large costs they impose on others (even if they do it one small chrge at a time) is not "punishment" except in a world where imposing costs on others carries no responsibility.

4. For those environmentalists that think the voluntary environmentalist organizations in a free market would be very small and thus meaningless, this is an admission of their own belief in the weakness of their arguments.

L - Nope, its an example of the fact that free riding is pervasive if the system allows it.

Published: April 17, 2006 10:09 PM
Graeme Bird

Well there you are you hang yourself by your own documentation.

I said

"A minor issue"

You said I said

"who said that the forcible dispossession of tens to hundreds of millions of people as a possible consequence of those externalities would be "a minor issue."

But in reality I'm assuming that it will be generations before water levels rise. Which would, under liberty, merely lead to falling real estate prices concurrent with migration. The poor people don't own coastal land in general. Rich people have plenty of time to sort their affairs out. So under economic liberty its a minor problem. But most importantly its a minor NET problem.

As explained by the Proffessor. What is needed is liberty. Because we see that the countries like Australia, the US, Canada and even despite its high density population The UK are the countries, because of their legacy of liberty, are the ones who can assimilate great amounts of migrants, so long as multi-racial (as opposed to Multi-culti) assimilation and economic liberty are the policies.

As the pages of poorly reasoned objections roll by like wounded animals it pays to go back and read the Proffessors original essay. It seems to gain power with each day and every thousand words of mucking about that you and Tom perpetuate.

Please please please take this argument to Tigerdroppings for the next few weeks. This is abusing the hospitality of the Miseans.

Published: April 17, 2006 10:17 PM
Lee

Graeme, Graeme, Graeme -

My original post is right there; its what yo responded to. Good heavens but you're dishinest.

"The poor people don't own coastal land in general." Oh My. I'm sure the Bangladeshis, the inhabitants of coastal India, the people of Oceania, will be glad to hear they arent poor. This comment alone shows how utterly ignorant you are on the issues; if this happens (and current best science says there will be some, almsot certainly at least 1/5 feet, most likely about 3 feet, reasonable probabilty up to 6 feet, low possibility to 9 feet) that is VERTICAL rise. It isnt going to be restricted to the beachfront homes of Malibu; in some places 6' above MHHW is up to hundreds of miles inland.

If y recall, Graeme, Mises mposted an article claiming that ahuman-caused warming was natural and needed to be left alone (and you carried tah targumetn to RC),a dn then another article on teh WSJ article. IF the point is to solicit congratulatory backslapping among the 'Miseans' about how superior an' stuff y'all are, then I can see how responding might be interpreted as 'abusing the hospitality.' The casual acceptance of frequent accusations of dishonesty based on honest disagreement, and the overt devaluing to zero of any value system that leads to conclusions other than thos shared by the 'Miseans' seesm to confirm this. You confirm this. So why dont y'all turn it into a private mailing list where you wont have to endure disagreemnt, even for the time it takes the profound INhospitality of the Miseans to drive people away adn leave y'all to revel in each other's Misean-poltically-correct mutual congratulation society.

Published: April 17, 2006 10:33 PM
Francisco Torres

No id ont ignore it. As Lisa said, tehr are TWO issues; the scientific one and th epolicy one. I am exploring the policy issue, assuming the scientific case for thsi aprticualr argument.

Lee, David meant the proof that his MINUTE release of CO2 can have a MEASURABLE harmful effect on another person, in order to make him liable for damages. THAT proof.

Again, there is some doubt, but not much, about Global Warming. IMHO, I believe it is a rasonable possibility - now, is it a BAD thing? I do not know, nor am I so conceited as to lay the blame on SUV users and my barbecuing every Saturday, like you are doing, in order to establish coercive, thuggish policies.

Published: April 17, 2006 10:41 PM
Lee

Francisco,

When I'm afraid we're talking past each other again.

