The Case against "Smart Taxes" on Carbon
Today is Earth day, and a week ago we "celebrated" tax day. It is fitting, in a sense, that Earth Day and Tax Day are only one week apart. Those who blame global warming on human activity see taxation as an effective and desirable means of preventing environmental global catastrophe. In a recent publication, former Bush advisor Greg Mankiw has extended an "open invitation to join the Pigou club" by embracing the idea of regulating greenhouse gases with corrective taxes. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (53)
Marcus
there is no green house effect in our atmosphäre not with co2 or watervapor
http://www.schmanck.de/0707.1161v4.pdf
and the levels of co2 are not higher then in the past
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_18-2_Beck.pdf
Published: April 22, 2009 8:02 AM
I Hate Socialists
Hey MacKenzie,
It's not the science of global warming which must be attacked because what you really hate is the politics of global warming.
You hate global taxing, global restricting, global mandatoring, global tyranny, global property seizures, global eco-1984.
Instead of trying to prove global warming wrong you should prove global warming politics wrong.
You should make your case that economic freedom, individual freedoms, private property and the rule of law are the best way to let mankind face this global warming challenge.
By attacking the science of global warming instead of the politics, it's like you were saying that if the science was true then the politics of taxation and regulation are legitimate.
You put yourself at risk of being proven that global warming is true after all and at this point you will no longer have any arguments to uphold freedom.
I couldn't care less if global warming is true or not, individual freedom is the most important thing in the world and I refuse to live without it, it's non-negociable.
Bottom Line:
GLOBAL WARMING IS TRUE ! BUT FREEDOM IS TRUTH !!!
I'd rather live in a warm hot free world than a dead cold tyrannical one !!!
Published: April 22, 2009 8:05 AM
Dennis
A shift in terminology has occurred over the past year or so to "climate change" from "global warming." Now, no matter what happens to the earth's climate, which exhibited substantial volatility before any humans even existed, there is an alleged reason for government to intervene and combat the change, of course to save us from disaster.
Climate change, supported by a "consensus" that is based on politically and career and grant driven junk science, is utilized as a reason to control energy production and consumption, and hence, a considerable amount of economic activity. The scientifically unproven assertion that humans are responsible for climate change is becoming the basis of a new fascism.
Published: April 22, 2009 8:11 AM
John
I worry that the Earth and the Sun will continue the current trend of global cooling (or, at least, non-warming) for the next few decades, regardless of what humans do, but the greenie socialists will take the credit for it because their wealth-destroying politics will get implemented.
Published: April 22, 2009 8:20 AM
Walt D.
A tax for fools - no more or less. Just another way to grow the size of government using junk science.
Published: April 22, 2009 9:48 AM
I Hate Fake-Libertarians Debating Global Warming Science Instead Of Politics
I see that people did not read my post and keep stuffing their heads in sand or should I say their asses.
Global warming is true, it is a scientific truth and human activity is an important factor.
With that said, I don't care if the earth is getting warmer and so are neither of you.
You, like me, we all care about staying free, keeping our earnings and keeping our private property.
Stop debating the truthness or fallacy of global warming and instead start debating against government intervention.
If governments really want to fight global warming well they will eliminate taxes, eliminate burdensome regulations and will just step out of the way and let the world solve this problem through free market capitalism.
In my mind, global warming is true. But in my mind government intervention is wrong and will cause far greater disasters than a warmer climate.
Governments are capable of killing billions in genocidal wars to save millions from global warming. It's that stupid.
Losing your freedoms is the best way for government to kill us all into a cooler climate.
You all have stupid cool heads for constantly keeping missing the point that Global Warming isn't about warming, it's about Politics, power and control.
Those who debate the science are saying that if global warming was true than government would be justified to intervene.
Those who are debating the science of global warming are not true libertarians.
Only those who would uphold freedom even under global warming are true lilbertarians.
Published: April 22, 2009 9:52 AM
I Hate False Liberatrians Who Keeps Missing The Point
Walt D.
"A tax for fools - no more or less. Just another way to grow the size of government using junk science."
It's NOT junk science, it's junk POLITICS !
The science is real, the politics are junk.
Are you saying that if Global warming was true, you would accept the carbon tax and you would accept the government intervention in every details of your life, even seizing your property and telling you what you can and can't buy and in which amount ?
