The Arithmetic of Environmentalist Devastation
Environmentalism is the diametric opposite of economic liberalism. In contrast to liberalism and its doctrine of the harmony of the rightly understood self-interests of all men, environmentalism alleges the most profound conflict of interests among people. It implies that there is a major economic benefit to be obtained through the death of billions of fellow human beings, that, indeed, the well-being and prosperity of the survivors depends on the extermination of those billions. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (67)
Why is it that global earming activists can't even acknowledge that CO2 only accounts for 3.6% of greenhouse gasses?
Even if global warming were happening, CO2 is such an insignificant percentage of greenhouse gasses that cutting thme would make no difference.
Published: May 23, 2007 9:16 AM
Dear George,
You seem to associate quite directly a reduction in carbon dioxide with a necessary reduction in the production of goods and services. What if we develop efficient, alternative energy bases? Will you please comment on Jeremy Rufkin's 'The Hydrogen Economy', for instance?
Many thanks!
Published: May 23, 2007 9:46 AM
George:
Even supposing that CO2 is a problem of life threatening proportions, the solution is easy. Replace all coal fired plant in the US with nuclear reactors. France provides about 80% of its electricity this way. Even using a 40 year old design, the safety issues are negligible if we are, as environmentalists claim, looking at the "death of the planet". What's the worst thing that can happen if we just copy the design of a French reactor?
Your point about environmentalists not caring about the consequences of their actions is true. They still prefer to see millions of babies die around the globe from malaria, rather than the pollution of (someone else's) environment with DDT.
Published: May 23, 2007 9:47 AM
Martin Dumas,
The absurdity of the Hydrogen Economy proves my point. The byproduct of hydrogen-based energy production is water vapor, a more prominent greenhouse gas than CO2!
Mike Davis: Nuclear reactors also produce water vapor.
As soon as enviornmentalists are exposed and everybody learns that CO2 makes up only 3.6% of greenhouse gases, they will start arguing that water vapor is a pollutant and "must be stopped". It helps them keep down nuclear power as well.
Published: May 23, 2007 10:06 AM
Mike and Martin,
As far as alternative energies go, the best solution is solar.
With the energy grid deteriorating, decentralized power production would far more economical than centralized nuclear production.
I've read that with current technology, a 100-mile x 100-mile block of solar panels in the Mojave desrt will generate enough power for the entire United States. That's 280 billion square feet of solar panels for 100% of our needs.
Right now, you can get your house fully solar-powered, with battery storage and electricity to sell back -- all for about $40,000. The price needs to come down a bit for it to be truly revolutionary, or we need to wait for 3rd-Gen solar panels that collect a lot more energy.
Published: May 23, 2007 10:29 AM
One thing that bothers me about Mr. Reisman's article is that he is painting environmentalists as an evil cabal (worse than Nazism, oh my), just as some environmentalists paint industrialists as an evil cabal. This tactic is what is inherently wrong with the public dialogue today.
Many libertarians, including me, hold the view that environmental pollution is potentially a trespass against my person and my property, and therefore falls into the realm of anti-force, anti-fraud principles that we allow as a rationale for limited constitutional government.
I would like to know the real story (not the Al Gore story or the George Reisman story) about greenhouse gases. If they are a real threst, and if our emissions can be better controlled through application of sensible regulations, then it is something we should discuss openly and without painting those who disagree with negative epithets. I'm sure even Mr. Reisman would object if his next door neighbor started burning rubber tires in his back yard.
The whole point is to try to pin down principles as to where my neighbor's rights start to infringe on my rights to breathe clean air and drink clean water.
Published: May 23, 2007 10:35 AM
Gurrie Rhoads,
You are absolutely right that polution is a violation of property rights; however, CO2 is not pollution -- it is a natural byproduct of breathing for goodness sake. Also, plantlife needs CO2 to live, so how can it be a pollutant?
Free Market anti-pollution efforts would center around tort (lawsuits) -- that is what Murray Rothbard and others have advocated. However, the Enviornemntalist Left uses global warming to negate the possibility of free market anti-pollution efforts. Global Warming and CO2 emissions are conveniently ONLY managable by the government -- what a coincidence!
But I don't even know why we're talking about the issue when CO2 is clearly a minor greenhouse gas, if global warming is even occuring.
Published: May 23, 2007 10:50 AM
I've posted this before and am compelled to do so again, adding that what Kurzweil calls the "intuitive linear" view of the future fails utterly to account for the exponential nature of technological advance:
"We are awash in energy (10,000 times more than required to meet all our needs falls on Earth), but we are not very good at capturing it. That will change with the full nanotechnology-based assembly of macro objects at the nano scale, controlled by massively parallel information processes, which will be feasible within twenty years. Even though our energy needs are projected to triple within that time, we'll capture that .0003 of the sunlight needed to meet our energy needs with no use of fossil fuels, using extremely inexpensive, highly efficient, lightweight, nano-engineered solar panels, and we'll store the energy in highly distributed (and therefore safe) nanotechnology-based fuel cells. Solar power is now providing 1 part in 1,000 of our needs, but that percentage is doubling every two years, which means multiplying by 1,000 in twenty years. Almost all the discussions I've seen about energy and its consequences, such as global warming, fail to consider the ability of future nanotechnology-based solutions to solve this problem." -- http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0692.html
Thus, as long as progress continues at its present pace, solar and related technologies should solve, as a matter of course, whatever problems man-made CO2 might actually be causing. Accordingly, we need to nothing but let market-based innovation continue to work its wonders.
Published: May 23, 2007 10:55 AM
Nick:
There are experimental reactor designs that use helium as coolant. However,they are currently experimental. Eskom currently has plans to construct a pebble-bed reactor using this technology.
Published: May 23, 2007 11:09 AM
Nick:
I've read that with current technology, a 100-mile x 100-mile block of solar panels in the Mojave desert will generate enough power for the entire United States. That's 280 billion square feet of solar panels for 100% of our needs.
Yikes - I wonder how many endangered species of this that an the other would have their environment threated by this? The environmental lawyers would generate enough lawsuits to last us into the next millenium!
BTW, the pebble bed designs are modular - we don't need Diablo Canyon size power plants. That means that they can be built locally and expanded where needed - no need for a grid. However, this would no doubt run into a lot of opposition from the NIMBY and BANANA lobby groups!
Published: May 23, 2007 11:21 AM
Mike Davis,
You're right, and I'm not advocating a massive centralized solar grid; I'm just repeating a figure I found that said a 100-mi. x 100-mi. solar grid would power the whole country.
I love the decentralized aspect of solar power -- no need for a grid, cutting out government monopolies on energy.
You wouldn't even need local power plants with solar -- each home would be its own power plant.
Published: May 23, 2007 11:51 AM
David White,
I've heard that demand for Solar is growing so fast that manufacturers cannot meet demand; the shortage in polysilicone is particularly a problem.
Published: May 23, 2007 11:58 AM
Nick,
I hear what you are saying about the problem of being too free with our definition of what pollution is and is not. Certainly CO2 is a naturally occurring compound, and certainly its impact may be greatly overstated, and certainly there are potential tort-based ways to address pollution.
I am trying rather to address the manner in which we libertarians talk about these subjects in the public discourse, and the motives we ascribe to those who would look too early and too often to government for a solution. I am not in favor of Ann Coulter or Michael Moore types of approaches to a subject matter that is obviously of concern to a great many people. There are some very good ideas being advanced in this blog, and this is what we should be advancing as libertarianism. (E.g., "we libertarians have found some great answers to the public's environmental concerns", and not "those crypto-fascist environmentalists are out to delude us and then kill us all").
As an aside, I doubt that Murray Rothbard has actually had many dealings with the current American tort system. Courts are government too, and the way they are operating these days is pretty awful.
Published: May 23, 2007 12:10 PM
The threat to human welfare posed by environmentalism exceeds the threat once posed by communism. Like communism, it can be the vehicle to mass enslavement.
Published: May 23, 2007 12:16 PM
"Why is it that global earming activists can't even acknowledge that CO2 only accounts for 3.6% of greenhouse gasses?"
Nick,
Not to endorse AGW, but rather to play Devil's Advocate. I think the global warming activists who are climate scientists know what the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is. Simply stating the percentage and noting how small it is, does not by itself refute their arguments. They will no doubt retort that it doesn't take much to cause warming. So, you need to have a more sophisticated argument than simply stating the percentage and noting how small it is.
Published: May 23, 2007 12:44 PM
Gurrie Rhoads,
Rothbard favored private civil courts. That practice was actualyl in effect in the US and UK in the early 19th Century.
Published: May 23, 2007 2:05 PM
Nick,
Where does the 3.6% value come from? Can you cite a reliable source? Is the global warming crowd disputing it or is it generally accepted?
As Geoffrey states, the percentage alone tells us nothing unless the impact of this 3.6% is characterized. Does CO2 reflect more sunlight back to earth than water vapor, thus making it a more effective greenhouse gas? I don't know the answer to this.
