Comments (25)

• RWGoble

  The main problem with people who know so much is that they continually disregard what they don't know. I don't pretend to know whether or not the Earth is warming or cooling, but I do know that as of right now, we don't have the ablity to clean the upper atmosphere at will.

  If there was a volcanic eruption that pumped enough sulphur and dust into the upper atmosphere to cool the planet, wouldn't we all be concerned? Wouldn't there be a push for governments to quickly develop instruments that would clear this dust from blocking the life-giving rays of the sun?

  So what happens once we've pumped billions of tons of sulphur into the upper atmosphere and the earth, being the unpredictable sprite she is, has a major volcanic eruption? Is that really a risk they're willing to take?

  It's amazing that what started as environmentalism has spawned it's most evil opposite; the deliberate pollution of the atmosphere as a means of correcting a phenomenon which has not even been definitively proven to exist.

  Government controlling weather is about as appealing as it's control of the economy.

  Perhaps they'll put a statue of Pecos Bill outside of whatever department they deligate weather regulation to. Yeeeeehaw.

  Published: April 11, 2009 9:26 AM

• Mac

  While the idea [of state sponsored geoengineering] could strike some people as too risky, the Obama administration could get unusual support on the idea from groups that have often denied the harm of global warming in the past.

  The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute has its own geoengineering project, saying it could be "feasible and cost-effective." And Cato Institute scholar Jerry Taylor said Wednesday: "Very few people would rule out geoengineering on its face."

  The AEI is one of the deceptive neocon groups; but Cato?

  Published: April 11, 2009 11:13 AM

• Dennis

  The establishment portrayal of the AGW controversy, which has now morphed into the all-encompassing concept of climate change, is based on “science” that has little respect for accuracy, integrity, and truth. The natural sciences are increasingly becoming dominated by “court scientists,” analogous to the situation that has existed in the social sciences and history for many years.

  From an economic/political perspective, the comments of Mr. Holdren are another stark example of government creating a crisis in order to increase its power and that of its supporting interest groups, a phenomenon that has been so ably analyzed by Professor Robert Higgs.

  Published: April 11, 2009 11:25 AM

• Kakugo

  Beware of men who think themselves as powerful as Gods.
  Beware when facts of science stop being such and become articles of faith.

  Published: April 11, 2009 12:10 PM

• James

  One thing I've often wondered as I read the mises.org daily articles and blogs: why is it that the near-universal reaction to the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) among Austrian economists is to dismiss it as an impossibility?

  For sure, there are groups who are using AGW as an excuse to demand an expansion of government; there is political motivation.

  But just because the calls for more government intervention are disingenuous does not mean the science behind AGW is also disingenuous.

  In addition to the mises.org daily articles and daily blog, I also read RealClimate. For a topic as contentious as AGW, the scientists who post there do an admirable job of sticking to science. Although they are free to admit that there is much about global climatology that we do not yet understand, they (and the majority of climate scientists) believe that AGW is occurring, and that it will have non-trivial consequences for humanity.

  Perhaps the majority is wrong. But in truth, it doesn't matter if they are. That is because the governments of the world are already taking action to mitigate AGW, and I think it is very likely those efforts will accelerate.

  By refusing to participate in the discussion of what should be done because we do not think the theory of AGW is correct, Austrian economists are depriving that discussion of a viewpoint it critically lacks: the Austrian economic viewpoint.

  We know that governments do not understand economics. Can there be any doubt that the governments of the world—lacking an Austrian economic viewpoint—will come up with "solutions" to AGW that are economically non-viable?

  Austrian economists (Rothbard et. al.) have tackled the issue of pollution and property rights before, which are the issues that lie at the core of AGW. This is an issue that Austrian economists can speak to.

  If we do not, I think we will are going to be very unhappy with the "solutions" to AGW that we get.