Y'all seem to be concentrating on assessing damages, which almost by definition are after the fact. I'm talkiing about moral responsibility for the consequences of actions occuring NOW leading to FUTURE impact on OTHERS. And I have not made a policy prescription, other than to argue that people who can rationally argue with reasonable probability that pending doom is heading their way due to the actins of others, have a right to deffend themseves. I said in that argument that their right to defend INCLUDES the right to use state power (just like my right under our existing system to call the cops if I find someone has broken into my house), because that IS an EXISTING tool that can be used for defense.

This leap to the conclusion that the GOAL is "thuggish policies" as if I am looking to invent a reason to force you to kowtow to me, is nearly as unpleasant as the accusations of lies. Why on earth is it so damned difficult for so many of y'all here to even consider the idea that people who disagree with you might actually be people of good will trying to find ways to address a difficult problem?

Published: April 17, 2006 10:54 PM
Lee

averros said:

"Any objections to this scenario?"

There is no mechanism for carrying it out in the world we now live in, so its a fantasy?

Published: April 17, 2006 11:05 PM
Francisco Torres

I'm talkiing about moral responsibility for the consequences of actions occuring NOW leading to FUTURE impact on OTHERS.

No, I understand what you're saying. The problem is that you do not recognize that there cannot be liability on a problem that cannot be MEASURED. You cannot hold people responsible for a problem you cannot prove exists.

This leap to the conclusion that the GOAL is "thuggish policies" as if I am looking to invent a reason to force you to kowtow to me, is nearly as unpleasant as the accusations of lies.

Do not be coy with me, mister. The fact is that any policy coming from a central bureaucracy (the methodology you imply you favour) cannot be any other than thuggish coercion, because that is the nature of centralist states. It is not a leap of the imagination to gather this from your comments, but the logical conclusion. You do not want to give free people a chance to think solutions, to adapt or to change by themselves. No, you rather prefer the coercive methods of a State. I cannot therefore conclude something different, it would be dishonest from my part.

Published: April 18, 2006 1:37 AM
BillG (not Gates)

averros wrote:

"First of all, the pollution must do some tangible harm to property, otherwise the "aggrieved" parties like environmentalists have no claim whatsoever to justify forcing others to conform to their beliefs."

BillG responds:

the tangible harm to property is the absolute property rights we all have to the fruits of our labor.

negative externalities are a defacto tax on wages.

Published: April 18, 2006 6:08 AM
averros

Lee --

There is no mechanism for carrying it out in the world we now live in, so its a fantasy?

There were no mechanisms for flying people not so long ago. There were no mechanisms for instaneous delivery of messages between homes and offices of the people. There were no mechanisms for peaceful deposing of murderous tyrants. There were no mechanisms for removing people armed to the teeth with nukes from the power (where is that Soviet Politbureau, exactly?)

All of these are the reality now.

The argument that something is impossible because it does not exist now is pitiful, frankly. It is merely an excuse for being an inert sheepie.

Published: April 18, 2006 6:09 AM
TokyoTom

quincunx:

Thanks for your reply.

1. On Hobbes and private violence, I believe than in many cases private violence is preferable to state violence - and has led to efficient common property rights regimes. However, private violence does not always lead to such results. I am not an anarchist, and I attribute the wealth of the West not merely to the engine of capitalism and markets, but also to an increase in public order and marked decrease in violence in the representative democracies. Of course there are problems that I do not deny.

2. Your points concerning the government role in mismanaging common and public resources are fair, but incomplete. Historically, I am not aware that there were any existing customary fishing regimes in coastal waters past the 3-mile international boundary or in pelagic waters that were supplanted by the 200-mile EEZ; I think that rather these were unowned fisheries suffering tragedy of the commons-type exploitation.

I do agree that the government has not been very helpful to date in resolving these fisheries problems, but think that establishing the EEZ was an essential first step to permitting rational solutions. Some fisheries problems conceptually are not so difficult; the economically silly and ruinous race to catch as many fish possible in fishing seasons that must be continually shortened could be resolved by separating markets for different types of fish and holding auctions for the rights to catch on an annual or longer basis. These types of solutions have been adopted in NZ and have long been advocated by the free-market environmentalists at PERC.