Mr. Reisman raises a fundamental issue that the Chicken Littles have never really communicated to the wider public. Namely, what are the economic consequences of meeting some ill-defined CO2 target? How would violators be punished? Who could possibly enforce this, other than a one world government?
When people begin asking these questions and look at who is advocating such draconian measures, maybe they will start to realize that swallowing whole the man-made global warming theory isn't such a bright idea.
A cost-benefit analysis? Pshaw! The Earth has a fever, according to Al Gore. The consequences be damned!
Published: May 23, 2007 2:08 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche,
I see your point, but if they're going to clamor for reductions in a fraction of greenhouse gases, why don't they clamor for reductions in the oher 95% of greenhouse gases? I'ts because they can't.
We also have the problem of plant life dying off with lower CO2 emissions. We take millions of tons of carbon out of the air every year through crops and forests -- what happends when the supply of additional carbon dries up?
Published: May 23, 2007 2:08 PM
Nick:
Solar may be OK if you live in the Sahara Desert, But what if you live in Bergen, Norway or Seattle Or Boston Or Anchorage Alaska or Manchester, England?
I say a very interesting documentary with Amery Lovins. He has a property in Colorado that uses a greenhouse and banana plants to provide heat and warm water. The technology is there if you can choose where to live and are not bothered by cost.
Published: May 23, 2007 2:17 PM
Who's going to decide what the "appropriate" temperature should be? Will they be responsible for the negative consequences of that temperature?
Published: May 23, 2007 2:30 PM
The enviromentalist agenda of reducing energy consumption will reduce the carrying capacity of the earth. This is the real inconvenient truth that is not being told to the billions of victims.
Reducing the carrying capacity will result in millions of deaths. But these disasters will be used to justify further draconian measures, which will result in tens of millions of deaths. And that will be used to justify actions resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths in an ever spiraling cycle of destruction.
This plan is already being implemented--after all, the famines, pestilences, diseases, and problems everywhere are being marshaled already as justification for exacerbating the problems. Millions are already dying due to statist stupidity. Environmentalism is merely a cloak for genocide. Woe to the fool who follows willingly.
Published: May 23, 2007 3:25 PM
I am always somewhat amused yet annoyed when people who allege they support free markets then procceed to proclaim: "The economies best source of energy is X."
The "best" source of energy is the one that emerges from the voluntary interactions of the various individuals engaged in pursueing their self-interest (utility). Otherwise, an indvidual, or a group of individuals, benefits at the expense of another individual or group of individuals. Austrian economics demonstrates this concept very clearly.
Hence, the problem with energy today is not that the "wrong" one is being used, but that the various energy sources are being subsidized and controlled by one group of people - the government and the special interests in energy- at the expense of everybody else. Thus, the answer is not to talk about the best energy source, as such, but to unequivocally advocate a free market in energy. Period. Then we can let the market decide which energy source is best for the individual, instead of the government elites deciding which energy source is "best for the nation," an ambiguous concept that will never be clearly defined.
Regards,
Dave
Published: May 23, 2007 3:29 PM
Dr. Reisman,
I am firmly and vocally opposed to any government intervention into the economy and personal lives of individuals.
However, I think it is important to recognize the realities of statist environmental policies. Many of them would probably balk at going all the way to the extreme consistency you assume they either consciously or ignorantly strive toward. There is indeed a strong leftist-primitivist streak in popular environmentalism, but I question how pervasive it is. How many of them will actually carry that streak through to its logical conclusion? Probably not many.
I do not think the cutbacks that you describe are politically feasible and I think environmentalists will increasingly realize this (if they do not already).
Policies that are currently being entertained are cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, subsidies and funding for alternative fuels and research on the same. I think they recognize that the first two will not be enough. Hence, the third "solution." They hope to eventually find environmentally friendly energy sources that will allow everyone to enjoy the current (or even better) level of prosperity enjoyed in America. (I don't think most of them really want to revert to a truly primitive state.)
Now, I know these three sets of policies are immoral and unjust. I criticize them wherever I see them proposed (including Reason Online). I also understand fairly well, I think, the bad politico-economic consequences of these policies.
However, I think it is important to criticize the actual policy proposals of the statist environmentalists. It may also be important to identify the more consistently primitivist activists within the movement as well. But these two tasks should not be conflated, with an attack on the latter being thought to suffice as a refutation of the former. The latter will probably not be taken seriously by most people anyway, once their existence highlighted.
As we all know, there is a deep ignorance of economic theory and history among leftists. We need to keep trying to educate them and to prevent them from enacting such policies.
Published: May 23, 2007 3:41 PM
Oops...to clarify: I my previous post, I identified three major sets of environmental policies the statists want to enact in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Obviously there are others, including subsidizing and mandating CFLs. The point of my post was that I think most environmentalists do not really want return to more primitive state of existence permanently. I think most of them want to enjoy prosperity in a more eco-friendly way. Of course, as usual, their methods are immoral and counterproductive.
Published: May 23, 2007 3:45 PM
George,
You seem to have missed the point that overpopulation is the culprit for these problems. Don
Published: May 23, 2007 5:46 PM
As a newcomer of things Misean, I have to agree with the general tone of the posts about the aims of control over others by the environmentalists.
I have grave doubts over the validity of the science behind manmade global warming. The models used to predict the future seem to be unable to show historical climate events, Little Ice Age, the global cooling of the 1940's to 1970's.
Recent archeological excavations in England of ship building in the 1200's show that ships were being built several miles from the current day rivers and coast lines. Pompeii (destroyed 72AD) was a coastal city with the wharves now 1900 metres from the current coastline (8m vertical difference).
I am concerned that the highly arrogant view of the environmentalists has captured public opinion and now we are argueing over the scale of the remedy, not the underlying issue.
I work in a natural science field and am constanly amazed at the power of natural forces to bend rock, lift continents. I am unsure if we have the power to change an atmosphere of an entire planet. If we can, why not colonise the moon, or Mars.
Published: May 23, 2007 6:36 PM
Geoffrey,
You argue that most environmentalists would not want to take their beliefs to their logical conclusion, and you are probably right, but this is where Reisman's reference to previous genocides is so prescient. Had you asked the average German after WW2 whether they wanted the Holocaust and they would have (sincerely) told you no. But from c1930 they cheered the brute, they elected the brute and fought for the brute, all despite his views being completely out in the open. Similarly, Marx was no doubt upset that people took his views to their logical conclusion. But the reality is that torch bearing villagers around the world have a nasty habit of getting lost in the moment. They also have an amazing ability delude themselves when they hear a message that sounds nice. It is probably true that most greenies are well meaning sheep, but they are sheep nonetheless, and the likelihood is that a green dictatorship would be run by those with the most pernicious views (the most ideological purity), the well meaning sheep would simply follow. Of course they might see the consequences of their destruction (eventually) and say that they never meant for this to happen, but the crime will still have been committed.
As for the greenhouse effect, Nick, you forgot to mention that humans contribute a trivial amount (around 5 per cent) of CO2.
Published: May 23, 2007 7:35 PM
'environmentalists' want to return us to a world where capital won't undermine them anymore. They tried enslaving capital... using force to directly impose the societal organization that they wanted (but that didn't work out). They realized that they need to operate on a global scale... so there will be no greener grass on the other side of the hill, no escape (to their credit, some of them knew this already). And (more importantly) they realized that capitalism wasn't some arbitrary social order imposed by some mythical elite for it's own enrichment (had this been the case then communism would have gotten along fine after the capitalist elite were gone), capitalism was the spontaneous and inevitable progression of people trying to maximize their own individual well being (and it did that _alot_ better than anything that came before it)... so they needed a more indirect way to attack it... they needed to attack the conditions that gave rise to it, and recreate the conditions that gave rise to their own prefered social 'system'... and to do that they needed some boogie man so horrible, that the naive would sacrifice their own well being for its sake - and what better that something threatening to 'destroy' the world and render it uninhabitable (something who's solution requires, surprise surprise, everything they've ever wanted).
'environmentalists' were bred in the depths of prehistory, in a world with no depth of capital structure... with no _opportunity_ for profit (this is why they hate profit btw). Where you didn't eat because of your employer's and grocer's selfishness (a selfishness that proves stronger than racism btw), but only out your community's 'good will'... you ate because of who you knew, and how much they liked you (this is ultimately what their concept of 'need' boils down to in practise) - you survived at the whim of the 'group'. Will the group let you farm/hunt on a particular area of 'communal' land; will they allow you to hunt in a certain area by yourself or will they insist that you do it as part of the 'group'; and then will they let you be part of that group that they insist that is the only group allowed to hunt/farm there (resource distribution by committee). Conditions so harsh compared to our technology that you were force to rely on the group less you die (it took ever able bodied person to stab that woolly mammoth or to fend off that saber tooth tiger), you _actually_ 'needed' people (I bet there are people, myself partly included, that read that with a strange longing).
You were a slave to the 'consensus' (this is what makes Wikipedia trash btw, it's not the haphazard nature of it that's the problem... it's that it's not haphazard at all... the most aggressive and numerous non-financially motivated people decide 'truth'... Wales himself acknowledges a power law distribution that would make even the most ardent 'elite capitalist exploiter' cry).