Are you now begining to realize that even if global warming was true, you would still not accept the tax nor intervention.
So your contention is not with the science then, it's with the politics.
True libertarians are not ashamed of freedom and will defend it even amidst out of control global warming.
I'd rather live in a free red hot world than a dead cold tyranny !
Now pull your heads out of your asses and stop debating the science of global warming, debate the politics.
Published: April 22, 2009 9:57 AM
Walt D.
I Hate False Liberatrians Who Keeps Missing The Point
I actually agree with what you saw. As far as I am concerned the climate models that "prove" man-made global warming are all bogus.
However, suppose that man made CO2 did in fact cause global warming, and suppose that global warming was in fact harmful. Even then, the problem is political and psychological rather that scientific. All we would need to do would be to replace the coal fired plants, which generate half the electricity, with nuclear power plants. This would serve as an interim solution (for 40 years) until fusion technology was developed.
Published: April 22, 2009 10:09 AM
Ronald
What makes this current trend of intellectual supremacy so unfit for human consumption, is the bases of taxation in itself is imperfect at every level, yet it is used to perfect society at the hands of the most imperfect of all, idealized politically motivated despots in need of an audience.
I mean that in the kindest of ways.
Every time some professors, preachers an advertisement campaign to justify servitude from one man to another by outside political forces, they are suggesting enslavement to another's will and it is usually their authorship, not the individuals, and disconnects the players involved as justification of imposed will by doctrine.
We are suffering under a barrage of pied pipers playing the government imposed dictum rule, and all these claimed intelligentsia are perpetrating collective gathering principles to sweep away their feared nemesis; Competition!
As in all things even the professorial flock is fearful of their transparent perch upon the elevated state podium of fabricated self worth. What better way to gain power and notoriety but to invest in promoting totalitarianism over the individual and to back it up with vague references to equality and fairness through moderated taxation.
Yes even the chains of slave hood makes all who are chained equal under the whip. So it almost makes sense to a government stooge to request, yea even require, chains of more taxation at the hands of the uncle Tom playing the owners pet.
Published: April 22, 2009 10:45 AM
Gerard Bendiks
"Professor Mankiw advocates taxing carbon, which includes taxes on gasoline."
Gasoline is used in the quantities it is used because of the fact that a car is need. Why is a car needed? Because of apartheid, oops, I mean zoning. Also the roads needed to make apartheid, I mean zoning, happen force upon us bipeds the need for a car. In a world without Zoners some parts of town would be packed together. Some wouldn't. But there'd definitely be less cars on the road.
The natural people's reaction to such an urban landscape imposed by the Zoners would be to "double-up", ie. varying kinds of mass transit. But the politically-imposed market barriers to doing so are often prohibitive. Indeed, the first mass transit entities were, over time, legislated into oblivion.
Less cars=less gasoline pollution. Seems to me that this is another example of "political externalities" blamed on the people's natural reaction (personal cars) to being told what their approved GPS coordinates should regarding live/work/play.
Urban planners....what a crock.
Published: April 22, 2009 11:34 AM
D.W. MacKenzie
Some of you need to read my post more carefully. The ideas that externalities are unmeasurable and prices make the best use of practical knowledge suggest that even if there were anthropogenic global warming (and the case for AGW is increadibly weak) there would still be no clear case for so called corrective taxation.
Published: April 22, 2009 11:56 AM
greg
A carbon tax has nothing to do with global warming, it has everything to do about raising taxes to pay for all the government debt that has been adding up since Andrew Jackson.
I favor some type of tax on stupid consumption, for example:
- Everyone that drives a SUV that can't see over the stearing wheel needs to be taxed.
- If that driver is blond, they need to pay double.
- Everyone that cannot park a SUV within the lines, needs to be taxed.
- Anyone that has more lights on the exterior of their home than the normal person has on in the interior, they need to be taxed.
- Anyone that leaves their heat on so their cat is comfortable while they are gone, needs to be taxed.
- Anyone that has more than one cat and leaves their heat on needs to be taxed double.
- Any company that uses blister packaging needs to be taxed.
Bottom line, we all are wasting energy and it is in our best interest to stop. The impact to our lives is huge. For example, have you noticed a decrease in terrorism. You may say it is the result of our military exposure, but it has much more to do with the decrease in revenue to oil producing countries.