As much as you may dislike government action, however, I hope you can see that it is merited in some cases, like air and water pollution, and concede that we are better off with such regulation than without? What purely private solutions are practically available in such cases, in global fisheries or in the case of climate change (assuming arguendo it is a serious problem)? Given the externalities and problems of information and transaction costs among all of the individual economic actors, it is just impossible to see purely private solutions - the case of the toll road is just impossible to apply.

Published: April 18, 2006 7:17 AM
TokyoTom

banker, you're a tough nut to crack. Here I thought that perhaps, except for disagreeing on all of the facts or how to balance the factors involved, we might acknowledge that we share some common principles.

I give up trying to persuade you as to the science - I've provide tons of links before; I imagine you simply don't want to go through the work of rebuilding your map of reality. Actually, let me give you just one more link: http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/2/17/85716/1778/228.

As to the economics and political science approach, I thought that perhaps we shared an understanding that there can be market failures that private markets, because of externalities and informational and transaction costs, just cannot address. I thought we also might share the understanding that, because of the tendencies towards rent-seeking, government action is likely to be costly and efficient in addressing externalities (despite the best suggestions of free-market environmentalists, to which I have provided links previously).

Is there no common ground between us on these matters at all, excluding consideration of climate change?

Published: April 18, 2006 7:44 AM
TokyoTom

Francisco, you said to Lee that "humans, acting on their interests, are able to come with far more ingenious solutions to problems than what could a commitee of bureaucrats." I don't disagree, at least when the problem relates to resources that are susceptible to private ownership. However, this is not the case in most cases of air and water pollution, or in respect of unowned, commonly-accessible property such as fisheries or unowned forests, or for public goods such as watersheds.

Setting climate change aside for purposes of discussion, can you clarify your position in these cases, where there is no effective governmental ownership yet no private markets are working?

I see you have a long view of history - is there room in their for our tragic role in destroying common resources such as fisheries and innumerable extinctions (which are accelerating, to my understanding)? Are all these simply fated and natural, as Prof. Reisman would have it?

Published: April 18, 2006 8:06 AM
TokyoTom

David, averros and Francisco,

Surely you can see that your insistence that no action can be taken against polluters unless individuals involved can prove (i) measureable damages (ii) causation by one or more other identified individuals and (iii) the respective degree of causation leaves no practical solution at all to large-scale natural resource problems?

Your approach might be ideologically clean, but it is also silly, and ignores the ways in which we have all benefited from laws dealing with air, ground and water pollution - despite the inefficiencies and rent-seeking that have been involved in these imperfect solutions. Can you say with a straight face that you would really move back to the days where individuals essentially had no recourse against large corporations(because of informational, transactional and opportunity costs, and because the industrialists had the law in their pocket)?

The context of this discussion is climate change and the atmosphere - it may be a particularly sticky problem to deal with, but it is not in essence different from other environmental problems.

Published: April 18, 2006 8:37 AM
david chaplin

OK, we dont know whether humans are the cause of global warming or not. and we know that warming and cooling, and changes in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere , have long been a feature of this planet. Past rounds of these changes have not been subject to a good/bad value judgment, they are recognised as part of a dynamic world history. ANd it seems that natural responses to these changes tend to reversal, a sort of cyclical regression to the mean, in ways not yet fully understood.

SO Im not convinced its actually a problem in global, all-inclusive earthian terms - its just part of the evolutionalry process. That it may pose immediate problems for specific people and organisms who are not well placed to respond to it is a different question. But we can never stop the world and fix a premanently static state of affairs as a solution to potential harm faced by some - its impossible, even in principle.

It is almost certain that any action taken to oppose the 'threat' of global warming on a global basis will cause far more damage than it heals, in ways that won't even be understood for centuries after - if any other form of large-scale human ( read government) intervention in the past has been anything to go by.

seems to me that the most rational response to global warming is not trying to stop it, but in adapting ourselves to its effects in so far as they actually transpire. The world is clearly not going to fry and go extinct overnight. At worst, some areas currently agriculturally productive may suffer from crop failures. SOme species will go extinct, others will thrive and multiply ( and diversify), in a way no different to anything that has happened these last 4 billion years. Other areas which are currently unproductive may well become arable and open to all sorts of new uses. Yet other areas suitable for crop type A will become more conducive to crop type B. Make no mistake, the world will go on anyway, and find new ecological balances that will themselves in time shift. Or, we might not even see these effects to any appreciable degree. We just dont know. But to the extent they happen, changes of any sort are better ridden than stopped.