Have you ever found yourself on a arbitrary (non-financially motivated) committee/group? If so, then you know exactly the hell I'm describing! Now imagine such a committee deciding whether you live or die - whether you have contributed enough to the group (from each according to their 'means'), and whether or not you really need/deserve something (to each according to their 'needs').
'environmentalists' want to return us to that world... because they are useless in this one... because in this one, the only social power is the social power you believe in (a remnant of what was, that will take some time to die out), it has no _actual_ power (i.e. the power to starve you). That's why they hate self-interest and capitalism so much... it's because it was the viability of self-interest that defanged the social beast (you don't need them so they have no hold on you). In todays world, you can be hated by _everyone_, you can not know _anyone_, not have any 'friends' (btw, notice the left are always the most vicious about people not having 'friends'), not have a job, not have family... and still get along way better than fine (god bless the internet and the market!). In the world that the 'environmentalists' want to recreate, you would die (in one way or another) because that was the consensus. This is the power they want back!
Some of you think Reisman comes across as hysterical or extreme or whatever (and I admit the lightbulb hate-on was slightly misdirected and Randian)... but the truth is _alot_ worse. Proof: look up (google) Ron Paul's 'neo-conned' speech and listen to the whole thing... it claims (with complete substantiation - Strauss!) some very extreme end goals of the neo-conn movement (in which things like Iraq play nothing more than bit parts)... now if the right is that 'hardcore'... then how can you expect anything less of the left in terms of end goals (and besides, the left's true motives are all in the open if you're just willing to see it).
It's the white elephant in the room that no one will acknowledge, and people say you're crank if you point it out. I think the real problem is that the non-elite masses don't have the courage to be conscious of what they're supporting and working towards, and they get nasty if you point it out.
Published: May 23, 2007 8:05 PM
"I am always somewhat amused yet annoyed when people who allege they support free markets then procceed to proclaim: "The economies best source of energy is X.""
We can speculate can't we! I think nuclear will be the best source of energy after we've finished drinking the fossil fuel Kool-Aid. Solar seems to take up too much space, and it seems intrinsic that it take up alot of space... so short of flying solar kites a hundred years from now, I believe we'll go the more direct route - generating nuclear energy instead of indirectly harnessing the side effects of the nuclear energy generated in the sun. btw, wouldn't solar energy be best harnessed from orbit? No atmosphere to dissipate the energy (particularly the higher energy wavelengths that cook people).
Either way, both will require significant technical advancements, and it will come down to which one advances first (material/construction advancements = solar, nice controllable fusion, or fission of 'better' stuff = nuclear). Fortunately we have a long time before the fossil fuel Kool-Aid runs out (which the economy likes, since we don't have to create it, we just dig it up and burn it - a nice nature given factor).
Published: May 23, 2007 8:51 PM
Punter, mentalist,
Perhaps you are right, but even so I think failing to criticize the specific policies that the environmentalist left are proposing is a mistake. Caricaturing them all as primitivists is also a mistake. As I said, most of them probably just want to have current and continued prosperity in an eco-friendly way. Their policies won't accomplish that, of course, but this is what we need to combat. Knee-jerk attacks on environmentalists as primitivists, without seriously critiquing their actual scientific claims and policy proposals, will not be taken seriously. This line of attack will, I fear, ultimately prove ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst. It leaves them free to dismiss us as loonies and leaves their claims and policies free of direct criticism.
Published: May 23, 2007 9:09 PM
No one answered my question about CO2 composition, so through the wonders of Google I discovered it myself.
Nitrogen and Oxygen appear to comprise about 99% of the atmosphere by volume up to 25km. This is followed by water vapor, argon, and carbon dioxide in descending order. CO2 is not 3.6%, but rather 0.036%!
From what I've read, it is also 50% less efficient as a radiative element than water. Unless I'm missing something, CO2 could be eliminated entirely, but if at least half of this were replaced by water, the greenhouse effect would not change at all. Of course, life as we know would cease to exist, but at least it would solve man-made global warming. In listening to the environmentalists obsession with the topic, one would think that's all that really matters.
Published: May 23, 2007 10:56 PM
Arnold Swarzenegger/Al Gore Cartoon
I remember seeing a cartoon on the web with Arnold Swarzenegger (the green governor) fighting with a bad guy in a new Terminator movie spoof. Instead of his atomic power pack, he was powered by a cord plugged into a windmill with Al Gore blowing. The caption said "Blow harder Al, I need more power!". I can't seem to find it with Google search. Can someone find it and post the link?
Published: May 24, 2007 12:16 AM
Yog,
Of course we are free to speculate! However, one must always keep in mind that we are not speculating in the context of a free market. Instead, we are speculating in the context where the reality is this: a free market in energy does not exist. As I noted earlier, this results in a "market" where all input/output costs and prices have been distorted by the government at the expense of the consuming individual. As a consequence, any speculation we do faces a calculation problem because the input/output costs and prices do not reflect reality, but the warped effects of government intervention.
Regards,
David
Published: May 24, 2007 2:07 AM
"Even supposing that CO2 is a problem of life threatening proportions, the solution is easy. Replace all coal fired plant in the US with nuclear reactors."
Why not have both?
Coal energy is good. So is nuclear energy. And coal energy has the added environmental benefit of CO2.
We don't have enough competition or rational pricing in infrastructure as it is. So we want the two of them as competitors and not to artificially give one industry the near-monopoly.
And actually we have the possibility of them being complements.
Since coal can be turned into any other hydrocarbon.... the problem being that you may use up half the coal needlessly in the process.
To liquify coal you need to add a great deal of heat and pressure and then pipe in the hydrogen.
Now if the heat, pressure and hydrogen are being produced in the same area using the output from a nuclear-powered plant than there is a chance that we don't have to use any of the coal up in conversion... Sustainable development that ecologists are getting in the way of.
Published: May 24, 2007 3:37 AM
Wow! I look to Mises for reasoned, logical argument. I got that. But now I realized that VALID reasoned logical arguments, to have valid conclusions, must proceed from the best reasonable assumptions.
I could reason from an invalid assumption of 'the earth is flat' that all shipping commerce should logically hug the shore and all airlines should never lose sight of shorelines. Reasoned. Logical. False assumption. False conclusion.
The writer builds his argument on these two assumptions:
"The destruction of the energy base and the production of goods and services is implied by
(ASSUMPTION 1 ->) the fact that in order to rollback the emission of carbon dioxide, it is necessary to rollback the production and use of energy in these forms. (ASSUMPTION 2 ->But rolling back the production and use of energy (MISSING: "in these forms") reduces the production of goods and services."
What happened to "in these forms"' in the second assumption? Rather crucial, that missing "in these forms". These are not just three pretty words that can be dismissed so easily even if it makes the conclusion so much easier to arrive at.
Will "the production and use of energy really (in these forms)"reduce the production of goods and services? Yes, if they are not replaced by "other forms" of energy (and there are many of those) and if production of goods and services does not improve in efficiency. There are many non-polluting energy sources that can replace the energy we use "in these forms" today. And efficiency of energy use (unmentioned in this article) is improving.
It therefore does not follow logically from the initial assumption that reducing CO2 levels "reduces the production of goods and services."
The rest of the argument, however logical, is false because it is based on false assumptions. The conclusion (oh yes it doth logically follow from (false) assumptions) is therefore false. False + False = False. False + True = False. The author's satisfaction in drawing that conclusion is also unearned.
Writer: Please go back and begin again, this time using assumptions that are not used because they will lead the argument to your intended (foregone?) conclusion but rather assumptions that are drawn because, to the best of your knowledge they are closest to the truth you can get in choosing an assumption and are from the best available evidence at the time of your writing.
A truer conclusion is inevitable - but you must begin from the most honest and complete assumptions possible. Begin!
Published: May 24, 2007 7:30 AM
Dear Dr. Reisman:
Thank you so much for warning us
- of the "astoundingly evil nature of environmentalism",
- that “environmentalism seeks the destruction of the energy base of the modern world, along with the elimination or radical reduction in the supply of all goods and services that depend on that energy base”
- of “environmentalism's agenda of destruction and impoverishment”,
- that “the clear implication [of CO2 reductions] is economic devastation …in the production and use of energy and devastation in the production of everything that depends on energy
- that “environmentalism has the potential to be an even greater catastrophe—a far greater catastrophe than Nazism: one that will result in the deaths of billions rather than millions”,
- that “the greater is the alleged need to curb carbon dioxide emissions”, the greater is the “magnitude of mass murder that is invited” by environmentalism,
- that “environmentalism alleges the most profound conflict of interests among people”,”
- of the tremendous public pressure today to join the environmentalist cause, and
- that “[w]here there are still pockets of serious resistance, environmentalist smears serve to undercut their effectiveness”, such as in the case of the “documentary” "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
Well, this sounds exceptionally serious, so I’d very much like to join you as one of the noble group of “serious people, who hold their views first-hand, based on their own, independent judgment” and whose “the views of do not change merely because the views of others have changed”.
