Britain's Stern Review on Global Warming: It Could Be Environmentalism's Swan Song
Here I examine the latest warning that the end is nigh, unless we reform our ways. How easy and simple it is all supposed to be, if only we will do as we are told, and get started doing so right away. All we have to do is sit back and leave the direction of our lives in the hands of the government. It will solve the problem of changing the global technology of energy production with the same success that the Soviets and the British Laborites pursued their respective varieties of socialism and with the same success that our own government has conducted its wars on poverty, drugs, and terror, and in Vietnam and Iraq. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (64)
If anyone here is interested, a strictly climatology-specific critique of Sir Nicholas' alarm-raising was published in the Telegraph recently. The author was a life peer, Christopher Lord Monckton of Brenchley.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
From the perspective of the British class system, what this means is a lord has gone after a knight, errant.
Published: November 6, 2006 8:45 AM
We should keep in mind that the Left cares about intentions, not actions. So let's pass all of the laws they want, but keep them vague, and then ignore their implementation. The Left will be in 7th heaven and we'll not destroy civilization. After all, that's what the Europeans have done and the Left praises them for it.
Published: November 6, 2006 9:21 AM
Daniel, Wow! That London Telegraph article is great! Thanks for the link!
Published: November 6, 2006 9:40 AM
Interesting..
The salient emergent implication for me, is that (all else being peripheral/ornamental 'fluff'..) a conclusion in which the remaining historical period of use of environtmentally objectionable fuel MUST be cordoned away from private, non-official access. That is the synthesised, implied
conclusion, as I gathered at least... much supporting 'fluff' notwithstanding. Going well beyond the usual sifting of categorical data, the
(actual) conclusion simply reflects the accelerating germinal agenda of terminal state conscription.
Respectfully submitted, PEKelloogg
Published: November 6, 2006 10:55 AM
Are there reliable data, namely on carbon emissions, that support the theory of global warming?
Or in fact, whether the climate is warming or cooling is just anybodies gess?
One may find it odd that under the Kyoto Protocol the countries that have emission stakes to sell are Russia, Ucraine, Belrusse, Romenia and Bulgaria. Is anyone cheking what emissions these countries or any others in the world really make?
Is not this vision of hell on earth just a stupid way of stoping capitalism or an atempt to regulate globalisation?
Ana
Published: November 6, 2006 11:53 AM
Anyone care to wager on how long it takes Tokyo Tom to appear?
Published: November 6, 2006 12:49 PM
Whatever the reason, anyone deny that local climates are changing? That glaciers are disappearing? Rain patterns changing?
Published: November 6, 2006 12:58 PM
"Whatever the reason, anyone deny that local climates are changing? That glaciers are disappearing? Rain patterns changing?"
I would say this kind of change has been happening for, oh, five billion years or so.
Published: November 6, 2006 1:10 PM
RogerM: Glad to. (The PDF is a bit of a download, but it's much more detailed. A 40-page read.)
If anyone is interested, I got the link from the Free Dominion [ http://www.freedominion.ca ].
Published: November 6, 2006 1:40 PM
I think it's an excellent point that allowing technology to progress will improve our ability to manipulate nature to our needs. I've already heard scientists argue that we are probably capable even today of manipulating the temperature of the atmosphere by, for instance, releasing large amounts of sulphur into the upper atmosphere or by making areas of the Earth's surface more reflective to sunlight. In the future, with economic progress, it may be possible to easily control the climate of large outdoor areas, whole countries, or even of the entire Earth. Maybe technology will one day be able to give us good weather every day, and provide a better environment for agriculture and human habitation over larger areas of the Earth's surface. But as Reisman points out, this will only be possible with economic progress. The environmentalists are the biggest obstacle to mankind having any shot at being able to control the Earth's climate. The environmentalists don't really want good weather; they want weather unaffected by man. They would prefer to live in a perpetual blizzard over a world with man-made good weather.
Published: November 6, 2006 3:57 PM
Ana:
I work for NASA, on software simulations (but not climate models). Every week week we build new versions of our simulations only to find dozens of software bugs. But at least in our case, we actually know what our models are supposed to produce. (Our models are used for training purposes and we create simulations, sort of computer games, to train our clients). The climate folks don't have this convenience, well - maybe they do really know what their results are supposed to be.
I just got the latest Engr. & Science Journal published by Cal Tech. It is a discussion on the NASA Earth Observing System (EOS) which is 17 satellites. The amount of data that is produced, yet not really understood is massive, but somehow goes into some of these climate models. The writer mentions that most measurements are made indirectly, as it is pointed out that we can't "simply take a thermometer reading of a driveway's temperature from space - instead we measure the intensity of infrared radiation and then infer a temperture baded on the known physical properties of the driveway". And that's for a driveway we know precisely. The article goes on to mention that this data is being used to try to predict rainfall since water vapor is the prime greenhouse gas. Then there's a section on how that relates to CO2 which is so complex the diagrams in the article are nearly unintelligble.
Next there is a little section on the good bad and the ugly of ozone. It seems that at low levels it's bad, then a little higher it's good, then bad again, then higher still good. One of these levels apparently acts as a greenhouse gas, but at other levels not so. So, should we be trying to fix the ozone hole or widen it?
But I like best the part about how the widespread burning of cow dung in India might, ironically, lead to the cooling of the planet. Evidentaly, one cure for global warming is air polution.
So, while some, especially those that get funding to scare us, say there is a 100% concensus on the issue, there are at least some who are not so certain and work for Cal Tech and NASA. My guess is this article could well be a mistake and could severly lessen their funding in the future. I'm sure their management will correct their behavior as managers are funded by the success or failure of their underlings to scare up funds by their research.
Published: November 6, 2006 3:58 PM
Here's another article from the Telegraph that claims GW stopped in 1998! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
Published: November 6, 2006 3:59 PM
It's often said that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged. Here's another link to an article by a liberal environmental journalist who got mugged by environmentalists in Europe:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
As the Telegraph article shows, deceit is a main tool of radical environmentalists.
Published: November 6, 2006 4:11 PM
Sorry, that link above should be http://www.tulsaworld.com/ArchiveSearch/search/ArchiveArticle.asp?ArticleID=061029_Sy_G2_Envir5976
Published: November 6, 2006 4:11 PM
Paul Kirklin:
"Maybe technology will one day be able to give us good weather every day, and provide a better environment for agriculture and human habitation over larger areas of the Earth's surface."
There is growing consensus in the scientific community -- proponent Ray Kurzweil was interviewed for three full hours on the subject on C-SPAN2 yesterday -- that we are only 25 years or so from the creation of superhuman intelligence, which will grow exonentialy greater in very short order.