Old taoist saying: if the ground is hard underfoot, you can either carpet the world, or you can put sandals on. Therein lies the answer to the global warming question.

Published: April 18, 2006 8:43 AM
TokyoTom

I will say this again to the general board:

Once we posit the existence of a government, to do nothing but accept the status quo on climate change (or similar environmental problems) is to essentially grant to industrial corporations and numerous fossil fuel users the right to use the atmosphere to impose costs on all of us. Those who are imposing such costs are happy to keep on doing so, and in fact are foolish not to, there is no cost to using the atmosphere as a GHG dump, and the benefits of restricting one's own use of the atmosphere are enjoyed by all - free rider effects exist.

Yes, relying on private decisions in the market is the best way for us to ADAPT to NATURAL changes in the environment, but that irresponsibily IGNORES the human role in creating certain environmental problems in the first place.

A more honest approach would simply say that in ALL CASES the costs of government action on environmental and natural resource issues are greater than the intended benefits, but a less doctrinaire approach would be to argue why this conclusion is justified in particular cases.

Here, Lisa and others are simply assuming that no government action can be worth the costs, and so present a false dichotomy between no action and the anathema of some unspeakably horrible government role that will be the end of life as we know it. The fact that we've responded well to the doubling of oil prices since the invasion of Iraq (still climbing as we threaten Iran) shows the remarkable flexibility of the economy to the impact of government actions on prices.

Opponents of government involvement in such matters should also forthrightly argue about what existing environmental and public safety laws they wish to dismantle, as unjustiably costly.

Published: April 18, 2006 9:04 AM
Graeme Bird

THE ANIMALS CAN NEVER GET USED TO HEAT DIFFERENTIALS.

Unhampered by Keynesians and environmentalists heat differentials pose little problem for the humans in a capitalist economy.

But animals and most plants in the natural world can never get used to it.

To be sure they can get used to cold or warm climates. And if they are capable of migrating and their numbers are high enough they will get by with any climate change since natural selection will enable their descendants to adapt.

But always this business of heat differentials is a massive stress factor. And a limiting factor reducing the ability of animals to flourish.

Of course flourishing life in nature is a horrid fascist thing on one level. The jungle teams with life. But it teams with BARBARISM and MURDER as well.

But put the slaughter aside for one minute. There is no doubt that the jungle, with its night-time and winter heat retention, with its moisture, there is no doubt that this is a terrific set of circumstances for high natural productivity.

See the lamb born on a frosty spring morning. We have fleeced its mother such that they both shall be miserable. But that the mother will cling to the lamb for what little warmth the lamb can give her.

If the lamb was evolved to not be under great stress on a cold spring morning and during that first winter then it would be evolved to be perenially overheated in the middle of a summer day and it would perish.

So there is just no getting round the heat differential problem. To be sure there are various mitigating strategies. The deer has its young in the spring. She must feed it up on milk and quickly give it a layer of fat prior to the next winter.
If she had her children in the autumn few of them could make it through the winter.

The plants suffer too.

Yes its true some plants thrive near the ice on the mountaintops and others need the heat. Its not that we cannot have plants adapted for the hot climate or the cold climate. But the heat differentials will always be a stress factor.

But what if as by magic you could release the MAGICGAS. The MAGICGAS which would reduce the heat differentials everywhere.

Forget about the doe the lamb and the calf for one moment. Think about the fact that in the cold nights in the Sudan amongst the black Christian refugees, no-one can ever get any sleep. Since every night in the cold the wailing starts when one of the Mothers finally loses her little boy. They always seem to die in the cold of night.

What about the homeless. They are there in any country that is either anti-capitalist or capitalist with height restrictions on buildings, or rent controls or labour market regulation.

Why would anyone actively campaign to make the heat differentials greater?