  Published: April 11, 2009 12:27 PM

• Newbie

  Does anyone else see a pattern in "experts" across multiple fields? The recession was caused by government intervention, so let's use more intervention to "fix" it. Global warming (whether or not it actually exists) was supposedly caused by human intervention through carbon emissions, so let's use more intervention to "fix" it. These people have no clue... and they clearly aren't familiar with the law of unintended consequences.

  Published: April 11, 2009 12:44 PM

• Dennis

  James, the issue of AGW is not an issue that fundamentally rests on economics but on natural science. I do not believe that Austrian School economists would be helping the cause of scientific objectivity, integrity, and advancement by accepting the suspect consensus view of the natural scientists regarding AGW, and then joining the process by attempting to mold a solution that is more “market” oriented. We need only look at the situation involving central banking and Keynesian economics to realize how the implementation of a scientifically incorrect consensus will produce disastrous results. The fundamental science first needs to be correctly established.

  Published: April 11, 2009 5:41 PM

• Walt D.

  Suppose they actually go ahead and shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere. Then, what will happen if we get an unusual number of volcanic eruptions shooting even more particulate matter into the atmosphere? Do they have a way to undo what they have already done, or do we risk bringing on another ice age?

  Published: April 11, 2009 5:46 PM

• John Hansen

  www.sepp.org, www.friendsofscience.org

  Do not believe the global warming HYPE. Please read more.
  Interesting that austrian economists are critical to the idea of global warming. Guess it must be because the are used to THINKING themselves.

  Published: April 12, 2009 4:44 AM

• Lowell Sherris

  James

  One thing I've often wondered as I read the mises.org daily articles and blogs: why is it that the near-universal reaction to the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) among Austrian economists is to dismiss it as an impossibility?

  I disagree. The near-universal reaction is not to dismiss the global warming hypothesis as an impossibility. The typical reaction is one of healthy skepticism.

  Furthermore, let's use accurate terms. Gravity is a well proven theory. Anthropomorphic global warming is an unproven hypothesis. I suspect that most citizens have never been exposed to critical thinking.

  Published: April 12, 2009 5:41 PM

• Arend

  Manbearpig is REAL, except for the man part. That part will kick in when we start geoengineering. And that's like a zillion times more complicated than a mere soft social science project like for example a world central bank (and de facto govt.) ruling the business cycle waves and making the whole wide world rich...

  I have no faith whatsoever except for the fact that mankind (as the sum of all the individual humans) can do a lot, but this is way over our heads. But if the cooling operation works too well, we could always finetune the sun somewhat more with a nuke or 2, right. It's all about tweaking in the end... :)

  Published: April 12, 2009 5:44 PM

• damocles

  Since satellite measurements show no global warming, and much science indicates that increasing CO2 would have at most a small part in temperature variation, the whole proposal has a certain maniacal tone to it. We could also dam the Bering Strait, which might well produce a full blow ice age--but think of the fun for scientists!

  Published: April 12, 2009 5:54 PM

• tehdude

  The geoengineering plan is actually pretty sharp, if temperatures were accelerating out of control, which they are not.

  Published: April 12, 2009 6:23 PM

• Kevin Hall

  One thing about the government is that they start talking out loud about something after they have already been doing it. In this case, research chemtrails; this is essentially planes spraying the atmosphere. Of course, it is denied but now it seems pretty obvious with this type of talk that there is some truth that it's being done.

  Published: April 12, 2009 7:18 PM

• Kevin Hall

  One thing about the government is that they start talking out loud about something after they have already been doing it. In this case, research chemtrails; this is essentially planes spraying the atmosphere. Of course, it is denied but now it seems pretty obvious with this type of talk that there is some truth that it's being done.

  Published: April 12, 2009 7:18 PM

• Lester Hunt

  Why is this Holdren dude saying that the big problem is that global warming is happening so rapidly? Hasn't anyone told him there has been no measurable global warming for almost ten years now? When will these guys just shut up and go away? Okay, dumb question.