If so, then whatever problems global warming may present (if any, which I doubt), then we'll surely have the technology to combat it.
Published: November 6, 2006 4:15 PM
Laying aside the question of whether global warming exists, if we reduce modern technology we will be reducing the carrying capacity of the earth for human beings. When carrying capacity declines for a species, the immediate result is widespread and indescriminate death of the species.
Environmentalists consider humanity a plague at best and would like to eliminate as many people as possible (they would remain as the enlightened curators of gaia, of course). Since most of us are unwilling to commit suicide at their behest, the apparent plan is to persuade us to destroy ourselves by rejecting technology and reducing the carrying capacity of the earth in order to create a global holocaust.
An interesting and ingenious plan to depopulate the earth. Save the whales and spotted owls by eliminating humanity!
Published: November 6, 2006 4:17 PM
Well the second link requirs registration, so try this: http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/44657.html
It's a good story, so please keep trying!
Published: November 6, 2006 4:22 PM
Eric,
Be careful how much you like this: "But I like best the part about how the widespread burning of cow dung in India might, ironically, lead to the cooling of the planet. Evidentally, one cure for global warming is air polution."
It happens through massive particulate release from highly inefficient combustion that is the "burning of cow dung". As well, before those particulates "do their magic", in the upper atmosphere, of solar/thermal radiation reflector, they carry the unwelcome risk of lodging in your airways. Needless to say, if we pursue that strategy of "Global Cooling", many Track & Field records we'll stand while we can to do little other.
Published: November 6, 2006 4:44 PM
A glib and pernicious side step pervades analyses like Stern's, and it concerns "development" of new (effective, cheap) technologies. They make the very common mistake (likely either out of wishful thinking or intent to deceive) of confusing the DESIGN of some new technology with the PROPAGATION of installed, operating units of said technology.
The two phases are, of course, not really separable in the manner that I have distinguished between them above, but of the two, by FAR the greater costs lie in the second phase (PROPAGATION, or what economists call "diffusion"). And it is this expensive, time-consuming second phase that environmentalists omit from their reckonings of the supposed "costs" of "developing new technologies."
Don't let their mistake become your mistake as you evaluate their self-serving half-truths.
Published: November 6, 2006 7:22 PM
George, it has always been interesting to me that things get worse when the climate cools, and they get worse when it warms up. Actually, the warmer the climate the greater area of the earth that is habitable. Also, as the greenhouse gases increase it means that more plants will be able to grow as they need these gasses. Earth has a way of leveling out anything that is thrown at it if we are just patient (wait 10,000 years etc.)
Thanks
Jim Hollingsworth jimhollingsworth@verizon.net
Published: November 6, 2006 7:24 PM
There is growing consensus in the scientific community -- proponent Ray Kurzweil was interviewed for three full hours on the subject on C-SPAN2 yesterday -- that we are only 25 years or so from the creation of superhuman intelligence
Of course, we've been 25 years away from superhuman intelligence for the last 50 years. (The first such prediction I know of was published at the time of the famous Dartmouth Conference in 1958)
Surely we're closer now, but nobody can say when (or if!) it will happen.
Published: November 6, 2006 11:39 PM
Dr. Reisman:
Thank you very much for bringing the recently released report by Sir Nicholas Stern, former Chief Economist of the World Bank from 2000-2003, to the attention of readers here at Mises!
I hope that your comments will stir those here who have an interest in such matters to actually read some of the report, which you have graciously linked to. You may be aware that other economists have also reviewed and commented on the Stern report; here is what some of them had to say:
"If the world is waiting for a calm, reasonable, carefully argued approach to climate change, Nick Stern and his team have produced one. They outline a feasible adjustment policy at tolerable cost beginning now. Sooner is much better."
Robert M. Solow
Nobel Prize economist 1987
"The Stern report shows us, with utmost clarity, while allowing fully for all the uncertainties, what global warming is going to mean; and what can and should be done to reduce it. It provides numbers for the economic impact, and for the necessary economic policies. It deserves the widest circulation. I wish it the greatest possible impact. Governments have a clear and immediate duty to accept the challenge it represents."
James Mirrlees
Nobel Prize economist 1996
“The stark prospects of climate change and its mounting economic and human costs are clearly brought out in this searching investigation. What is particularly striking is the identification of ways and means of sharply minimizing these penalties through acting right now, rather than waiting for our lives to be overrun by rapidly advancing adversities. The world would be foolish to neglect this strong but strictly time-bound practical message.”
Amartya Sen
Nobel Prize economist 1998
“The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change provides the most thorough and rigorous analysis to date of the costs and risks of climate change, and the costs and risks of reducing emissions. It makes clear that the question is not whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to act. To be sure, there are uncertainties, but what it makes clear is that the downside uncertainties—aggravated by the complex dynamics of long delays, complex interactions, and strong non-linearities—make a compelling case for action. And it provides a comprehensive agenda—one which is economically and politically feasible—behind which the entire world can unite in addressing this most important threat to our future well being.”
Joseph Stiglitz
Nobel Prize economist 2001
While Stern is no longer at the World Bank, this is what Paul Wolfowitz, President of the World Bank had to say:
"The Bank is committed to addressing the dangers of climate change and has made substantial progress in developing an Investment Framework for Clean Energy And Development. I very much welcome the Stern Review which provides a much needed critical economic analysis of the issues associated with climate change, and complements the recent IEA technology assessment and the World Bank's Clean Energy Investment Framework paper. The Bank is today working closely with its clients and partners to turn our analysis into practice, and will seek to substantially increase its own investment flows and those of the private sector.
A crucial next step is to involve the private sector in the EIF. I am therefore pleased to support a partnership between the World Bank and the World Economic Forum and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development to stimulate private sector investment through the Energy Investment Framework. Chancellor Gordon Brown and I will co-host a conference early next year to launch the
partnership. "
Summaries if some of the other commentary on the report can found here:
http://www.energybulletin.net/21918.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/21832.html
I hope to provide more substantive comments later on your own analysis, but let me make two initial remarks:
First, you miss the main point, which is not that your ideological enemies perceive a problem that you prefer to deny, but that the atmosphere is essentially an open-access resource in which no property rights exist and for which no market transactions can occur. As a result, users of the atmosphere are free to pass on the costs of their use to others and thus have no incentives to internalize costs. Hence, there is no pricing mechanism at work with respect to the atmosphere that calls forth changes in behavior, and all that we are left with are PR disputes between a number of different camps as to whether, when and how to create mutually agreed mechanisms to deal with this common resource.