It is time for a responsible freedom!
Published: April 22, 2009 12:23 PM
TokyoTom
Mr. Mackenzie, please allow a few comments:
1. Your dismissal of Mankiw is flawed, because you fail to acknowledge that the atmosphere is a global commons, over which there is no global government that is imposing a Pigovian tax or other policy. Rather, very obviously we are looking at a vast, multiplayer game in which everyone is very conscious about undertaking burdens before others and is very anxious to cut the best deal for himself.
Rather, like ranchers deciding whether to close and manage a range, the global politics is very much more like a Coasean bargaining situtation, as I have argued elsewhere: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/14/are-pigovian-taxes-coasean-if-they-are-not-fixed-by-one-government-but-rather-the-product-of-negotiations-among-many.aspx.
2. As others have noted, your arguments as to science are not merely week, but counterproductive. Far better for Austrians to discuss how to best manage important shared resources than to simply suggest that there is no problem YET or that we should ignore the preferences of those who argue that we pay attention to potential tragedies of the commons before they are fully manifested. There is an obvious and undeniable problem of catallaxy relating to the atmosphere and climate.
By the way, have you noted that the scientists (and executives) at Exxon, Dupont, IBM and others disagree with you on the science, and that Exxon`s CEO Rex Tillerson is expressly advocating carbon taxes? http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/03/08/exxon-rex-tillerson-no-longer-willing-to-be-quot-conservative-quot-on-climate-risks-advocates-carbon-taxes-and-invests-in-carbon-lite-tech.aspx
3. Further, I`m surprised that you ignore the affects of increasing CO2 emissions on the oceans, particularly ocean pH. Isn`t the impact of CO2 on marine life and the oceans something that the Coast Guard has no little concern about? And the the Coast Guard have no similar concerns about managing international commons like undeniably crashing ocean fisheries?
I am surprised that you bring so little institutional perspective to bear on this and related issues.
Sincerely,
TT
Published: April 22, 2009 1:01 PM
BrianT
Greg is right in one respect. This has absolutely everything to do with raising tax revenue. Just not entirely because of the govt. debt. Rather, the politicians want to be able to keep spending at obscene levels, and to even increase it.
Is there anyone on this board who actually believes that the revenue generated from such taxation will *actually* be used for the stated purpose? When has that *ever* been the case with Mordor on the Potomoc?
The Social Security "lockbox". Ooops. Nope. They spent it all as general revenue.
Social Security numbers will never be used for indentification. Oops. Nope. Try and open a bank account without the SSN.
"Trust us, we're from the Government". NOT.!!!
Additional examples abound, so much so that it would be fruitless to list any more.
But Greg ... on your other tax ideas .... no way, no how, not ever. Taxation is robbery. While I did laugh-out-loud with the short-blonde remark, she/he has as much right to make personal cost/benefit decisions on what to drive as even I (a tall blonde). A short blonde's rights end at the point where their decision causes damage/injury to another person.
There be far, FAR, less excessive consumption absent the coercive effects of the Federal Reserve's easy-credit policies, which is yet another Government created problem. Bring back real money so that Joe/Jane Blonde can save their wealth without losing it to inflation and I'd bet their personal decisions would change to achieve the result sought.
Published: April 22, 2009 1:08 PM
D.W. MacKenzie
TT,
The US is large enough of a player in the world economy and industrial emissions to matter, as far as Pigouvian taxes are concerned. I would not go too far in attributing Coasean attributes to the American political process either. One need not have world government to have rough alignment of policy and so-called encompassing interests, and a world government would face great barriers in realizing Coasean efficiency.
The arguments against AGW are not "week" (as you wrote). Most industrial C02 is post 1940, most modern global warming is pre-1940. So there never was that great of a correlation between C02 and temps. Solar activity correlates better than C02, even prior to the past decade. C02 levels have continued to rise in the past decade, and global temps have not. If solar activity remains subdued and global temps remain flat or falling (we are in the 11th year...), then shrill proponents of AGW (i.e. Gore) are going to be the laughing stock of the planet. You might want to distance your self from the AGW crowd.