Before I enlist, I hope you won’t mind if I ask you a few questions and make a few observations about your post.
1. Who are the “environmentalists” that you are talking about?
Did environmentalists author the Stern Report which you cite? I had thought that the 700-page report was released by the British government and directed by Sir Nicholas Stern, a British economist and academic (London School of Economics) who was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 2000 to 2003. Are Nick Stern, the scientists and economists who worked with him and the British government all “environmentalists”? I seem to remember an earlier discussion and comments about the Stern Report. http://blog.mises.org/archives/005850.asp
Did environmentalists author the IPCC’s urgings of a 60 percent reduction? Where are those urging made, by the way? I had thought that the IPCC’s reports were authored pursuant to an exhaustive multi-round process by hundreds of climate scientists and other experts based on already existing research, reviewed by thousands of climate scientists and other expert reviewers worldwide and then approved line-by line by delegates of nations around the world that are members of the World Meteorological Organization and UN Environment Programme. Are all these people “environmentalists”?
The science academies of the G-8 nations and five others, including China, India, Russia and Brazil, have recently released a statement that
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdfAre these 13 national science academies all “environmentalists”?
Are all of the scientists, economists, corporate business leaders, religious leaders and political leaders (including the Bush administration) who have expressed concern about climate change and are investing time, energy and money into addressing it or capitalizing on it “environmentalists”?
I simply am having a difficult time figuring out who the “environmentalists” are who at the bottom of all of this and who have core responsibility for the evil nature of environmentalism, as opposed to the very many others who do not at first blush seem to be environmentalists but who are irresponsibly seem to be falling under their sway.
2. What is the “environmentalism” that you denounce so loudly? Is there a secret “Protocols of Gaia” that will soon be published that will lay out clearly the structure and nefarious aims of this movement?
In my own, admittedly limited, understanding, most “environmentalists” are just ordinary people who are disputants in a conflict over resources – resources whose ownership may be poorly defined or difficult to enforce or that are owned by the government, and are sufficiently concerned about the matter that they are willing to take an opinion poll, sue or join a consumer boycott against whom they think is wrong, pressure their Congresscritters about it, or otherwise change their own behavior. I note that while many popularly conceive of protecting “the environment” or “ecosystems” they are often referring to open-access resources that some economists classify as “public goods”.
Cordato has stated that the key Austrian insights on environmental issues are that
(1) humans cannot harm the environment, but "can change the environment in such a way that it harms others who might be planning to use it for conflicting purposes",
(2) as a result, pollution and other environmental problems are "not about the environment per se but about the resolution of human conflict" over the use of physical resources and
(3) "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". (Cordato, in "An Austrian Theory of Environmental Economics", http://www.mises.org/story/1760 ). Is Cordato wrong? If he is right, does that imply that we are ALL environmentalists when it comes to arguing over what to do with public resources, unowned resources and government policies regarding such resources?
I note that non-Austrian economists tend to think of environmentalism differently, as problems of “externalities”, “public goods” and “market failures”. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz, for example, recently said this:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz77I suppose that Stiglitz may be wrong, both in his belief that climate change is a problem and in his recommendations about how to address it, but are he and others wrong in saying that we can use economics to understand what “environmentalism” is all about? Or are these economists, along with the environmentalists, simply a bunch of irrational haters of mankind and their camp followers?
3. Are environmentalists wrong to be concerned about climate change? I note that you have been careful not to take a position on whether humans are making significant contributions to changes in our climate that may be adverse to some of us and force us to take adaptive measures. Are the enviros evil, or are they right to be worried about changes to our climate and impacts on how we live?
And if the environmentalists are right, is it your message that Austrian economics tells us that it is wrong to prospectively consider how we should avoid damaged to shared but unowned (and hitherto unmanaged) resources?
4. Even if we assume that enviros have a mistaken and dangerous agenda, how can they possibly put it into effect by themselves? Will it not entail decisions by countless non-environmentalists, both here and elsewhere?
And how likely is it that US politicians and consumers will rush into ruinous policies – other than new subsidies for new pigs at the government troughs? Have you not stated just a few months ago that “the fact that people are not prepared easily or quickly to make a massive sacrifice of their self-interests dooms the enactment of the program”?
5. You say now that “The destruction of the energy base and the production of goods and services is implied by the fact that in order to rollback the emission of carbon dioxide, it is necessary to rollback the production and use of energy in these forms.” I am afraid I do not understand why gradual reductions in the use of fossil fuels and/or higher factor prices relating to fossil fuels necessarily implies the destruction of the production of goods and services. Why can we not expect that markets will adapt and new technologies arise that will improve the energy efficiency of our economies and allow us to replace fossil fuels? (Indeed, is this not happening continually anyway?) But if fossil fuels are essential, why in the long run are we not all doomed anyway, as reservoirs of fossil fuels will eventually be depleted?
In note that on top of the IPCC report, many economists (such as Nordhaus), and libertarians Ronald Bailey at Reason and Jonathan Adler disagree with you that policies to reduce carbon emissions will be ruinous, especially in light of continued economic growth and technological progress, particularly if we get an early start with a relatively light initial nudge. Ronald">http://www.reason.com/news/show/120026.html">Ronald Bailey, Fixing Climate Change Is Cheap; Or so says a new United Nations report.
Why is it so clear to you that all of these other economists and analysts are wrong?
6. Are there no alternatives to responding to concerns about climate change that will not destroy our economy? That is, if climate change is a legitimate concern, why do you assume that our options are only to restrict carbon emissions? Is that what environmentalists are saying; that we only have one option? Aren’t there other options that we can be investigating that would NOT be as ruinous as you consider restrictions on carbon emissions to be?
In this context, I note that you earlier said that “the world is quickly moving past the window of opportunity for enacting the environmentalists' program for controlling global warming. … The implication is that either they will have to find … different means for addressing the issue. The only different means, however, are technological in character. Environmentalism thus stands a very strong chance of ultimately reverting to the more traditional socialism of massive government construction and engineering projects. It's future may well lie with what is coming to be called ‘geo-engineering.’”
Hmm – geoengineering – now that sounds like an interesting idea. Even if we must oppose carbon restrictions as you say, do we have to oppose investigating any geo-engineering options as well? I suppose that, as a “word of caution”, we must always take care, since (as you put it so well elsewhere) “in the hands of government, a policy of climate control based on the use modern technology could be almost as dangerous as the policy of government climate control by means of the destruction of modern technology.” http://www.mises.org/story/2372.
But if this is your chief concern about geo-engineering, why did you just two months ago suggest that we should be actively investigating statist solutions such as the atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the Arctic?
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp7. Do you really like Martin Durkin’s polemic, the “Swindle”? Well guess who’s been swindled. Have you not done any research on him or the factual criticisms of that work? Because it seemed to resonate with you? Perhaps you may notice that Durkin is a former member of the UK Revolutionary Communist Party, and he and his associates have been spanked before for falsely editing his guests – in a piece that equated enviros with Nazis - and for libel.
These are just a few of my questions. I want to be serious like you, Dr. Reisman, but I’m confused – seriously confused - about your seeming acknowledgment of climate change as a serious problem, your demonization of Nazis/enviros for their statist proposals to price carbon emissions, your refusal to acknowledge the roots of the problem in lack of property rights in common, open-access resources, and your own encouragement of statist geo-engineering solutions like the use of atom bombs.
Sincerely yours,
Seriously confused, but serious (aka TokyoTom)
PS: Please note that I have stripped out a number of links from this because of blog restrictions.
Published: May 24, 2007 9:08 AM
Good point reddy. Angry folk such Reisman probably like waste-producing technology as an ideological stance against greenie-red-pinkos. Does hearing of LEDs and high-powered electric cars give such folks a heart attack because it's a 'uh oh greenie-Nazis are displacing OUR perfectly good technologies with their faggotty 'clean technology' so THEY can feel at peace with Mother Gaia and ooh-and-aah at cute l'il green frogs?'. Perhaps G. Reisman could provide an article where smokestacks are upstanding monuments to freedom. And in keeping T.T.'s probably correct view on how G. Reisman & Folks see lefties and greenies (did I repeat myself then?) is it only a matter when they declare war on humanity and hence at long last righties(/royal blue?/dexter) can finally retaliate and snuff out the evil left/green(/sinister) seed from the line of human race.
Published: May 24, 2007 10:06 AM
TokyoTom,
Please don't take Dr. Reisman's arguments as indicative of how all Austrians must necessarily approach the issue of global warming and other environmental issues. Cordato's essay is a good counterexample. Rothbard has a good essay on property rights and air pollution that is available on this site.
Indeed, Reisman is by his own admission not strictly speaking a pure Austrian. He acknowledges a strong classical streak. It is arguable that he is more of a classical economist than an Austrian, especially given that he rejects praxeology as the proper method of economics.
Published: May 24, 2007 11:48 AM
I have followed this and other climate debates with a great deal of amusement.