At its core, this phenomenon is not different from other resource wars where clear and effective property rights have yet to be established. Clearly the chief message of the Stern report is that the problem of climate change will only worsen as long as we ignore the property rights failure and the concomitant absence of effective pricing signals to which individuals in market economies otherwise react.
Second, in this connection, it is rather surprising that you frankly suggest that "if economic progress and the enjoyment of its fruits will consume the world in flames, and thus that living like human beings means we really will all go to hell, then so be it. Better to live as human beings now, while we can, than throw it away for the sake of descendants living as pre-industrial wretches later on." Is the responsible way to address the problems that bedevil open-access resources generally to throw up one's hands and simply to pass on a worse problem to future generations, who one hopes will be more responsible than us?
Yet despite your buck-passing in the name of "maximum individual freedom", it seems clear that you think that collective action may be necessary, and that you are not opposed to such collective action in the FUTURE: "It is precisely modern industrial civilization and its further expansion and intensification that is mankind's means of coping with all aspects of nature, including, if it should ever actually be necessary, the ability to control the earth's climate, whether to cool it down or to warm it up."
If you acknowledge that mankind might be justified in acting collectively to deliberately manipulate the climate in the future, on what philosophical basis do you oppose mankind taking such actions now, in order to mitigate the threat of greater perceived harms later?
Regards,
That human-hating irrational commie fascist environmentalist who desperately wants to destroy wealth and stifle human freedom,
TokyoTom
PS: I recall that you commented previously about how Congress has run off the rails in its responsibilities. In that connection, I thought you might appreciate this editorial from the NY Times that heartily endorses your view: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/opinion/05sun1.html?em&ex=1163048400&en=9f52757e58119711&ei=5087%0A
Published: November 7, 2006 6:36 AM
TT,
Just as we have "Cap'n Crunch", a cartoon Knave, replete w/ Technicolor flourishes, to sell us hollow sustenance fortified by accepted "scientists", we get you, "Cap'n Trade", 'toonishly Naive, replete with rhetorical redundancy, to sell us, on yet more top-downism, equally "fortified", that which will only serve to further our hollowing-out.
Published: November 7, 2006 6:57 AM
Before anyone else says it:
TokyoTom:environment::Person:IP
Published: November 7, 2006 8:24 AM
I apologize again for the bad links above for the article on how European environmentalists use deceit. This one should work: http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=203
If not, try search for the article "The world’s poor new enemy: Environmentalists" by Phelim McAleer. I read it first in the Tulsa World, but it has been printed in several papers and on several web sites.
Here's an interesting paragraph from the article:
"It was surprising that environmentalists would lie, but the most shocking part was yet to come. As I spoke to the Western environmentalists, it quickly emerged that they wanted to stop the mine because they felt that development and prosperity will ruin the rural "idyllic" lifestyle of these happy peasants."
Published: November 7, 2006 8:49 AM
"Are there reliable data, namely on carbon emissions, that support global warming?"
The theory of global warming tells us that greenhouse gases (especially CO2) cause an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere.
This is what the german government ( an advocate of this theory)writes about the correlation of CO2 and the temperature:
"An exact analysis...shows that the temperature has a little forerun of approximately 8000 years compared with the concentration of CO2. First...the temperature changes...The increase of the temperature causes an increase in the temperature of the oceans which release CO2 (and vice versa)."
When did the last ice age end?
Published: November 7, 2006 8:55 AM
"Or in fact, whether the climate is warming or colling is just anybodies gess?"
Yes, it depends on the time frame you are looking at. Several million years ago, it was warmer than today (approximately 8°C warmer). During the last ice age it was colder than today (approximately 5°C colder). So you can pretend everything: It can get warmer or colder.
Even the IPCC admits that it cannot predict the climate of the future.
According to IPCC: ""Climate" refers to the average weather...over a certain time-span and a certain area...Many processes and interactions in the climate system are non-linear...A complex, non-linear sytem may display what is...called chaotic behaviour...The daily weather is a good example...This does not preclude successfull weather prediction, but its predictability is limited to a period of at most two weeks."
To sum it up: According to IPCC climate is the average weather. Weather predictions are reliable only for the next two weeks. So obviously they cannot predict the climate 50 years from now.
Published: November 7, 2006 9:15 AM
"Is anyone checking what emissions these countries or any others in the world really make?"
Probably not. But that is not the goal. For example, the german politicians could easily sign the Kyoto protocol, because of the breakdown of the industry in the GDR in 1990. Now they can pretend to save a lot of CO2 (simply by doing nothing) and at the same time introduce new taxes, regulations and bureaucracies.
Published: November 7, 2006 9:44 AM
"Whatever reason, anyone deny that local climates are changing?"
No, that´s what the climate always does. E.g. during the last 1000 years there were significant changes in the climate of central europe (a warm period in the Middle Ages, the little ice age) without significant emissions of greenhouse gases.
Published: November 7, 2006 9:51 AM
Tokyo Tom:
I don't have time to check all of the supporters you quote above, but one name did stand out to me: Joseph "I changed my mind and now support minimum wage legistation" Stiglitz. Given that we must conclude that he is either brain-damaged or has had his ethics compromised, I think we can safely eliminate his furious hand-clapping as an indication that we, too, should support Stern's views.
I would urge you to read the article linked near the top of the comments. It belies a certain desperation on the part of environmentalists that they would seek to skew data and rewrite physics to suit their own ends. As a matter of fact, I'd say ol' Joe Stig is in good company.
I used to be a tentative supporter of environmentalism, but a continuous piling-up of contrary evidence and a thinly-veiled lack of objectivity from that camp has made me overwhelmingly skeptical. Top that off with the alarming undercurrent of racial self-hatred and you have the recipe for a disastrous political movement.
Published: November 7, 2006 11:05 AM
Scott: "I don't have time to check all of the supporters you quote above..."
No need. They're all socialists except for Wolfowitz, who is just blowing with the prevailing winds.
Published: November 7, 2006 11:20 AM
Yes, the climate has always been changing from hot house age to ice age. The difference between this change and historical changes is that we now have the technology to compensate for the changes.
Whether the warming will accelerate or not, there seems to be universal agreement between people who study such things that the the great shortage in the near future is sufficient clean water. Doesn't matter if the cause is climate change or population increase, we will get one or the other - or both.
The response should be increasing water storage and moving inland. The experts at the University of Washington have predicted that in the next 50 or 100 years that we will get more rain in the summer and have less snow pack in the winter. The state is investigating a new irrigation dam on the east side of the Cascades. The do-gooders should be encouraging this sort of activities instead of trying to destroy the economy.