DWM PhD
Published: April 22, 2009 1:44 PM
Silas Barta
@D.W._MacKenzie: Good points, all. I also really hate how the government is going to tax the sludge I pour into children's playgrounds. That's really going to hurt the economy, and like, put a lot of people out of jobs. It's going to be soooooooo inconvenient for me to have to pay these taxes and have people telling me where I can and can't dump toxic sludge. We need to spread the word that the libertarian position is all about freedom, and dumping my waste wherever I feel like without consequence is the number one freedom I value.
(Notice the sarcasm? I was really piling it on there.)
Published: April 22, 2009 2:27 PM
Gene L
Silas- If you cannot distinguish between rejecting a proposed solution and ignoring a problem, then you should stop budding into adult conversations.
Published: April 22, 2009 2:36 PM
2nd Amendment
Silas,
Maybe we should already tax you for the "sludge" you drop in this blog.
Published: April 22, 2009 3:15 PM
Poptech
I Hate Libertarians who are Computer Illiterate
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming
"What people do not understand is that there is no proof of "Man-Made" Global Warming without using irrelevant computer models. Yes computer models have a place in engineering but are utterly useless at fortune telling, I mean "climate prediction". With engineering you can build and test in the real world to confirm the computer model's accuracy. You can do no such thing with the planet Earth and it's climate. You cannot build a planet and it's atmosphere to "test" your computer climate model.
I am a computer analyst and can program a computer model to do whatever I want. If you program a computer model so that X amount of CO2 increase "forces" X amount of temperature increase then it will happen, this does not make this true in the real world."
Some inconvenient facts...
FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.6°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)
FACT: 89% of U.S. temperature stations are biased by +1.0°C (SurfaceStations)
Censored Global Warming Videos/b>
For more information, here are over 10,000 sources...
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Published: April 22, 2009 6:46 PM
Sukrit
Everyone here should join the No Pigou Club:
http://nopigouclub.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=2216061746
Published: April 22, 2009 7:07 PM
Brian Kolb
I've always enjoyed Mr. MacKenzie's articles. I wish he wrote more.
Published: April 22, 2009 9:16 PM
TokyoTom
DWM PhD:
1. You are making contradictory points. Dictat by a global government would be Pigovian, but clearly there is no such global government. The fact that the US - like China and the EU - is influential on global climate politics makes it clear that what is underway - in our Westphalian system of nation states - is clearly a negotiation among states. The Pigoivian paradigm of a single government setting policy simply doesn`t apply. Undeniably, we have many governments involved in a long competive and cooperative negotiating process. The fact that gocernments are not private actors doesn`t make the Coasean bargaining aspects any less real.
I would not go too far in attributing Coasean attributes to the American political process either.
Me neither. But since you bring it up, public choice theory indicates that control over government is an enduring battle among interest groups and government power brokers. There a clearly very different interests and coalitions of interests involved with climate politics; it`s interesting to me that most so-called Austrians get alarmed when a new coalition seems to poised to gain the upper hand domestically, but never seem to notice all of the old rent-seekers and how they`ve benefitted (by shifting costs) by their control over the wheel of government over the past few decades.
a world government would face great barriers in realizing Coasean efficiency.
Sure. But did you think I was disagreeing with you?
2. My poiint about science is that by relying oin appeals to the parts you like you are essentially taking the easy way out and throwing Austrian principles about catallxy, property rights and preferences under the bus. Instead of an Austrian disccussion, you give us an irrelevant Coasean critique of Pigou and arguments over science. This , as others have noted upthread (and Gene Callahan, Sheldon Richman and Ed Dolan have argued) can be seen as a coincession that, when the science moves against you, the Austrian position simply is irrelevant.
By the way, your silence on ocean pH and similar commons problems relating to fisheries is rather deafening, and appalling given your position inside the US Coast Guard. You should be more forthcoming about how man is destroying and threatening these commons, and if you really believe that government should play no role in protecting them (a role that it is performing extremely poorly, though even enviros are calling for ITQs to address fisheries), then have you considered bringing your private beliefs in line with your employment?
TT
Published: April 22, 2009 9:31 PM
newson
absent one-world-government, there is no possible means of enforcing global pollution norms.
rothbard's suggested use of tort law to address localized pollution is sensible. but even without strong property rights, air pollution creates strong political incentives for remediation. after all, the effects of pollution are generally more intense the closer one gets to the source of the emissions. i see water as more problematic than air pollution as the effects are more immediate and concentrated.