  Published: April 12, 2009 7:50 PM

• low warranty

  James,
  One of the main problems I have with the main-stream analysis of AGW is that the outcomes are all presumed to be negative for humans. What if they were actually positive? Last time I checked, many crops grow BETTER with increased temperature and precipitation, thereby allowing the earth to POTENTIALLY support MORE human life. I'm sure there are many other potentially positive outcomes IF the earth was actually warming. They are not all negative like we are fed continuously.

  Published: April 13, 2009 8:37 AM

• Matthew

  Clearly, Obama's science advisers are short-sighted and not true friends of the environment.

  http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/65060.html

  Published: April 13, 2009 4:16 PM

• Nate

  While I do not subscribe to the global warming scenario, I offer another reason of how a free market approach would be best.
  A common argument against the privatization of the railroads would be the cost to consumers, since fares would likely rise as subsidies are taken away, while this is true, at least at first, private owners would likely seek ways to reduce costs in order to obtain a larger market share, one way to do this would be to lease the land along the railways to utility companies to install solar panels. Any excess power could even be used to power the locomotives.

  Published: April 14, 2009 12:56 PM

• Christopher Lewis

  What the heck is up with Cato? Are they even a libertarian organization any longer? Tacitly accepting the inevitability of government intervention rather than screaming at the top of their lungs about the detrimental effects of this power grab???

  uuuggghhh.

  Published: April 14, 2009 9:43 PM

• Cliff

  After reading the article I double checked the publishing date to see if it was April 1st...

  Published: April 14, 2009 10:39 PM

• James

  Dennis wrote:

  The fundamental science [of AGW] first needs to be correctly established.

  .

  You (and everyone else who addressed my comment) dodged my question.

  The argument for government intervention goes like this: because climate scientists are in rough consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are a form of pollution, and because the free market is incapable of preventing pollution, only massive government action and intervention is capable of addressing/preventing greenhouse gas emissions.

  The universal (as far as I can tell) Austrian response is to argue the first assertion in the chain; that greenhouse gas emissions are a form of pollution.

  But that argument is lost. In 5-10 years time, it's going to be accepted as common knowledge even by laypersons that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming and are thus pollution.

  It is time to argue against the second assertion in the chain: that the free market is incapable of addressing pollution on such a diffuse and global scale.

  And that is my question: can we?

  I'm beginning to doubt whether Austrian economics has a response.

  So, even if you think it's balderdash that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, let's just say that hypothetically they do. How, hypothetically, could the free market connect that externality (greenhouse gas emissions) back to activities that generate them, and thus allow the free market to regulate greenhouse gas emissions?

  Published: April 15, 2009 1:11 AM

• Gil

  As low warranty pointed out there is a correlation between warmer temperatures and improved human living! In 1816, the Year Without A Summer, volcanic eruptions caused a sudden Global Cooling and there was immediate crop failures, starvation and civil unrest! There's no proof that cooler global temperatures equal improved human living! Obviously there'd be a maximum global temperature where human living standards would start decreasing however I'm sure we're nowhere near that temperature (or will be for millions of years).

  Published: April 15, 2009 1:30 AM

• Alex

  James:
  The reason you haven't gotten the response an Austrian economist would have to the assertion that the market can't handle AGW is because you haven't asked an Austrian economist. You've asked a gaggle of internet commenters-granted, a cut above what you'd see on youtube, but internet commenters nonetheless, myself included. I'm not an Austrian economist, so I can't tell you what an Austrian economist would say, but I can give you my impressions after having read a fair amount of Austrian literature. I may be completely off base on all of this, but off the top of my head here are a few ideas that may be in the vein of what you're looking for.

  Now, it's fairly easy to establish that, whether or not government is used to deal with the problem, voluntary action is required nonetheless. Government dealing with this externality creates the new public good of making sure government is doing a good job. In our country (at least in theory), this is dealt with through voting, but even voting requires voluntary contributions of time and energy to research and form good opinions: in this case, on environmental policy. Now that we've seen that even in a State system dealing with global warming well absolutely requires voluntary action and contributions, let's take a look at some voluntary alternatives to State action.