Published: November 7, 2006 11:50 AM
A shortage of water now? We've already got the technology to make seawater fit for drinking. As time goes by this will become increasingly more cost effective. All that is required to solve any water shortage problem is to make the desalinisation of water more efficient. Pipelines and pumps will take care of the rest. Then we'll have plenty of water as long as we've got oceans. This seems like a hurdle that mankind should be able to overcome before very long. Desalinisation is already a reality on a pretty large scale. A plant in Saudi Arabia creates 250 million gallons of freshwater per day, and desalinisation technology is improving all the time.
Published: November 7, 2006 1:49 PM
"The environmentalists don't really want good weather; they want weather unaffected by man. They would prefer to live in a perpetual blizzard over a world with man-made good weather."
This smacks of the kind of us-vs-them ignorance that pushes people apart. It's also obviously untrue. Environmentalists, like everyone else, want weather that allows us, as well as the variety of plants and animals that we depend on for sustinence, to live in relative comfort.
Published: November 7, 2006 7:01 PM
But I like best the part about how the widespread burning of cow dung in India might, ironically, lead to the cooling of the planet. Evidentaly, one cure for global warming is air polution.
Eric:
You make some excellent points. You might be interested to know that this is already happening as is already well-documented, using methodology that would actualLY pass muster as scientific. Do a search for "Global Dimming"
. I saw a Nova show where people claim that the intensity of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface has dropped by 20%. (This is measured by photoelectric cells and pan evaporation.) They cited the Maldives as a control area - the winds from India pass over the Nortn but do not pass over the South.
Does this mean that the Global Warming models are wrong - yes, but in the sense that the magnitude of the effect of CO2, according to the researchers, must be much higher that exected!(I conjecture (cynically) that this interpretation was included so that the article coould be published.)
Also interesting was the effect of ice vapor trails made by jets - they reflect the sun's radiation bach into space and thus cool the planet. So John Kerry and Al Gore flying around in jets is actually combatting global warming. Also, the CO2 emitted from their Suburban's and Hummer's is accompanied by water vapor, which also leads to
cloud formation that reflect sunlight back into space.
Published: November 7, 2006 8:26 PM
Mark Hoffer:
1. "Cap'n Trade"? - I have taken no position here and am open to all suggestions.
2. "'toonishly Naive"? Care to enlighten me or others?
3. "replete with rhetorical redundancy"? You are hoist on your own petard!
As this contradicts your previous point about my toonish naivete, I take this as a grudging compliment that I am more persuasive than you wish me to be.
4. "to sell us, on yet more top-downism". Nope; I'm selling nothing other than the burden of responsibility.
I merely (a) point out that there are REAL environmental problems, due to the Austrian observation that lack of clear and enforceable propoerty rights prevent resource users from working out their conflicts through private, market transactions and (b) ask Miseans to seriously consider how these problems can be best addressed, either by private individuals/groups, governments and on an international level.
5. "will only serve to further our hollowing-out." I disagree in principle.
As I pointed out, the discussion now underway is not fundamentally different from how users of other resources agree, in the face of increasing demand, competition and technological pressure, to move from unfettered access to the resource to managed access under shared rules. The negotiations are rife with gamesmanship as various users try to extract the maximum indiividual advantage at the expense of others.
You mock yourself with your Zen-like crypticism. Unsheath your pen!
Published: November 7, 2006 11:16 PM
Scott D: Thanks for the favor of your comments.
Someday, Dr. Reisman may also have a Nobel. Do you mean to tarnish the medal beforehand, by discounting all other Nobel prizewinners who think that climate change is a matter that justifies more dismissal as the fevered rantings of environmental fanatics? The point is that the report deserves attention, even if one may ultimately disagree with its science, policy prescriptions or supporters.
I have looked at the link first posted above. Is "Lord Monckton" uniquely qulaiified to judge climate science? Why is he publishing his remarks in a newspaper, rather than in a scientific journal? Does that tell us anything about the reliability of his remarks or about his motivations? I am not qualified to judge myself, but note that someone has taken a quick stab at his piece here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/chinese_navy_disproves_global.php
"Top that off with the alarming undercurrent of racial self-hatred and you have the recipe for a disastrous political movement."
This is more than a bit melodramatic, don't you think? Could it possibly be that there are real problems that concern environmentalists, but most enviros simply don't understand either the genesis of such problems or the directions in which solutions may lie?
Why do Miseans, who understand that one of the great sources of conflicts over resources is the lack of clear and enforceable property rights, prefer to ignore the institutional problems and to simply bash environmentalists for being evil???
Can it be that Miseans simply do not want to apply their policy analysis to real problems?
Published: November 7, 2006 11:46 PM
Roger, the McAleer article about the Romanian mine issue is interesting. But can you tell us its relevance to the discussion of a report by the former chief economist of the World Bank about climate change?
Also, perhaps you did not notice my questions and further data to you at the end of our last discussion, about why we should dismiss the hightened GHG levels produced by human economic activity and about my unfair/oppressive debating style: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005680.asp.
Requesting the favor of a response.
Tom
Published: November 8, 2006 12:13 AM
Mr. Potts:
What is it with you and "glib and pernicious side steps"?
You say that analyses like Stern's, "out of wishful thinking or intent to deceive", (1) make "the very common mistake of confusing the DESIGN of some new technology with the PROPAGATION of installed, operating units of said technology" and (2) in so doing omit the "expensive, time-consuming second phase ... from their reckonings of the supposed "costs" of "developing new technologies.""
Wrong. Stern and others are vary aware of these costs and the long implementation timeframes involved with capital stock, which is why they believe that early action on climate change policy are very important. Here are a few quotes from the Stern report: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/8AC/F7/Executive_Summary.pdf
P1: "The effects of our actions now on future changes in the climate have long lead times. What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years. On the other hand what we do in the next 10 or 20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next."
P 15
"Stabilisation at 450ppm CO2e is already almost out of reach, given that we are likely to reach this level within ten years and that there are real difficulties of making the sharp reductions required with current and foreseeable technologies. Costs rise significantly as mitigation efforts become more ambitious or sudden. Efforts to reduce emissions rapidly are likely to be very costly.
An important corollary is that there is a high price to delay. Delay in taking action on climate change would make it necessary to accept both more climate change and, eventually, higher mitigation costs. Weak action in the next 10-20 years would put stabilisation even at 550ppm CO2e beyond reach – and this level is already associated with significant risks."