And what if this SCIENCEGAS not only reduced the heat differential. But it increased the plant yields independent of this. Of course reducing the heat differentials in and of itself would increase the plant yields.

But what if the SCIENCEGAS both increased the yield directly and increased the yield by reducing the heat differential as well. Double-dipping. Manna from heaven.

Who would object.

Tom and Lee is who.

Don't talk nonsense about no warming being human-induced. This is just an OUT for "environmentalists".

Instead keep pressing them on why they are against the Mana from heaven. Why they are against the Magicgas. The Sciencegas.

Published: April 18, 2006 9:15 AM
Graeme Bird

"Once we posit the existence of a government, to do nothing but accept the status quo on climate change (or similar environmental problems) is to essentially grant to industrial corporations and numerous fossil fuel users the right to use the atmosphere to impose costs on all of us."

Lovers of liberty. You won't let him get away with this will you. Just blustering along as if CO2 is a negative externality. When we all know its the most HUMUNGOUS of positive externalities imagineable.

Keep pressing them on this.

Published: April 18, 2006 9:22 AM
BillG (not Gates)

Graeme Bird wrote:

"Lovers of liberty. You won't let him get away with this will you. Just blustering along as if CO2 is a negative externality. When we all know its the most HUMUNGOUS of positive externalities imagineable."

BillG responds:

lovers of liberty understand that this imposition of costs is nothing more than a defacto tax on wages violating our absolute right to the fruits of our labor and thus self-ownership itself...

the externalities imposed can only be a positive if it is a WELCOME benefit (a "good") by those it is being imposed upon and obviously if there is some INDIVIDUAL CHOICE in the matter...otherwise our universal ethic tells us that it must be judged as EVIL.

Published: April 18, 2006 10:04 AM
TokyoTom

David, on the question of externalities, you state that "There is no way to objectively say something is a negative or positive externality, as value is subjective, and interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible."

Do you really believe this? Well I`ve got alot of land at Superfund sites, federal nuclear production labs and industrial sites that may interest you. Interpersonality utility comparisons are not impossible, although it may be difficult in some cases. Who would say that pollution, or destruction of an important commerial fishery is a positive good?

Climate change is certainly a more difficult balancing, as there are scatter positives along with the negatives.

Published: April 18, 2006 12:37 PM
BillG (not Gates)

TokyoTom wrote:

"Interpersonality utility comparisons are not impossible, although it may be difficult in some cases. Who would say that pollution, or destruction of an important commerial fishery is a positive good?"

BillG responds:

the point is that if you can't control who is subject to these externalities and some view them as unwelcome positive externalities then they must ALL be rejected unless the person that views them as positive can have those specific externalities isolated only to the individual level.

if they could then we would not be having this discussion.

Published: April 18, 2006 1:25 PM
Sione

There are no externalities in the sense that something is either real or it is not real. Whether people evaluate it according to your ideals or not, well, that's a most interesting issue.

The really interesting question is what you propose to do about those who do not agree with your evaluations or ideology.

Sione

Published: April 18, 2006 7:04 PM
Graeme Bird

Here is the predictions from a model taking global dimming into effect. This over at realclimate.org. Of course getting all the assumptions of the model out of people is like pulling teeth. They won't tell you what their growth in CO2 assumptions are (just to take one example). Apparently a lot of the UN models have been using a growth of 1% compounding.

Well we know that's not true right? Because in the 90's they were talking 365ppm. And the most you hear quoted now is 368ppm. If it was 1% per year compounding it would be growing 3-4ppm each year. So its pretty hard to vouch for any models.

But here it is:

"The models show a global dimming effect of between 1 to 4 W/m2 over the 100 years with simultaneous global warming between 0.4 and 0.7°C (Romanou et al, under revision) which match the observational dimming quite well."

0.4 to 0.7 degrees warming over 100 years.

FRIGHTENING.

And consider that this is an AVERAGE. The actual increase in temperature would be weighted towards:

1. Nightime

2. Winter

3. Cold Air

4. Dry Air

In fact with the dimming effect it would actually be expected to shave off peak summer temperatures at the hottest part of the day.