  The first thing that comes to mind is Rothbard's (I think it was Rothbard at least) idea for dealing with pollution and overfishing in the seas: privatize the ocean floors. That way, the private owners will make sure their sections of ocean are clean and keep fishing sustainable to ensure present and future profits. The same principle could possibly be applied to the global warming problem: namely, privatize air space. The new private owners would have incentive to keep them clean, and act accordingly. One may argue that it would be impossible to regulate pollution in individual sections of atmosphere, but this would probably lead to polluters making deals with airspace owners to pay X amount of dollars for Y amount of pollution over Z period of time, with pollution amounts and subsequent costs determined by their specialists. Thus the cost of the externality would be adequetly reflected in production costs, which would affect profit loss analysis accordingly, making "greener" technology more economically viable. To take this idea a step further, the air space owners may eveninsure their air against pollution, and the maintenance of cleaner air could be left to the insurance companies. As a final note on this subject, both airspace owners and insurance companies would have a vested interest in greener technologies, and might thus invest in their development further reducing emissions.

  For those who would dismiss privatizing the air as too radical, unrealistic, or nonviable for reasons I haven't seen, another option could be private environmental certification agencies. These agencies would inspect companies and give them ratings based on their emissions. Alternatively, different agencies could have different standards, with more rigorous certifications leading (presumably) to higher costs, and consumers could choose the best balance or environmentalism and price for them. The ability to slap a "green sticker" on a product could become a major selling point. In this way, the marketplace would regulate just how stringent emissions standards should be. You need only to look to Kosher or "Fair Trade" foods to see these principles in action. One may argue that this won't be enough and that coercive action is needed, but, as we've already established, voluntary action is the basis of even State handling of the issue. If people don't care about the environment, it's not happening either way.
  
  The key point to all of this is price. Externalities are an economic problem because they cause price not to be reflective of real cost. These methods, or even far better ones brighter men than I could come up with in a minute of approaching the problem form this direction, would make prices reflective of true costs. There's no more free market solution than that.

  Published: April 15, 2009 2:18 AM

• Florian Kren

  The best reason to be sceptical of AGW is this:
  http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1873164,00.html

  "We looked at a scenario in which each country used 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons, which they are believed to have in their arsenals. That's enough firepower to kill around 20 million people on the ground. We were surprised that the amount of smoke produced by these explosions would block out sunlight, cool the planet, and produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. "

  "We used ModelE, designed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and one of the models used to produce the results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

  There are 2 possibilities, either the model is describes the real climate more or less accurate or it is inaccurate.

  In the later case, the obvious question is why the heck we should spend billions of dollars and maybe millions of human lives upon threats predicted by an inaccurate model.

  In the former case one has to reread closely:
  "...used 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons....block out sunlight, cool the planet, and produce climate change unprecedented..."
  So by detonating 50 hiroshima bombs somewhere we get a few degrees cooling for several years.
  Which again leads to the question, why the heck we should spend billions of dollars and maybe millions of human lives upon threats, which could be averted very quickly by detonating the equivalent of a 100 hiroshima nukes?

  Only if we would lack any organization capable and willing to detonate a few dozen nukes per year in some remote desert.(Less nukes are needed because typical today nuke is larger than hiroshima, but detonating in desert with only dust and no smoke would compensate this somewhat)

  Since there is an "company", which would do this very likely without requiring any additional tax payer money and would be rather happy to have this excuse to detonate nukes in some deserts, the whole concept of AGW is wrong either in basic predictions or in practical solutions and in both cases can cause serious harm to human life.

  (And fallout is not a problem, because developing fallout free nukes is anyway a top priority inside that "company".)
  

  Published: April 15, 2009 6:13 AM