P19: "Investments such as power stations, buildings, industrial plants and aircraft last for many decades. If there is a lack of confidence that climate change policies will persist, then businesses may not factor a carbon price into their decision-making. The result may be overinvestment in long-lived, high-carbon infrastructure – which will make emissions cuts later on much more expensive and difficult."
"The next 10 to 20 years will be a period of transition, from a world where carbon-pricing schemes are in their infancy, to one where carbon pricing is universal and is automatically factored into decision making. In this transitional period, while the credibility of policy is still being established and the international framework is taking shape, it is critical that governments consider how to avoid the risks of locking into a high-carbon infrastructure, including considering whether any additional measures may be justified to reduce the risks."
P22: "The need for action is urgent: demand for energy and transportation is growing rapidly in many developing countries, and many developed countries are also due to renew a significant proportion of capital stock. The investments made in the next 10-20 years could lock in very high emissions for the next half-century, or present an opportunity to move the world onto a more sustainable path."
Published: November 8, 2006 2:19 AM
Dr. Reisman:
As I noted above, the atmosphere is essentially an open-access resource in which no property rights exist and for which no market transactions can occur, and the political discussion, partisan position-taking and rent-seeking we see concerning climate change and GHG emissions is a classic struggle about how to resolve conflicts regarding such an open-access resource.
Please allow me to make several additional comments that spring from this observation.
First, you cast the Stern proposals as ones whose intention is to impose government action intended to stop private action. While Stern proposes government action, isn't it more accurate to say that he is proposing actions to create a pricing signal where none now exists, due to the absence of property rights?
Stern says: "Carbon pricing gives an incentive to invest in new technologies to reduce carbon; indeed, without it, there is little reason to make such investments." Do you disagree with him?
Second, unless we create mutually agreed mechanisms to deal with this common resource, the absence of feedback in the form of prices and market transactions means that inevitably human economic activity will continue to generate GHG emissions and climate change.
Isn't the chief question confronting Miseans simply that of whether the benefits of taking mitigation and adaptation measures concerning climate change exceed their costs?
There is by no means a simple answer to this question, as the Stern report (and its flaws) shows.
Third, you say that "The ability to produce the materials, components, and equipment required by these low-carbon technologies rests on the existence of previously established highly developed carbon-based technologies. Further substantial economic development on the same foundation is required for the further development of low-carbon technologies. Wherever the use of high-carbon technology is cheaper than that of low-carbon technology, forcibly curtailing its use implies the forcible reduction of the physical volume of production in the economic system, including its ability to produce further capital goods."
The first part of this is certainly correct, but what you fail to observe in the second part is that the market currently does not price GHG emissions. At least in principle, creating a market for an open-access resource by legally enclosing the commons does not forceably reduce the volume of production, but simply aloows individual actors to adjust to the new pricing signal. As the Stern report notes, there is amply room to improve energy efficiency:
"The technical potential for efficiency improvements to reduce emissions and costs is substantial. Over the past century, efficiency in energy supply improved ten-fold or more in developed countries, and the possibilities for further gains are far from being exhausted. Studies by the International Energy Agency show that, by 2050, energy efficiency has the potential to be the biggest single source of emissions savings in the energy sector. This would have both environmental and economic benefits: energy-efficiency measures cut waste and often save money."
Finally, what you and others seem to have completely missed is that there is a huge international gamesmanship aspect to climate change discussions, in which all sides are playing for advantage - to earn domestic political points, to build international consensus for long-term mutual benefit, to score short-term benefits, and the like. The British report is in this regard very much a political document, design to serve the purposes of those who commissioned it - certain parts of the British government.
While many strands of motivation could be parsed out, no doubt in part the Stern report is designed (1) to firm up domestic support for Britain's international negotiating position (on Kyoto I and II) and (2) as a message to convince the US and others like China and India of the need to join in coordinated actions to reduce GHG emissions.
To circle back to my initial observation, this behavior by the UK is typical of the behaviors of resource users attempting to form a consensus on how to jointly manage open-access resources.
In other words, all of these points relate to readily discernable and analyzable matters. It is hardly insightful, or helpful, to assert as you do that "Sir Nicholas's Review is characterized by an apparent belief in a kind of magical power of words to create and control reality." Perhaps if you took a further step back, you might see the big picture a little more clearly.
Sincerely,
That human-hating irrational commie fascist environmentalist who desperately wants to destroy wealth and stifle human freedom,
TokyoTom
Published: November 8, 2006 3:13 AM
TT:"The McAleer article about the Romanian mine issue is interesting. But can you tell us its relevance to the discussion of a report by the former chief economist of the World Bank about climate change?"
Here's the link: Daniel had posted a link to an analysis of the Stern report in the London Telegraph and that article mentioned the deceitful methods of the GW crowd. The article I linked also talked about the use of deceit on the part of radical environmentalists.
Published: November 8, 2006 8:19 AM
TT,
This: "I'm selling nothing other than the burden of responsibility." transmogrified through the prism of, yet, another, over-arching supra-/super-State apparatus, has been your constant drumbeat. That "Cap 'n Trade" is their preferred scheme, oft parroted by yourself, is, quite, the fact of the matter.
That you, and your consorts, paper your propaganda with pleas of "Responsibility" is an act too tired to bear, especially in re-run.
Queer it is, that our "guiding lights", our "overwhelming consensus", is forever found propounding "Paternalism". Their "top-downism" and, thereby, their prescribed pallatives, to purge the purported plagues, do, in fact, "hollow-out" the Individual--the One, best able, to rearrange, and organize, new, less-dischordant, Harmonies.
That nothing like:
http://www.hannaford.com/Contents/Healthy_Living/Guiding_Stars/index.shtml
is seen offered from these wannabe "sherpas" should be indicative that what lies at the end of their trail is the deceit of dependency, rather than the truth of Liberty.
Otherwise, the simple repetition of:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rhetorical
does not disclaim this charge:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/naive
petard defused.
Published: November 8, 2006 9:09 AM
Mark, thanks; I know you`re into purely voluntary action. Since that`s your bag, why don`t you push it, and show links to the many, many resources that discuss what companies, communities and individuals are voluntarily doing, instead of whining to me how I do not? There are many places to start, such as the American Petroleum Institute, Business Roundtable, Pew, and others easily dug up by Googling, such as here: http://www.google.co.jp/search?hs=EJp&hl=ja&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=climate+change+carbon+calculator&btnG=Google+%E6%A4%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr=
But if you want to discuss it with me, why don`t you first take up my argument that, since climate change is a problem relating to a global open-access resource, that the scale of cooperation needed is much more significant than can be addressed through purely private action?