And just look at what they want us to do in order to avoid this gruesome fate? Tax carbon right at the time when we are needing to substitute away from oil.

Published: April 18, 2006 10:50 PM
tz

Pollution permits still require an infrastructure - the institution that dare not speak its name - world government.

1. scientists set the limit

Political scientists or climatologists? If you've read even a small number of posts here there seems to be a large disagreement. What you are trying to say is that "Science" (a defined, logical, and rational discovery process that uses evidence) sets the limit, but I've been derided for suggesting that because the judicial system can set a price in order to set damages in a tort case, that same process could set a price for eminent domain, and I would think the environmental problems might even be more subjective. The problem is the same one with a tort for something irreplaceable (e.g. a 300 year old tree) or eminent domain, but on a larger and more distributed scale.

That said, I will agree that you can theoretically come to some apolitical process that could assess damages in a legally acceptable manner since I already argued that in the other cases.

But if the solution needs to be passed or implemented by politicians, we will result in oppressive taxation and pollution at the same time.

(This is the difficulty I was trying to show with the 80% box problem above - the optimal solution morally and economically is for all 100 to contract, but in the real world it won't happen that way - or if you remember the original Star Trek episode where computers would pick who died in a model war and the populace would just go to destruction chambers when they got a notice since real war was unthinkable, but maybe you think you can get Humans to do that without something horrible being done to them).

2. annual permits (titles to pollute) are required to sell goods that when used liberate CO2 into the sky

If damage is done by things like Heroin and Cocaine (which tend to be abused), would you argue for similar permits to sell (or buy) those goods?

I thought the container deposit on carbonated beverages was bad, now they would need to be licensed.

How do you avoid black markets and all the other problems of the DEA and "war on drugs" applying to CO2? I've read articles where it DOES apply to Freon which is heavily taxed and treated like tobacco or a schedule 1 narcotic because of "the ozone hole" - the Jackboot Ninja nighttime raids, huge prison sentences and such.

3. the market sets the price which is passed onto consumers.

How does the market set the price? Either the permits must be printed like fiat currency and hence tend toward zero, or there is a finite number of them, and like taxi badges will sometimes be ignored.

(I use the word "tax" to mean require the permit fee below, please excuse the semantic softness, but I don't want to keep typing multiple words, and "fee" is not a verb)

There is also a problem of composition. Do you tax cars, which produce no CO2, or Fuel? If you tax fuel, do you tax vegetable oil which can be used as biodiesel? Crayons which can become candles? I.e. a "carbon tax" even on items unlikely to be burned?

Do you give credits if I turn CO2 into chalk or plant trees or an algae farm?

4. the money collected (called economic rent) is returned to all the owners equally.

The first problem is logistics, but the second might be, if the fee is small enough, why can't I just get them to sign over their rights for a larger immediate, but lesser over time lump sum, and pollute more proportionately? Also, senior citizens are not likely to live to see any effects either way, but children will have to deal with the consequences - how is this effect resolved when not all owners will be equally damaged?

Published: April 18, 2006 11:33 PM
TokyoTom

Sione:

I understand your concern about measuring externalities; my problem with you is that you are theoretically an anarchist who denies any role to the state. As a result I find it difficult to get any traction with you on resolving practical, real-world problems. You would rather argue that there is no problem than to acknowledge one and to suggest a solution, even one that would fit within your ideology. It sounds like you would affirmatively do away with all environmental and public health and safety regulations altogether.

My own view of government is similar to that of Churchill expressed belo, tempered by a public choice understanding of rent-seeking and a preference for decisions to be made by private individuals over bureaucrats:

"Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill, 1947.

Like it or not, the state is not going away, so we are condemned to eternally fight its worst excesses, which we see distinctly manifested in the Bush administration.

What puzzles me is how so many here can see the rent-seeking by large corporations involved in the Bush administration's frightening, rampant pork-barrel and defense spending, but then not suspect that the administration's adamant refusal to do anything about climate change (as far as allowing junior staffers from oil companies to muzzle senior scientists) might not be motivated by similar rent-seeking by corporates (especially oil companies, who have see prices rise from $30 to $70 barrel since the Iraq war) at our collective expense.