A Dose of Reality:
If more warming is coming, then we had better be prepared to simply adapt to it since fossil fuel use is not going to decrease in the foreseeable future. One only need observe the angry attitudes of everyone, regardless of their politics, when gas price go up just a dime/gallon, or when electric utilities apply for rate increases. There is simply no political support for increasing the taxes required to simply stabilize the carbon dioxide emissions of today. Here is an easy prediction: carbon dioxide emissions will be 20% higher in 10 years, with or without a major recession.
The only things that can stop more carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere than today is a plague that wipes out 50% of the population, or finding the fossil fuels can't be produced in increasing quantities. Neither of these events appears likely at any given time.
Most of this debate is taking place in the fantasy land of Hypothetica.
Published: May 24, 2007 12:09 PM
Geoffrey,
Good observations regarding what can characterize one as an Austrian. Using the praxeology test though, I am not sure if Hayek would fall under the "Austrian" classification.
Since we are speaking of Austrian School economists and AGW, I have often wondered what Murray Rothbard would have had to say regarding the science and politics of the AGW debate, especially since he wrote considerably regarding current issues.
Published: May 24, 2007 12:18 PM
Dennis,
There are two camps on the Hayek issue.
Some want to dehomogenize him from Mises. Hayek himself, or so I hear, thought he had diverged somewhat from Misesian apriorism and praxeology.
On the other hand, Mises himself apparently did not see such a fundamental divergence. I don't think Hayek was ever a strict Popperian. And some think the attempt at dehomogenization goes too far. David Gordon, for example, has written this: "But Hayek without praxeology is very much
Hamlet without the Danish prince."
In any event, the divergence is greater in Dr. Reisman. He has explicitly stated how important the classical influence is in his thinking. He has explicitly rejected praxeology, in the introduction to his book Capitalism. And much of his work involves macroeconomic aggregates divorced from human action, much like the classical economists. Hayek, at least, particularly in economics, kept a more praxeological approach.
Even if he were a pure Misesian, however, his line of argument should not be taken as the way all Austrians must necessarily address these issues.
Published: May 24, 2007 1:21 PM
My local power company is introducing technology to their power plants to capture CO2 and keep it from being released into the atmosphere. A pre-emptive move because they think government is going to introduce CO2 legislation. While I'm sure that's going to cost more, it does show that there's not necessarily a direct correlation between amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the production of electricity. Thus, the presumption that the only way to reduce man-made CO2 is by reducing production is not necessarily true, environmental primitivists or no environmental primitivists.
Published: May 24, 2007 1:29 PM
Geoffrey,
Thanks for your comment. One complicating factor regarding Hayek's thought is that in some areas it evolved over the course of his life.
Personally, I do not believe that he can be classified as a strict praxeologist, at least in the line of Mises and Rothbard. Hayek seems to have been more interested in topics such as "the use of knowledge in society" than in the implications of the formal fact that men act, i.e., use means to achieve ends. However, he was a subjectivist, and that to me is a defining characteristic of Austrian School economists.
Published: May 24, 2007 1:55 PM
Ozzie:
This is exactly what Eskom wants to do. South Africa, in response to the threat of an oil embargo, built the SASOL refinery to convert coal into diesel oil. Now they see the advantage of using these scaled down modular units (~ 300MWH) pebble bed reactors to provide the energy to convert the coal into diesel oil. I assume that the process can be adapted to produce fertilizers and plastics.
Published: May 24, 2007 6:48 PM
Dear Dr. Reisman:
My apologies for my previous, hastily assembled questions.
I had two additional questions that I managed to forget yesterday.
1. As I noted above, Joe Stiglitz specifically notes that
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz77"- And the Stern Report states that:
- In the context of the upcoming G-8 meeting, an environmentalist-supported group has noted:
http://priceofoil.org/2007/04/13/world-bank-support-for-oil-rises-77-as-g8-debates-climate-action/- So here's my first question: even if we accept your premise that enviros and their agenda have an "astoundingly evil nature" and that "the clear implication [of CO2 reductions] is economic devastation", are serious people required to ignore all possible areas for pragmatic compromise with these evil people?
Could we not, for example, agree with them that the energy subsidies that bother them ALSO violate OUR economic and philosophical principles and are disruptive and counterproductive, and actively take advantage of this opportunity and shared agenda to push for eliminating subsidies to the fossil fuel industries? (Even if we have to fight them over new proposals for subsidies for OTHER technologies.)
Could not such cooperation be a useful first step in explaining to enviros the wrong-headedness of their other proposals?
Or does being serious mean we need to resolutely cut off our nose to spite our face, by refusing to have any truck with the unclean? (Such that we must conclude that tolerating the billions that are continually stolen from us to support fossil fuel firms pales beyond the value of maintaining our ideological purity?)
2. You assert that "environmentalism alleges the most profound conflict of interests among people", while Cordato notes that environmental problems are "not about the environment per se but about the resolution of human conflict" over the use of physical resources and that the solution to such resource conflicts "is to be found in either clearly defining or more diligently enforcing property rights".
As an individual concerned about the damage to open-access resources/"public goods" that occurs when valuable resources are not owned, I suppose I must confess to being an "enviro" (anybody else here who does NOT meet that definition, please raise your hand). But I note that it does not seem to be Austrian economics, libertarianism more generally or more generally accepted (but wrong) economic principles that asserts I and my agenda must necessarily have an "astoundingly evil nature".
So is it enviros, Austrians or others on the one hand, or rather simply YOU, Dr. Reisman, who takes the position that concern over environmental resource matters necessarily entails "the most profound conflict of interests among people"?
Sincerely (and seriously),
Mr. Unclean and Evil (aka TokyoTom)
Published: May 24, 2007 11:17 PM
Dennis:
I have often wondered what Murray Rothbard would have had to say regarding the science and politics of the AGW debate
I imagine you've seen Rothbard's Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution, here: http://www.mises.org/story/2120. While he did not address climate change, one can guess that he would not approve state action.
Published: May 25, 2007 1:56 AM
Is there anyone here with a scientific background or expertise solid enough to discuss the greenhouse effect in all neutrality? I just noted yesterday that methane, for instance, although found in small concentrations, may have a much more important 'trapping effect' than other, more common GH gasses. As I am not an expert in those issues, I am not going to comment on the link made here between the relatively small concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and its effect on global warming. Others should perhaps join the UN IPCC or start a scientific revolution?
Published: May 25, 2007 4:12 PM
Martin,
Methane is 23 times more powerful than CO2 as a GHG, but the latest research of which I am aware indicates that it is no longer increasing in atmospheric concentration.
There are scientists who think that the warming effect of CO2 is overestimated. See ICECAP and Climate Science. I have more links on my website.
Published: May 25, 2007 5:45 PM
Here and here are some interesting posts suggesting that global temperature increases may be exaggerated in the data do to an underestimation of the urban heat island bias as well as poor placement and maintenance of near surface air temperature recording stations. Read the comments too and follow some of the links provided.
Published: May 26, 2007 9:05 PM
Geoff, thanks for providing further balance to our understanding of the climate science.
I note that your first link (Pat Michael`s World Climate Report) states the following: "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), methane concentration has increased by 150% (increased by 2.5 times) since 1750 and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases." Even if methane levels may be at or approaching a peak, the accumulated level is still producing a strong warming effect. Do you have any links that can reassure us that this forcing factor will soon be reduced to zero? Or shall we simply assume that because world methane levels appear to have stabilized, we can safely ignore the fat that they stand at 2.5 times pre-industrial levels?
As for your recommendations of sites to Martin for information on the science, while Dr. Pielke`s Climate Science blog is relavely balanced, the other is a brand-spanking-new site for hire that provides a voice solely for skeptics of the IPCC and more orthodox positions). How did you overlook noting that there IS an IPCC, and that by far the bulk of the discussion by climate scientists is at the www.realclimate.org blog.
[Martin, you might care to note that I have provided extensive links to the IPCC in the ciomments at this recent post: http://blog.mises.org/archives/006644.asp. Or you could simply go stright to the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html. The Working Group I reports summarize the current knowledge relating to various forcings.]
Interesting to note the arguments that "global temperature increases may be exaggerated in the data". Are we to then conclude that the melting Actic and glaciers around the world outside of Antarctica is also an artifact of the data, and not real?
Thanks for noting above that I should NOT "take Dr. Reisman's arguments as indicative of how all Austrians must necessarily approach the issue of global warming and other environmental issues". How about your own approach - is it fair to take it as indicative?
In that context, of course I would be delighted to receive whatever light you could shed on the questions raised by Dr. Reisman`s post.
Regards,
Tom
Published: May 27, 2007 5:54 AM
What ever happened to "Chris B."?
AT = S + T + GH + O.
"Global warming" peddlers pretend: AT = GH.
Published: May 27, 2007 6:16 AM
Geoff:
Looks like "alarmists" have taken over at National Geographic, which has this recent report about changes in glaciers and ice shhets: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0706/feature2/.
Published: May 27, 2007 9:54 PM
TT,
Care to provide solid evidence that ICECAP is merely a disinformation site for hire? I mean real, solid evidence. Not a link to ExxonSecrets or SourceWatch, mind...but some overwhelming, conviction-winning evidence of intellectual dishonesty and selling out. Perhaps an internal leaked memo saying something like "We know this is wrong but we're going to say it anyway because X paid us to spin it." Unsupported ad hominems are no way to win an argument.