Published: November 8, 2006 10:02 AM
Roger, my own view of enviros is that there is much more foolishness and misunderstanding of the causes of problems than there is deliberate mendacity about them. I think trying to understand why others think the way they do is more helpful than just dismissing them as evil. But if you want to broadly sweep away all scientists, economists and politicians who have carefully considered and are concerned about climate change matters as "deceitful" "radicals", by all means continue to do so. You`re simply simply putting yourself on their level.
Published: November 8, 2006 10:13 AM
"But if you want to discuss it with me, why don`t you first take up my argument that, since climate change is a problem relating to a global open-access resource, that the scale of cooperation needed is much more significant than can be addressed through purely private action?"
TT, the simple answer to your Q is: I don't accept the validity of your "Resolved". Simply stated: Nothing is "more significant" than that that can be "addressed through purely private action".
Where are these Super_Seers, those that know "the right way", if not, but, among us? If they are among us, are they of us? If they are of us, are the rest of us incapable of ascending to their rarified realm? No?!?
Published: November 8, 2006 10:47 AM
TT,
The carbon credit scheme is dead. Any form of generating an artificial "price system" fails miserably not due in a small part to the calculation problem. It SO happens that the atmosphere is NOT a scarce resource. Being an open source-whatever is totally irrelevant.
Please see:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/38405.html by Ronald Bailey. Basically, the so-called Emissions Trading Scheme (invented by politicians as a form of your beloved "pricing" scheme for atmosphere use) is DEAD in the WATER, due to (ta-da!) the Prisioner's Dilemma problem.
Published: November 8, 2006 7:05 PM
Because environmentalism is fundamentally about balancing man and nature, it is fundamentally about balancing the nature of man himself -- i.e., of his psyche, which has both masculine and feminine components. Thus, since we have lived in male dominant society for millennia, having long ago abandoned our matriarchal beginnings (see, for example, Merlin Stone's classic work "When God Was a Woman"), the environmental objective should be that of bringing the feminine back into balance with the masculine.
This cannot be accomplished, however, by employing the most male dominant of all human institutions -- the state -- for not only will it fail to achieve its objective; it will cause far more harm that if nothing were done at all.
As this is just as true of environmentalism as it is of other problem we face (individual rights, the family, etc.), one should not be surprised to see male dominance grow (did someone say "world government?") as environmentalists endlessly clamor for state action.
Bottom line: I'll take global warming over government meddling any day. There's heat, after all, and then there's THE heat.
Published: November 8, 2006 7:10 PM
Mark, one doesn't need to be a seer to recognize that open-access resources are over-exploited when information, enforcement and transaction costs are too big to allow the establishment of either purely private property rights or some form of community-managed common property rights. Rothbard, Cordato and Block make the point quite well.
If It only requires honesty to admit the over-exploitation. Miseans can separately argue that the costs of government action will necessarily exceed the benefits, but no one has expressly made such an argument yet here.
I am all in favor of whatever private parties can achieve, but those who wish to deny a role for government should at least be honest in acknowledging that that is akin to leaving one's foot on the gas despite an awareness that the road ahead may be bumpy, windy and dark.
Published: November 8, 2006 10:27 PM
Francisco:
Thanks for the link to Ron Bailey at Reason. You know what, Ron has my respect - he has the courage to tackle issues honestly and not only to change his mind when he's wrong but to admit it. Other readers might want to take a look at what Ron has to say, even though I disagree with him on a number of points.
This is the Ron Bailey who in 2002 edited a CEI book titled "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death", but then in August last year ran an article titled "We're All Global Warmers Now", with a first line that read: "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html
This is the same Ron Bailey who also said:
"Since I work for a self-described libertarian magazine that should indicate to even the dimmest reader that I tend to have a healthy skepticism of government "solutions" to problems, including government solutions to environmental problems. I have long argued that the evidence shows that most environmental problems occur in open access commons-that is, people pollute air, rivers, overfish, cut rainforests, and so forth because no one owns them and therefore no one has an interest in protecting them. One can solve environmental problems caused by open access situations by either privatizing the commons or regulating it. It will not surprise anyone that I generally favor privatization. That's because I believe that the overwhelming balance of the evidence shows that centralized top-down regulation tends to be costly, slow, often ineffective, and highly politicized. As a skeptic of government action, I had hoped that the scientific evidence would lead to the conclusion that global warming would not be much of a problem, so that humanity could avoid the messy and highly politicized process of deciding what to do about it. Unhappily, I now believe that balance of evidence shows that global warming could well be a significant problem."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html
Ron's other writings on climate are here:
http://www.reason.com/topics/topic/150.html
and here: http://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=bailey+climate+2006+site%3A.reason.com
Francisco, it should come as no surprise, but it evidently does, that I am completely aware the prisoners' dilemma problem bedevils the climate change issue. That problem has been more captured by the use of the phrase "tragedy of the commons" for open-access resource exploitation, and it is what I have meant when I referred to "gamesmanship" above. Didn't I point to the Stern report itself as being a part of the effort to move the gamesmanship in a particular direction?
Ron Bailey touched on this institutional problem in the case of the over-exploitation of fisheries, where he said:
Ron should recognize that it is this same phenomenon that leads the EU nations to over-assign permits and to under-perform their Kyoto obligations. For them to do otherwise would provide a benefit to all nations, but at a cost to their own relative economic competitiveness, and would hardly make sense in the face of the refusal of the US and others to bear any similar burden.The Stern report itself is conscious of these issues, and makes the following statements on them:
I think the Stern report's discussion of the nature of the economic/policy-making problem, summarized in Chapter 2, is quite useful in explaining alot of the foot-dragging. Here are a few quotes:
"This is a global problem and mitigation is a global public good. This means that it is, from some perspectives, ‘an international game’ and the theory of games does indeed provide powerful insights. The challenge is to promote and sustain international collective action in a context where ‘free-riding’ is a serious problem. Adaptation, like mitigation, raises strong and difficult international issues of responsibility and equity, and also has some elements of the problem of providing public goods."
"Compared with efforts to reduce emissions, adaptation provides immediate, local benefits for which there is some degree of private return. Nevertheless, efficient adaptation to climate change is also hindered by market failures, notably inadequate information on future climate change and positive externalities in the provision of adaptation (where the social return remains higher than the return that will be captured by private investors). These market failures may limit the amount of adaptation undertaken – even where it would be cost-effective."
"... as Chapter 8 makes clear, no one country, region or sector alone can achieve the reductions in GHG emissions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of GHGs at the necessary level. In addition, there are significant gains to co-operating across borders, for example in undertaking emission reductions in the most cost-effective way. The economics and science point to the need for emitters to face a common price of emissions at the margin. And, although adaptation to climate change will often deliver some local reduction in its impact, those countries most vulnerable to climate change are particularly short of the resources to invest in adaptation. Hence international collective action on both mitigation and adaptation is required."