Regards,

Tom

Published: April 19, 2006 3:09 AM
TokyoTom

Graeme, did you say this? "Tax carbon right at the time when we are needing to substitute away from oil." Did you tear up your Mises Institute membership card at the same time?

Clearly this stands in contradiction to the position of good Prof. Reisman - what would justify such an interference with the market and the theft of tax dollars? How can we trust our legislators, who are beset by rent-seekers on all sides, with the revenues, and how can we trust bureaucrats to set the "right" tax amount?

Mind you, by the way, that I agree that a tax substitution is an appropriate approach to certain types of problems. On climate change, it seems that we differ only in that you think global warming will be an unmitigated good.

On imported energy, I support increased taxes to cover our enormous "defense" costs, to be adjusted annually to reflect budgeted costs and budget overruns from the previous year. This would have the salutary effect of making voters/drivers aware of the costs of wasteful foreign policies that serve no interests other than defense constractors and big oil.

I see you are aware of the phenomenon of "global dimming" - to others, no, this is not a tongue-in-cheek term used to described either crazed enviros or the outbreak of fundamentalists in the US or in Muslim countries, but describes a serious phenomenon. Graeme, do you care to explain further? I am curious if view it as a positive or negative phenomenon, considering its effect as a partial brake on GHG-induced warming.

Published: April 19, 2006 3:47 AM
TokyoTom

Sione and others:

I've done a little more reading on the Mises blog site and found that, contrary to the "Reisman theory of collective irresponsibility", there actually is an "Austrian theory of environmental economics"! Prof. Roy Cordato has a very helpful article on this from May 2005 at this link: http://mises.org/daily/1760.

And wonder of wonders, I that Prof. Cordato's discussion of the importance of property rights in resolving environmental problems resonates with my own views (although I guess I must have been rubbing some wrong with Coasean concepts of "externalities"). Obviously words have failed me, so I take the liberty of quoting some relevant portions here:

"If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist. This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues …. This shifts the perspective on pollution from one of "market failure" where the free market is seen as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced property rights, is not in place."

"The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute plans within the context of their goals. Furthermore, in all three approaches, social welfare or efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. For Rothbard such conflicts arise because of interferences with the voluntary use of one’s own property. This prevents a demonstration of true preferences, moving one to a lower level of utility than would otherwise be achieved. For Kirzner interpersonal conflict that cannot be resolved by entrepreneurship and the market process gives rise to a lack of plan coordination and therefore social inefficiency. And for Cordato, conflict, that similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being captured by prices. A theory of environmental economics and pollution that evolves from problems associated with human conflict then would be a natural implication of each of these welfare standards.

In addition, these standards would argue that irresolvable inefficiencies, i.e., inefficiencies that cannot find a solution in the entrepreneurial workings of the market process, arise because of institutional defects associated with the lack of clearly defined or well enforced property rights. … In the absence of clearly defined and strictly enforced property rights this [exchange] process breaks down and the conflict becomes irresolvable through the market process. Under all three Austrian approaches to welfare economics, therefore, the solution to pollution problems, defined as a conflict over the use of resources, is to be found in either clearly defining or more diligently enforcing property rights."

I have been trying to argue that air and water pollution problems arise precisely because of the lack of clearly defined or well-enforced property rights. The question then is to how to address what Cordato calls the "legal failure", "where the market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced property rights, is not in place."

Does resolution of complex pollution problems then not require governmental action to provide the needed legal framework to allow the market process to work?