You make a number of other interesting insinuations. Do you really think I haven't heard of the IPCC? What would make you think I've overlooked it? You know very well I've mentioned it before and I'm sure you have mentioned it and even linked to it. Not very nice of you.
As for melting sea ice and glaciers...did I say they were simply data artifacts? No, I did not. I would appreciate it if you would debate fairly, TokyoTom. In light of everything that follows it, your statement thanking me for "providing further balance to our understanding of the climate science" has a ring of sarcasm and insinuates that I am rather willfully and dishonestly obfuscating the truth. I'm getting tired of tactics like this, from both you and others. Stop it, or I'll have to write you off of my very short list of climate scientists and environmentalists I can have a reasoned discussion with on climate change. It would be a shame, because it remains a very short list. I've found so few environmentalists who could be respectful while engaging in a discussion on this subject. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who apparently would rather appear to win an argument with rhetorical tricks rather than engage in reasoned discussion.
Also, in case you couldn't tell, "exaggerated" does not mean "there has been no real global warming." It just means what it says, that it seems reasonable to believe right now that recent warming may be overstated. How much? It would be difficult to say without a systematic examination of all of those recording stations and until the problems with the tree-ring data are ironed out.
Is it really true that "by far the bulk of the discussion by climate scientists is at" RealClimate? RealClimate has 11 full-time contributors. I'm sure that many other climate scientists read the site and even comment on the posts. But I imagine even more of the readers and commenters are non-climate scientists. But "the bulk" is an awfully strong statement, especially since the statement refers to discussion on the blog, not just reading it. In any event, RealClimate is only one take on the global warming issue. Are you suggesting that we all should get our information primarily from only one source? RealClimate has a well-known bias, including in my opinion excessive reliance on and trust in computer models, but also a left-liberal activist bias. Quite frankly, I don't trust RealClimate to be my only or even my main source of information on climate change. So I follow a number of different sites and blogs, including others that I didn't link to above. And I hardly need to link to RealClimate for others since you have already done so before and will no doubt do so again.
Is my approach to global warming indicative of the Austrian approach? I don't know. Why is the question even relevant? How would you describe my approach? Haven't I described it in at least some detail over these many threads? For one thing, Austrian economics is, of course, not climate science so there is no distinctly Austrian way of approaching the science of climate change as a whole. Many Austrian economists are probably qualified to say in a limited way something about the strength and reliability of the methods employed in climate science, insofar as it is empirical, statistical, computer simulated, and so forth - especially when it comes to including socio-economic variables. It is primarily on the policy side of the issue that Austrians are most qualified to respond, and here the approach will be praxeological, subjectivist, private property rights-based, and free market. But you already knew that. As I've said before, Austrians ought to address the actual policy proposals of the statist environmentalists and offer alternatives. They can also strive to become educated laymen on the science of climate change and then they will be able to form a considered opinion on the science. To do this, they should do what they can to study all sides of the debate over the science, not just read the IPCC reports and RealClimate.
By the way, I'm not an economist by specialization. I'm a political philosopher/political scientist, although I think I have a good understanding of economic principles. I don't recall, TT, whether you have ever said what your expertise is. Are you a climate scientist? (A direct observation guy or a modeler?) Or an educated layman? Are you an economist? Something else? You have many of us here at a disadvantage I'm afraid, since you don't appear to have a website or anything
As for the methane, if methane has indeed leveled off as it seems to have done, and if it doesn't start increasing again, that would mean that there is one less reason to worry about run away global warming. That's all. Don't most IPCC models assume methane will keep increasing? All else equal, a leveling off without a subsequent drop would mean that global temperature ought to stabilize, right? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here. In any event, I was just educating a fellow commenter on the radiative strength of methane and its concentration in the atmosphere. I made no other claims. You are certainly free to supplement what I wrote, but drop out of attack mode, please. If you continue to treat me like I am one of those "disinformation sowers for hire" - (My 2006/2007 Earhart Fellowship for a dissertation unrelated to climage change and my wife's QA job in the food industry surely don't qualify me as an industry shill even by lowly ad hominem standards.) - then I'm afraid we have nothing more constructive to say to one another.
Of course, all else is not equal; CO2 concentration is still increasing. But I have read that as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, subsequent additions of CO2 have a diminished warming effect. Additionally, I haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that runaway global warming is very likely. Indeed, it seems to me remarkable that the global temperature has not increased a lot more in the past thirty years considering the size of the spike in CO2 emissions during the same period. This is not to say that continued warming at the current or similar rate will not be a problem for many people. (Notice I focus primarily on the effects on people; that's partly indicative of an Austrian approach.) But it seems to me that we need not fear Gore's twenty foot sea level rise and other catastrophy-level scare stories, at least not yet.
Again, I'm still on the fence regarding the A in AGW and even if (or when) I come to accept AGW I'm not sure I'd that agree that GHGs are the overwhelmingly dominant cause to the virtual exclusion of all others and I will probably remain skeptical of the catastrophe stories (unless overwhelming evidence is provided; none has been yet), but I have no vested interest in being an AGW skeptic. I would be nice, I imagine you would agree, if GW turned out not to be A, because it would most likely mean its just a natural cycle that will turn around at some point and its not our fault. But if global warming is primarily caused by us, so be it. I can accept that. I am not, however, simply going to take your or RealClimate's word for it without giving it some serious and critical thought, which includes looking into the science itself as well as the other sides of the debate. Consensus, whatever importance it has, does not mean that he debate is over. To argue that it does is to attempt to stifle the scientific process. (I don't recall whether you have explicitly argued this, but others have.)
So...are we going to play nice? Or are the gloves officially off?
Published: May 27, 2007 11:28 PM
TT,
I started writing my post above before your last post, so keep that in mind. I'm reading the National Geographic article now and will comment on it later.
Published: May 27, 2007 11:37 PM
Regarding the Nat'l Geographic article:
On the first page (of 4) I see an opening emotional tie-in. Typical. The article then proceeds to offer mainly anecdotal evidence with apparent journalistic license regarding some specific locations and doomsday scenarios.
"Two of the outlet glaciers have since slowed down. [Hhmmm...] But other satellites detected a minuscule weakening of Greenland's gravity, confirming that it is shedding ice at a rate of tens of cubic miles a year."
What does "minuscule weakening of Greenland's gravity" mean?
If things are truly turning really bad as quickly as the article suggests, is there really anything we can practically do (provided everyone suddenly turned believer) to stop it before it reaches catastrophe level short of instantly reverting to pre-industrial lifestyles (with the result being that most of the world's human population would shortly die off)? And how likely is it such unanimity could even be garnered in time? I know this sort of reaction is dealt with in the various "how to talk to skeptics online handbooks" but if things are really looking so bleak as the article implies in several places the questions are serious ones that need an answer. The attempts by people like Gore, who profess to be true catastrophe believers, to get ineffectual bills passed in Congress merely as first attempts to get the ball rolling hardly strike me as actions by people who are truly so alarmed by the coming catastrophe. Are they going to try to circumvent the democratic process soon since it probably won't work fast enough? Or are things not really so bad as all that but they feel the need to exaggerate considerably in order to scare people into actually doing something statist about the less than catastrophic but still problematic effects of global warming?
There's a little balance to the hyperbole buried in the article here and there though.
As a temporary aside from the article: Isn't the temperature today comparable to the Medieval Warm Period? By some estimates, it is slightly cooler, by others slightly warmer, but at least roughly comparable. Granted temperatures continue to rise at a steady pace, but the current temperature wasn't catastrophic then.
All in all, I see little in the way of hard data presented in the article. A few numbers and estimates here and there. Some modeling predictions that of course won't be tested for decades at best. I'd much rather see some scientific research that includes a comprehensive empirical study of all of the sea ice and glaciers, with long time horizons, some statistical comparisons of rates of ice loss in proportion to total ice mass, etc., as well as temperatures in all of these locations clearly specified. Journalistic articles like this one often don't put local temperatures and ice melt into context.
I'm not saying the melting isn't a problem. But a journalistic article isn't going to convince me Gore was right.
As one example, it appears Gore's much touted Mount Kilimanjaro glacier melting example wasn't caused by increasing air temperature. The retreat has resulted because of dropping humidity and precipitation combined with increased shortwave radiation due to decreased cloud cover. Moreover, its glaciers have been melting since 1880, the end of the Little Ice Age. And it had higher retreat rates in the early part of the 20th century than in the last 30 years. On this, see:
Cullen, N.J., Molg, T., Kaser, G., Hussein, K., Steffen, K. and Hardy, D.R. 2006. Kilimanjaro glaciers: Recent areal extent from satellite data and new interpretation of observed 20th century retreat rates. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL027084.
Kaser, G., Hardy, D.R., Molg, T., Bradley, R.S. and Hyera, T.M. 2004. Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: Observations and facts. International Journal of Climatology 24: 329-339.