"Economic tools such as game theory, as well as insights from international relations, can aid the understanding of how different countries, with differing incentives, preferences and cost structures, can reach agreement. The problem of free-riding on the actions of others is severe. International collective action on any issue rests on the voluntary co-operation of sovereign states. Economic analysis suggests that multilateral regimes succeed when they are able to define the gain to co-operation, share it equitably and can sustain co-operation in ways that overcome incentives for free-riding."
You seem to rejoice that the US chooses to play a spoiler role rather than a constructive one, but I disagree. I think that the US was right not to sign Kyoto as it was, but should have continued to build international trust by negotiating in good faith over the past six years, instead of playing obstructionist games for partisan political reasons and for the benefir of favored rent-seekers.
Regards,
Tom
Published: November 8, 2006 11:42 PM
To correct the initial comments, I am not actually a life peer, but an hereditary one, holding the title Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. The misunderstanding may stem from the fact that I was a senior policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher whilst she was Prime Minister and so likely to have been rewarded with a peerage.
Monckton of Brenchley.
Published: November 11, 2006 5:31 PM
TT,
We are living at an age when CO2 output from humanity can not compare to what the natural processes such as vulcano, forest fire produce or micromial outgassing. Talks of low CO2 air as some kind of tangible property is just silly. It's like debating who owns which planet outside the solar system, when we can't even get regular commute service to the moon.
Recorded human history over the past couple thousand years seem to indicate that higher global mean temperature meant prosperous times, whereas declining temperature co-incided by barbarian invasions and fall of civilizations. Until proven otherwise, all the apocolypse predicted by the GW alarmists is little more than religion, not unlike the Aztec belief in that the sun would fail to rise if they stopped human sacrifices. Unwillingness to hand over one's own kids to that kind sacrifice is certainly no "free-riding" . . . although I can certainly see that the high priest might proclaim that those not handing over their own kids are benefitting from other children being sacrificed at the alter. Not all claims of "common good" are true. The "hand me your choicest lamb now for judgement is nigh" type is especially suspect.
Published: November 12, 2006 9:07 PM
Mr. Monckton:
To us American rabble, it hardly matters whether your peerage is life or hereditary, though one might suppose that a peerage that was awarded for one reason or another might tell us more of your abilities than one that you received simply by being born.
By the way, did you have a chance to review the comments made here on your article:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/chinese_navy_disproves_global.php?
By the way, were your comments reviewed by any "peers"?
Published: November 12, 2006 10:36 PM
Jim, I am afraid that your post betrays a woeful lack of understanding of science, history, economics and metaphor. But I'm a sucker for this, so let me give it a brief shot:
- CO2: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/natural-emissions-dwarf-humans.html
- Religion/History: In the absence of any domesticated large mammals, the Aztecs used their religion to justify their cannibalization of other defeated, captured peoples, not their own children. The may be some environmentalists who feel a religious-like need to protect the natural environment, but such simplistic, "black box"-type explanations are clearly insufficient to explain the widely perceived support for action on climate change.
Metaphor: Who is making the "hand me your choicest lamb now" demand? What we have is simply a recognition that in the absence of effective property rights, common resources are frequently over-exploited by market economies, and a discussion of how we "enclose the commons" in a manner that prices GHG dumping at the least cost to economic freedom.
- Rent-seeking: You are surely correct that "not all claims of "common good" are true." But has it ever occurred to you that those who have most strongly declaimed that climate change is a problem and one in which the use of fossil fuels plays a crucial part might have as there motivation private objectives in protecting either partisan political benefit or the right to use the atmosphere freerly as a dump for GHG emissions?
Published: November 12, 2006 11:09 PM
TT,
It was not a metaphor, but a recount of historical precedences. The intermix of Aztec's fear of sun not rising and the Judeo-Christian sacrifice of first-born and handing over of the choicest lamb to the high priests was quite deliberate. It goes to show that, wacky religious sacrifices to ward off imaginary end of the world as "we" knew it have a long historical tradition of being popular.
Rent-seeking: Have you ever noticed that those making the most noise about end of the world have their fundings and careers tied to collecting the imaginary rent?
I will leave the ad hominim attacks alone.
Published: November 12, 2006 11:24 PM
BTW, that link about metaphysical "balance" regarding CO2 is quite laughable. The author obviously did not realize that the primary sinks of CO2 on this planet, the depositting of limestones at the sea floor, is very much a function of CO2 concentration in the air. That is, the more CO2 in the air, the more it's removed by limestone depositting. That's why the nature can cope with not only much greater absolute amount of CO2 emission than human ever put out, but also absorb year-to-year variations, the variations alone, that dwarf the total amount put out by humanity.
Published: November 12, 2006 11:30 PM
TT,
The pseudo-market argument about "common resource" in this case is quite absurd. The solar-earth system's capacity to vary earth's surface temperature (and consequently CO2 level, due to CO2 soluability as a function of temperature) is on a far greater scale than what feable contribution the humanity can make.
You may as well claim entropy in this universe to be a "common resource" and demand tax on every speech ever made and every action ever taken. Heck, why not tax people for breathing; that's CO2 production after all, and entropy increasing.
Published: November 12, 2006 11:44 PM
My mistake: Lord Monckton is actually a hereditary peer, the third Viscount of Brenchley. I mistakenly assumed that he was a professional/political figure raised to the peerage, like Lord Rees-Mogg, Lord Harris and Lord Bauer were.
This actually says a lot if you're a Britophile. Hereditary peers are supposed to be up to not much nowadays.
Published: November 14, 2006 7:04 AM
Jim, sorry, I should have been more gracious.
1. Yes, I understand that there is a long history both to fears of the unknown and uncontrollable and to exploitation of those fears by elites through religion. However, I think your point has little bearing on this topic, on which the predominant voices of warning have been rational scientists and include a big dollop of national and business leaders, including Republicans. You throw this out simply to help you discount the evidence.
2. Rent-seeking:: Have you ever noticed that those making the most noise about “enviros” proclaiming the end of the world and denying that there is any reason to be concerned with AGW have their funding and careers tied to collecting the actual economic rents? Who has benefitted politically from denial (viz. Luntz memo), and who has benefitted economically?
Where do you fit in libertarian skeptics such as Ron Bailey, who now acknowledge there is a problem, but struggling over what the policy response should be? BTW, this is not my job, just a matter that concerns me.