Published: April 22, 2009 10:12 PM
wuzacon
Freedom is definitely most important, regardless of the science. Moreover, private property and the end of the commons is the single most efficient (and consistent with freedom) way to resolve disputes about harm to oceans or air.
However, I think it is healthy for all of us to be skeptical of the science and the claims made for and against global warming. Hopefully, the Mises Institute can solicit debate among climate experts to discuss the scientific questions (what do we know and how do we know that we know it) that are central to the global warming discussion. It is probably all for naught, though, as even if global warming was disproved we would need a global tax on carbon to prevent global cooling (or some other fanciful or arbitrary concoction of the international socialist elite). The carbon tax is the best bet that the UN has to generate its own tax base - then it will have all the power it needs to be a world government. At that time, we can all stop debating (at gunpoint).
Published: April 22, 2009 10:19 PM
filc
I wonder if mister I hate everything read Marcus's post directly above his before he made his comment....
Published: April 23, 2009 12:37 AM
Salem The Cat
No one seems to be directly addressing TokyoTom's comments.
This is a libertarian blog, and it is very counterproductive to just dismiss science which presents issues for a free-market philosophy.
Since global warming is apparentally such a touchy subject around here....how about ocean acidification? Much of the CO2 that we release is being absorbed by the ocean, reacting with water to form carbonic acid, which in turn, dissociates to give off H+, and making the ocean more acidic. This decreases the availability of Calcium Carbonate, which is very important for corals and many plankton.
How do we approach this from a free-market perspective? This is an externality of CO2 release which will ultimately have economic costs for the tourism and fishing industries. I very sincerely, would like to hear some thoughts.
Published: April 23, 2009 1:05 AM
moroes
Among the comments, I saw several interesting issues being raised. One was that if Global Warming is true and is man made, would this justify imposing taxes on fossil fuels to limit negative externalities? Let's assume for argument's sake that the case for man made global warming is rock solid.
I HATE... makes the point that regardless whether GW is a valid fact or not, we should uphold freedom as our most valued principle and oppose any taxes. We all agree that one's freedom's limits are only the freedoms of others, and that I can engage in any activity so long as it does not harm my fellow man. But air pollution is an invasion of freedom since the stuff factories, power plants and cars churn out (supposedly) affects the climate of the entire planet, as well as our health. If that is the case, what would the solution be? Suing the ones responsible is not just impractical, but outright impossible. Global warming is a global (well d'oh) phenomenon and can't be blamed on particular individuals. Therefore taxes seem to be the only practical way to limit negative externalities of fuel burning.
Mr MacKenzie says that it is impossible to measure the negative effect of the externalities and thus one can't put a price (tax) on them. I agree that they might not be economically measurable but nonetheless, I believe the principle behind them remains sound: since CO2 emissions cause climate change, taxes are put in place to limit such emissions and therefore protect the climate. They seem necessary as simply enforcing property rights seems impossible in such a case (again, who am I going to sue if because of the polluted air I breathe I get asthma or God knows what else?). Since one can't make use of property rights to limit the effects of pollution, these should be prevented by green legislation, such as requiring factories and plants to limit their emissions, and yes, even putting taxes on gasoline, since this would limit the impact that the use of this fuel has on the environment.
Published: April 23, 2009 7:17 AM
Toby
As soon as anyone is capable of
1. perfectly proving that global warming exists and is man-made
2. calculating how high the costs are
it should be clear that the ones who cause GW should pay the appropriate sum to those who are affected by it.
However, since neither point one or two are fullfilled, any global-scale redistribution system would be a total failure.
Published: April 23, 2009 8:01 AM
DW MacKenzie
TT,
the Coase Theorem applies equally to markets and politics. With zero political barriers to entry and zero costs of political bargaining, interest groups would deliver social welfare opitmization- in theory. Public choice theory shreds this proposition, and yes I pass over calculation/knowledge issues in this paper. But most Austrians accept Coase's comparative institutions-Nirvana fallacy critique of Pigou. So I am not throwing anything under the bus, its a legit argument that stands well alongside more Austrian specific arguments. Walter Block has objections to property rights issues in the Coase Theorem, as it is applied to Law and Economics. As far as I know even Walter does not object to the Nirvana Fallacy objection that COase advanced against Pigou- that not entirely the same thing
As for the oceans, this particular paper is a short Mises Daily article that responds specifically to the AGW issue. It is not a general treatise on environmental economics, so I do not accept your point here. Also note that I teach macroeconomics at the Coast Guard Academy, not marine or environmental science. You might further note that I have a Mises.org piece from last year that focuses on overfishing in the Maryland Crab industry...