Molg, T., Georges, C. and Kaser, G. 2003a. The contribution of increased incoming shortwave radiation to the retreat of the Rwenzori Glaciers, East Africa, during the 20th century. International Journal of Climatology 23: 291-303.
Molg, T. and Hardy, D.R. 2004. Ablation and associated energy balance of a horizontal glacier surface on Kilimanjaro. Journal of Geophysical Research 109: 10.1029/2003JD004338.
Molg, T., Hardy, D.R. and Kaser, G. 2003b. Solar-radiation-maintained glacier recession on Kilimanjaro drawn from combined ice-radiation geometry modeling. Journal of Geophysical Research 108: 10.1029/2003JD003546.
Granted, this is just one case, but it might be so for other cases as well. I want to see less hyperbole and more studies carefully analyzing individual case studies in a more comprehensive context.
Published: May 28, 2007 12:39 AM
Geoff:
Thanks for the comments.
- "What does "minuscule weakening of Greenland's gravity" mean?"
You may recall our earlier discussion of Greenland. One of the ways the ice loss is measured is via satellite measurements of gravity changes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070327122328.htm
- "a journalistic article isn't going to convince me Gore was right." "I want to see less hyperbole and more studies carefully analyzing individual case studies in a more comprehensive context."
Me too. But even as the National Geographic article could have been less emotional, it was fact-filled and though-provoking and it is hard to dismiss the information it presents as "alarmist". What agenda does National Geographic have, anyway?
- I agree that the popular understanding of Kilimanjaro melting is incomplete, but information about the effects of deforestation is no so difficult to find and in any case it is quite clear that temperate and tropical glaciers are retreating worldwide. The factors behind such melt are also likely to be in play at Kilimanjaro, while there is no indication that the deforestation playing a role at Kilimanjaro is behind the global retreat of glaciers.
- As to your questions as to what we do and to the motivations of those whom you continue to see as "alarmists" who "feel the need to exaggerate considerably", I have no answer. I'm just puzzled that you assume that everyone, including National Geographic, is engaged in hyperbole. Necessarily everyone's understanding is incomplete, but does that does not mean we must assume that all of those who professed to be alarmed have an agenda other than raising a warning about a situation that they think requires attention.
Regards,
Tom
Published: May 28, 2007 1:56 AM
Geoff, your penultimate response above raises some good points.
First, let me explain the tone of sarcasm that your snark-detector picked up on. While I agree completely with the sentiment you express here - "I am not, however, simply going to take your or RealClimate's word for it without giving it some serious and critical thought, which includes looking into the science itself as well as the other sides of the debate. Consensus, whatever importance it has, does not mean that he debate is over." - my snark was directed towards the fairly one-sided sets of links that you provided to Michael.
Michael comes looking for information, asking whether there is "anyone here with a scientific background or expertise solid enough to discuss the greenhouse effect in all neutrality?" and noting that he is "not an expert in those issues".
How do you respond? By offering up three factoids that tend to downplay a reason for concern about warming, from various websites that exclude what are clearly more well-known and "mainstream" sources of information, and while failing to note that you do not claim to be an expert yourself.
Even while I concur that it is useful to look to skeptic sites for balance, to be frank what you offered to Martin was NOT any kind of balance. Rather, it looks like nothing more than an attempt to persuade him that there is little to be concerned about. Perhaps my imagination is getting the best of me, but this hardly seems like you are even trying to be even-handed.
Even as the sites you offer up may be useful, they are limited, and serious readers should, as you say, do what they can to study all sides of the debate over the science. Surely this includes reading the IPCC reports and RealClimate, even if neither is complete. In particular, in the context of Martin's question, it is very puzzling that you made no mention of the IPCC's reports discussing the current understanding of the relative forcings of various factors.
Second, it was in that context that I offered a few points that noted that, even as the situation is quite complex, there is a very real world out there that is clearly changing and cannot be disregarded. The fact that methane seems to have stabilized doesn't mean we don't need to worry about it, and disputes over the impact of heat island effect on data doesn't negate the fact that melting is underway. No, you didn't say that melting sea ice and glaciers were simply data artifacts, but failing to mention the evidence of warming even as one may dispute the causes seems rather glaring.
Third, you keep asking me to "play fair", but it seems to me that you display your own lack of balance. This, of course, is a difficult problem, as our perceptions are affected by our predilections and frequently by our tribal conflict modes of behavior. For example, while you are right to perceive that the post you took offense to was in "attack mode", but your claim that I "treat [you] like [you are] one of those "disinformation sowers for hire" surely goes too far. Now who's attacking whom? I've pointed out before on other threads how you have often made unsupported insinuations about me - it is ironic that you continue that pattern by expressing your own dissatisfaction with what you perceive as another unfair attack by be. Well surely this should, at least, help you to sense how many of your other posts to me have made me feel (and in the context of some very direct personal attacks that I have had to grin and bear over the last year plus here).
But that said, I certainly have noted that you have been making an effort, and I don't want this conversation to turn into a reflexive argument designed to "win". I am happy to try harder to avoid the snark with you - but that's really a two-way street. Can you consider your own reactions, and also make sure that you separate the "alarmists" with political agendas from the views of and discussions among scientists (qua scientists)?
Fourth, other points. While there are other channels for scientific discusion, it is clear that by far the widest and deepest discussion that are open/visible to the public are at Real Climate. Full stop. Those discussions include scientists of all stripes in addition to the blog proprietors.
As to the new "ICECAP" site, I had actually not even heard of it until you brought it up. (I had heard of another, older ICECAP - http://www.icecapltd.com/index.asp - which is probably none to happy with this confuson of trade name.) But it is easy to see that, despite claims to be "the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public", it is in fact a clearly partisan site dedicated to promoting views outside of the science as expressed at the IPCC and Real Climate, including views on politics that would warm the hearts of most fossil fuel producers.
While it is not clear how the founder, wealtherman Joe D'Aleo, plans to make money at this website, it seems that he plans to emulate Pat Michaels, who through his enterprises is in the business of selling advocacy papers. Info on Pat Michaels is here: http://www.nhes.com/ and http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/personnel/.
It seems that ICECAP, who D'Aleo launched with the help of unnamed "private investors" (that he says includes both individuals and think tanks), also intends to provide advocacy services (though this is not crystal clear) or merely a steady stream of mutually inconsistent "alternative" views and criticisms:
"Through ICECAP you will have rapid access to our experts here in the United States and to experts and partner organizations worldwide, many of whom maintain popular web sites or insightful blogs or newsletters, write and present papers, have authored books and offer interviews to the media on climate issues. We spotlight new findings in papers and reports and rapidly respond to fallacies or exaggerations in papers, stories or programs and any misinformation efforts by the media, politicians and advocacy groups."
It may be that ICECAP ends up (1) providing a valuable role in augmenting CO2 Science, Pat Michaels' World Climate Report, Dr. Pielke Sr.'s Climate Science and Climate Audit, and (2) simply being a non-profit hobby of Joe D'Aleo. But in any case, for now it appears to be a for-profit and distinctively partial source of information.
As for me, I am a wayfaring stranger, trying to make sense of this world through which I travel. That means I bring no particular expertise to this discussion, merely accumulated baggage. As I am trying both to improve my understand and to share some of mine, I will try harder not to show too much how closed my mind truly is - the better o have a meaningful discussion. Unfortunately, as a male I am often tripped up by my desire to win arguments.
Sincerely,
Tom
Published: May 28, 2007 3:35 AM
Tom,
On an earlier thread you wrote the following in response to Lisa Casanova:
Tom,
Lisa is completely correct in both points. Governments always increase their power in response to threats, real and otherwise, and almost always make things worse, thus necessitating even more government action. In the case of global warming, you have to admit yourself that this has already begun to happen in the most direct response taken- the subsidies to corn ethanol. You have repeatedly, and mistakenly, taken us to task for not attacking government subsidies to fossil fuels and automobile use, but this is a prime example of what governments actually do with more power.
You wrote that you want to encourage private solutions to global warming, but you have repeatedly offered up state-mandated caps. Where is the private part of this? Do you mean that we can privately decide which of us gets to use the carbon allotted by the government? Isn't it more likely that rent-seekers will get favorable treatment under any government-mandated system?
In your second response to Lisa Casanova, you wrote of your belief that an internationally negotiated system of carbon control would be less likely fall prey to rent-seeking. Truly, are you that naive? Of all the things you have written here on this site, that statement is the most hilarious.
Published: May 28, 2007 12:26 PM
Yancey:
"Of all the things you have written here on this site, that statement is the most hilarious."
Glad to know you find me occasionally amusing - I aim to please. Before I start with a substantive response, can I ask you to help satisy my curiosity with a partial list of other things I've said that you find to have been hilarious, amusing, naive or otherwise bonkers?
Any others who care to chip in are also welcome.
Regards,
Tom
Published: May 29, 2007 1:37 AM
Yancy, I could be wrong, but what I think TT is trying to ask for is substantive, expert, economic or praxelogical analysis of the global warming issue and how free markets can effectively deal with such complex, international, commons-dominated issues. The Cordato article linked to somewhere offers an excellent example of such an approach, but doesn't go far enough into the issue.