3. the primary sinks of CO2 on this planet, the depositting of limestones at the sea floor, is very much a function of CO2 concentration in the air. That is, the more CO2 in the air, the more it's removed by limestone depositting. That's why the nature can cope with not only much greater absolute amount of CO2 emission than human ever put out, but also absorb year-to-year variations, the variations alone, that dwarf the total amount put out by humanity.
Jim, you are right, but only in the very long run – that’s the whole reason why warnings on CO2 and other GHG emissions have been going on for decades already. Sinks are not removing these gases quickly enough to prevent them adding a persistent greenhouse effect. Atmospheric levels of CO2 are 33% greater than pre-industrial levels and the annual increase continues to accelerate. How did you manage to miss this key point?
4. The pseudo-market argument about "common resource" in this case is quite absurd. … Heck, why not tax people for breathing; that's CO2 production after all, and entropy increasing.
Jim, the atmosphere is undeniably an open-access resource, with predictable results and problems that Miseans should be familiar with. One can dispute whether the costs of government action are ever warranted by the problems, but it is actually a denial of the Austrian understanding of property rights to deny that there are no negative consequences to unmanaged open-access resource regimes. As to solutions, pragmatism is key, though of course your point has some theoretical basis.
TT
Published: November 14, 2006 9:59 PM
TT,
you posit: "One can dispute whether the costs of government action are ever warranted by the problems, but it is actually a denial of the Austrian understanding of property rights to deny that there are no negative consequences to unmanaged open-access resource regimes."
of which: "...unmanaged open-access resource regimes."-- As I have asked before, please point to a specific instance of this, at/on a specific point/place, on the Globe.
Published: November 14, 2006 10:32 PM
TT, thank you for tuning down the stridence of the debate. I will address the issues that you raised one by one:
1. Religious leaders are always respected "wisemen" of their era, so long as the religion is in vogue. GW theory and predictions are not "falsifiable" therefore it is not science, but mere conjecture, just like all the other religious predictions. Floods do happen, is it due to us sinners burning fossil fuel and incurring the wrath of mother nature, or is it due to us sinners fornicating and incurring the wrath of the fatherly god? Since we do both and we are not about to stop doing either, there is really no way of testing which theory is more correct, is there? Not sure why you think the Republicans are saints. They party was founded upon the "2nd awakening" mellinialism of the mid-19th century.
2. Libertarians are human, too; they can make mistakes, and occasionally some of them get bamboozled by wacky psudo-science, too.
3. You are not reading what was explained. If the year-to-year variation in natural CO2 output is orders of magnitude greater than the entire human output, the ability of the CO2 sinks to absorb is certainly much greater what human race have been able to put out. CO2 level increased in the last century and half for the same reason it did long before human race came along, which was long before civilization came along, which in turn was long before industrialization came along: when temperature rise, CO2 solubility in the ocean drops, so more CO2 is in the atmosphere. Are we experiencing the hottest climate in planet hisotry? Not even close. Eric the Red and his band of merry vikings were able to farm in Greenland in the 10th century. Try that in Greenland today . . . you can't even grow grass or shrub in Greeland, much less farming of grains. Don't tell me Vikings were running coal burning power plants ;-)
4. Atmosphere is an open-access resource in the same way that rain water is an open-access resource, or entropy of the universe is an open-access resource (depending on whether you believe the resource is naturally renewing or ever diminishing). In either case, there is no justification for regulation or taxation being placed upon the use.
Disciples of the CO2 religion is making the same mistake that disciples of historical religions always made: thinking too highly of their own power . . . somehow human action has a measurable effect in the grand scheme of things in this universe far beyond our immediate surroundings. No we don't. We are just pathetic little creatures scratching a living in this corner of the universe. Self-flagellation has about as much effect as masterbation, only a lot less pleasant.
Published: November 15, 2006 1:51 AM
Mark, sorry if I missed a question of yours at some point.
"...unmanaged open-access resource regimes."-- As I have asked before, please point to a specific instance of this, at/on a specific point/place, on the Globe.
How about any resource, before it was privatized by homesteading? How about resources for which homesteading just doesn't work, and community or governmental propoerty rights exist but are very difficult to enforce to to information costs? Many natural resourses fit the bill, especially when technological change allows exploitation of a previously unavailable resource or more efficient exploitation of an unmanaged resource. How about the cod fishery in the George's Bank? Commercial whaling? Most pelagic fisheries today? Natural resource exploitation in the US when native regulatory regimes collapsed? How about use of bodies of water and the atmosphere as dumping grounds?
In the context of interntional resources, the discussions here may be useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-pool_resource
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/delpf/delpftoc10n1.htm
http://www.law.duke.edu/news/colloquium5papers.html
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/solutions/colloquia-8th.html#publications
http://www.env.duke.edu/cgc/seminars/marketssaveclimate.html
Published: November 15, 2006 3:47 AM
Jim, thanks for your comments.
Your comments about religion are entertaining, even if self-contradictory. Are those concerned about climate change simply afraid and trying to propiate the gods, or arrogantly thinking too highly of their own power?
We are just pathetic little creatures scratching a living in this corner of the universe. Self-flagellation has about as much effect as masterbation, only a lot less pleasant.
I suppose Dr. Reisman would strongly disagree with the first, even though he may agree with your second statement, given his disdain for what he sees as a sackcloth and ashes approach by enviros.
GW theory and predictions are not "falsifiable" therefore it is not science, but mere conjecture, just like all the other religious predictions.
Pathetic creatures might feel the need to continue to run an irreversible, global scale climate experiment, but its clear that AGW theory is science, and that there is enough evidence already to confirm it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=258
The remainder of your comments show you do not understand the basic facts of the rise in CO2 levels or the property rights aspects of open-access resources. This might help with the first: http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.php
On the second, you might see the links I just gave to Mark Hoffer, although this is a good start: http://www.mises.org/story/1760
Published: November 15, 2006 4:20 AM
TT,
With these: "How about the cod fishery in the George's Bank? Commercial whaling? Most pelagic fisheries today?" Would you not agree that these areas are, today, ruled under the auspicies of many different and overlapping "Governmental" authorities? If so, Have they been successful in reversing the tide that is the continued onslaught of those rapidly and continuously declining Fisheries? No? But, their Kin will be much more able to handle a larger and more ephemeral problem? Yes?
Published: November 15, 2006 7:25 AM
Mark, these links on fisheries might make a start on your questions.
http://www.reasonmag.com/news/show/36839.html
http://www.reasonmag.com/news/show/34998.html
Published: November 15, 2006 9:33 AM