Rgeards,

Tom

Published: April 19, 2006 5:51 AM
BillG (not Gates)

Tokyo Tom wrote:

"I have been trying to argue that air and water pollution problems arise precisely because of the lack of clearly defined or well-enforced property rights."

everybody is looking under the wrong rock Tom by trying to focus on the bodily effects of pollution and then advocating for ajudication via the courts.

none of this is necessary - all that has to be established is the absolute right to the fruits of our labor and the state's role in protecting that right.

negative externalities are nothing more than a cost unwillingly imposed on our wages (higher health care costs)...the reason this happens is we allow some to enclose the sky as an inter-generational, natural commons (privatize) to be used as a sink beyond the sustainable yield (Locke's proviso) which FORCES these costs upon those being excluded.

this would happen EVEN in an anarchy!

the role of the state (a fiduciary responsibility) then as the public trustee of our common assets is to:

1. protect the common asset for future generations by limiting it's use/access upto the sustainable yield
2. protect the absolute property right we all have to our labor and hence our self-ownership.

this can be accomplished just the same way as we should for land...

1. issue annual permits (titles to pollute) ONLY up to Locke's proviso (sustainable yield)

2. collect the revenue (economic rent) and distribute it back to the owners directly and equally.

the state CAN NOT keep the money and spend it because then we will have conflated the sky from being owned in common as an individual right to being owned collectively as a group right.

I am not a collectivist!

Published: April 19, 2006 8:17 AM
BillG (not Gates)

TZ wrote:

"I will agree that you can theoretically come to some apolitical process that could assess damages in a legally acceptable manner since I already argued that in the other cases."

BillG responds:

if you limit the total CO2 to this years amount by selling annual permits for only that amount and give the money back to us all equally as the owners of the commons then next year people will say "let's get bigger dividends for all"

and what happens?

they restrict the number of permits tied to a specific amount of carbon and low and behold before you know it the self-interests of the owners in setting up a negative feedback loop will natural forces the CO2 amounts emmitted BELOW the sustainable yield of using the sky as a dump.

so it really doesn't matter what level of CO2 you start with...

self-interests of individuals will forces it down over time!

TZ wrote:

"If damage is done by things like Heroin and Cocaine (which tend to be abused), would you argue for similar permits to sell (or buy) those goods?"

BillG responds:

cocaine and heroin effect only individuals who engage in that activity whereas negative externalities effect everyone rqually.

TZ wrote:

"How do you avoid black markets and all the other problems of the DEA and "war on drugs" applying to CO2?"

BillG responds:

think about it...everyone gets a citizens dividend from the full rental value of using the sky as a dump for protecting your property rights to your labor and the inter-generational commons for future generations.

can you imagine the enormous social pressure and stigma there would be for cheating as you are stealing from everyone??

TZ wrote:

"How does the market set the price? Either the permits must be printed like fiat currency and hence tend toward zero, or there is a finite number of them, and like taxi badges will sometimes be ignored.

There is also a problem of composition. Do you tax cars, which produce no CO2, or Fuel? If you tax fuel, do you tax vegetable oil which can be used as biodiesel? Crayons which can become candles? I.e. a "carbon tax" even on items unlikely to be burned?"

BillG responds:

the permits are required as close to the "wellhead" as possible...estimates show that this is about 2000 companies worldwide.

oil should also be considered part of the natural commons too (but that is another post)

TZ wrote:

"Do you give credits if I turn CO2 into chalk or plant trees or an algae farm?"

BillG responds:

yes, we may even have to require that those who purchase permits also have to sequestor more carbon as you have described because of the potential dire straits we may find ourselves in shortly (geologic carbon is accumulative in the atmosphere)

Published: April 19, 2006 8:35 AM
Peter

FWIW, this interesting new site about climate science just went live today: The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

(Apparently ice mass is currently increasing on Greenland, contra Tokyo Tom...)

Published: May 3, 2006 2:33 AM
TokyoTom

Thanks, Peter. I`d direct interested readers to www.RealClimate.org, and on Greenland, to their various posts at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/greenland-ice-and-other-glaciers/#more-267.

Regards,

Tom

Published: May 3, 2006 10:25 AM

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Looking for clarity on global warming

Comments (104)

Blog Search

Blog Archives

Salamanca Live Blog

LvMI on Facebook

Inside Links

Students

Journals

Outside Links

More Aids

The Quotable Mises

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Looking for clarity on global warming

Comments (104)

Blog Search

Subscribe

Blog Archives

Salamanca Live Blog

LvMI on Facebook

Inside Links

Students

Journals

Outside Links

More Aids

The Quotable Mises