Reisman's articles have mainly been about bashing environmentalists, and Lisa's article didn't really contribute much to the discussion, either.
I know that the Mises site is about Austrian Economics AND Libertarian commentary, but it's the Austrian economics that makes the site unique, and sometimes I'd rather have more of the praxelogical stuff than the same kind of libertarian commentary that can be found on a dozen other websites.
Published: May 29, 2007 2:51 AM
Oh, and to top it all off, TT has made some reasonable points, including the idea that real, market-based solution to global warming would also be desirable goals in themselves, EVEN IF AGW isn't true, and thus worth pursuing separately. And if AGW is true, they provide pre-emptive arguments against national and international regulatory schemes that would fail due to a lack of economic understanding and the law of unintended consequences.
Ron Bailey and REASON seem to be pushing for carbon taxes--the least Austrians could do is explain why carbon taxes (or carbon markets) won't have the desired effect.
Published: May 29, 2007 3:02 AM
Yancey, thanks for the engagement. Let me note a few thoughts.
1. As an inital aside, one wishes that you would devote as much time to setting out your own thoughts on what, if anything, should be done on about our knowledge of climate change, both on governmental and private levels, as you spend on trying to establish my own inconsistencies.
Of course it's perfectly fair to throw stones at what you might perceive as my glass house, but is that really a productive use of time? Are you hoping that I expend similar effort in holding your own glass house up to display?
2. If "Governments always increase their power in response to threats, real and otherwise, and almost always make things worse, thus necessitating even more government action", then is it your prediction that the next president will drag us into the war with Iran that Cheney is now mongering, and not undo any of the damage that the Bush administration has wrought?
Sorry, but even as I understand your worry, sometimes governments do back away from mistakes (though there are the constant struggles with rent-seeking and gate-keeping, reforming/rationalizing bureaucracy etc.)
3. "In the case of global warming, you have to admit yourself that this has already begun to happen in the most direct response taken- the subsidies to corn ethanol."
I agree that the climate change problem presents ample opportunities for rent-seeking. But denying the problem makes neither the problem nor the rent-seeking go away. Instead, denial is manipulated for the benefit of one group of rent-seekers. Sadly, we live in an imperfect world. I am aware that we are likely to end up with new pigs at the public trough.
4. The question is whether and how we can make things better, on an aggregate basis. I have previously noted several times that I am in favor of domestic changes that would free up our energy industry by eliminating virtually all environmental laws and subsidies, disposing of most federal lands and relying more on private tools - market information and pressure, tort action etc. - to achieve environmental ends. What I favor is beinging increasingly mainstream: www.yale.edu/envirocenter/richardstewartresponse.pdf.
Why cannot Austrians be proposing environmental and energy law reform/liberalization as part of a "grand bargain" that would recognize government action that has the effect of nudging prices on fossil fuels?
5. Yes, I want to encourage private solutions to global warming, and have on a number of occasions provided links to some of what is going on. In contrast, Mises Blog authors and commentators often deride private actions as misguided, ineffective "feel good" efforts, grandstanding but ominous signs of the coming enviro shock troops. If there is any genuine support here for private action, it has been conspicuously silent in offering explanations for how private approaches will be up to the size and difficulties of the problem.
6. You say I "have repeatedly offered up state-mandated caps". Oh? Of course they are on the table, but where do you see me enthusiastically endorsing them? And what alternatives did you suggest, by the way?
In this context, I may as well fess up to what everyone also ready knows - I am a dangerous pervert (an alien, really) with a dangerous anti-human agenda, on a terrorist suicide mission from Gaia (my agenda was partially exposed by Frank Herbert in "The Green Brain"), and I am here to subvert all that is good and right about America and this Blog. Not.
Okay, my background as an Austrian is less than clean and I originally approached this topic from a more conventional, statist viewpoint, though with definite Austrian leanings. Since commenting here my uneasiness with state solutions has grown further, but here are a few of the more sane voices from the conventional right on this subject who have informed my views:
William D. Nordhaus, Life After Kyoto: Alternative Approaches to Global Warming Policies (2005), http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/kyoto_long_2005.pdf
Richard B. Stewart and Jonathan B. Wiener, Practical Climate Change Policy (2003), http://www.issues.org/20.2/stewart.html
Carol M. Rose, Expanding The Choices For The Global Commons: Comparing Newfangled Tradable Allowance Schemes To Old-Fashioned Common Property Regimes (1999),
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?10+Duke+Envtl.+L.+&+Pol'y+F.+45
Robert W. Hahn, The Economics and Politics of Climate Change (1998), http://www.aei.brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=177
7. I recognize the dangers inherent in using the state, but I also see almost zero likelihood that Austrian-approved, private collective mechanisms will evolve in the near future to effectively manage the global atmosphere. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it. I also don't see in what meaningful way such a private collective mechanism would differ from a state, nor do I see a single private collective mechanism incorporating the peoples of all nation-states. Must we discard imperfectly working mechanisms and manufacture brand-new ones? Why can't we work with what we've got?
8. Finally, I think that I correctly observed that the nature of the international negotiations that are occurring on climate change are quite different from typical rent-seeking where special interests attempt to influence a state to provide favors, and more akin to private posturing and dickering over the management of a jointly-shared resource. Internationally, there is simply no global government to hand our favors and no comprehensive international agreement. I am not so naive as to claim that no rent-seeking goes on, but these rent-seeking activities essentially take their traditional form - as efforts to influence the respective state actors.
Your further thoughts welcome.
Regards,
Unclean Tom
Published: May 29, 2007 3:43 AM
Just a few comments,
Tom:
The pattern we see is that government expands its powers dramatically during a crisis (real or otherwise), then falls back when the crisis is over, but never to the same level as before. Our next president may well extract us from Iraq, but I am rather skeptical that we will see a repeal of the Patriot Act.
There is a danger in these kind of alliances. It has been pointed out many times that limited liability would likely not exist without state coercion. This could conceivably mean an end to corporations, which the left would love to see, and could be used as a common talking point for libertarians and socialists. However, the danger of this should be immediately evident, since socialists want to get rid of corporations for altogether different reasons than libertarians.
Subsidies should be opposed because they distort the market. If abolishing them helps with AGW, so much the better, but it is important that this not be seen as the first step in a series of government actions, which is how many of the AGW activists would want to frame it.
Often those type of efforts are nothing more than political statements or outright dead-ends. Real progress occurs through innovations such as this and this. The free market solves problems by responding to demand, in this case, the demand for energy and the products that rely upon it. Government, of course, would subsidize the hell out of it all, but hopefully we'll still come through alright.
Published: May 29, 2007 11:43 AM
Scott:
me: "Mises Blog authors and commentators often deride private actions as misguided, ineffective "feel good" efforts".
you: "Often those type of efforts are nothing more than political statements or outright dead-ends. ... The free market solves problems by responding to demand.
Okay, but what category do the new compact fluorescent bulbs fall into?
And how well does the market respond to costs imposed on others by outputs that are free to the emitter?
Regards,
TT
Published: May 29, 2007 11:54 PM
Right now, manufacturers can't sell CFLs on energy savings alone. Consumers also consider purchase price, quality of light and aesthetics. In addition, there's time preference to consider: a buyer might not want to fork over the extra cash for a CFL at the time of purchase, even if it would mean greater future savings.
To compete with incandescents, CFLs need to satisfy a range of consumer wants. Indications are that CFLs are getting substantially better in all of the categories I mentioned, but they also need to overcome their poor history with consumers. I suppose that is where marketing comes in.
The only workable solutions that I can see are private litigation and consumer choice. Litigation has some obstacles to overcome, such as how to quantify damages when there are so many possible plaintiffs. This is also the difficulty with carbon taxes, which, if enacted, will demonstrate yet again that government can't (and never will) calculate--and the rent-seekers rejoice.
Consumer choice should not be underestimated. If the cost of solar power technology continues to decrease (and all signs point to "yes, quickly"), I see more and more businesses and homeowners opting to install solar panels. Solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear each have much greater flexibility to scale up than fossil fuels, but need more time to develop. Scary AGW might be credited with a small part of the impetus for eveloping these alternate energy sources, but I attribute most of it to the simple need for more energy, and the fact that fossil fuels can't go on meeting that increasing need forever.
There will come a point at which one or more of these technologies (probably combined with advanced flywheels for energy storage) will catch fossil fuels in terms of cost and efficiency. At that point, it will be up to consumers to vote with their money for their technology of choice.
You may note that I show great confidence in the unknown vagaries of technological development. I consider it a much smaller leap of faith than believing that government won't botch the whole thing needlessly and probably hold us back for a decade or two.
Published: May 30, 2007 12:58 AM
Tom,
Again you imply that most of the commentators here support the present rent-seeking arrangements or are reluctant to address it. This is simply untrue, and almost all here would support these initial actions you are putting forward. On the effects of it, I find it nearly impossible to believe that removing the present subsidies and other regulations would change the energy generation profile of today. In other words, while laudable goals in and of themselves, they wo