Published: April 23, 2009 10:39 AM
Martin OB
What's up with so many Austrian economists and climate change?
Denying the science behind it is a losing strategy. It smacks of politically biased junk science (which it may or may not be) and makes Austrian economics look like junk economics by association. The author admitted to not being an expert in the subject, so why not let climate experts decide on climate issues and economists decide on the most adequate policies for each possible outcome of scientific consensus?
It's not about whether state management of a resource is better or worse than private management; the real issue is that some physical commons, like the air and the oceans, are completely unmanaged.
A free-market solution would be to divide them up and give every human being their share; that sounds politically impractical at this moment. Another, more pragmatic solution would be to acknowledge their status as a common property of all mankind, and then manage them like any community of owners manages common resources: as Mises would say, "bureaucratically".
Carbon taxes need not be a concession to statists' claims of market limitations, but simply a fee that the owner of a property charges to its users. The price should be such that the annual CO2 emissions are kept within safe bounds, according to expert consensus; there's no way around the need to reach such consensus.
In order to keep States from trying to raise the carbon tax to increase their revenues, all the money from this tax should be automatically and evenly distributed among the owners, that is, every human being, as an owner, should receive an equal share of the revenues.
There's another, more direct version of this scheme: instead of a carbon tax, first have the experts decide on the maximum level of global CO2 emissions, then assign each citizen an equal share of CO2 emission rights, which they are free to use up or sell.
Fossil fuel extraction could be used as a proxy for CO2 rights consumption. For instance, if you find an oil reserve in your property, you declare how much you are extracting, so you can use up your emission rights and then buy rights from your neighbors to keep extracting and selling the oil. No taxes, subventions or fancy industry regulations of consumer devices involved.
Published: April 23, 2009 11:26 AM
DW MacKenzie
Martin,
my article provides a link to a talk by the Harvard Astrophysisist Willie Soon. He says that AGW is bunk, and he is not alone in this opinion. See also the other sources in my biblio.
DWM PhD
Published: April 23, 2009 12:53 PM
James
D.W. MacKenzie wrote:
By claiming that climatology should be left to climatologists, but then proceeding to spend the majority of your article attempting to debunk the theory of anthropogenic global warming, you greatly undermined your point: that governments cannot calculate the cost of the externalities.
What I really want to see is an article from an Austrian economist that starts like this:
But I have seen no Austrian economist write such an article. Invariably, when Austrian economists address this issue, they resort to attacking the theory of AGW. The uniformity of that reaction leads me to believe that—should the theory of AGW be correct—Austrian economics has no answer.
This is extraordinarily depressing, because if Austrian economics has no answer, we can all rest assured that the "answer" that governments of the world will come up with will be economically disastrous.
Published: April 23, 2009 1:04 PM
Martin OB
Dr MacKenzie:
I'm not defending AGW. I'm not qualified to decide whether AGW skeptics are right or not, but I think it's safe to say that, for whatever reasons, most mainstream climate scientists believe it to some extent.
So, whoever remains skeptic about this issue is understandably regarded as "fringe" and largely ignored by politicians and citizens. After all, there are lots of "skeptics" about every relevant scientific issue (Intelligent Design anyone?).
Sure, if you can make a case that governments exaggerate the facts to push their own agendas, go ahead, there's nothing wrong with that. But keep in mind that most readers' reaction would be "okay, but what if the AGW alarmists are right and CO2 levels MUST be drastically reduced right now? Can Austrian economic recipes deal with that?". I think that's where the action should be in mises.org.
Regards.
Published: April 23, 2009 4:39 PM
Walt D.
AGW has never been either proved or disproved. However, the computer models that predicted AGW have been disproved.
In the past year, while the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, the climate has cooled-in some places, particularly in the southern hemisphere,this has been quite drastic. The climate models missed this completely - in these models, rising CO2 causes temperatures to rise.
Those scientists who (correctly) predict that a drop is sunspot activity would cause increased cloud cover and cooling were marginalized and dismissed as "astrologists". Now it appears that they may have been right.
This cooling trend will likely continue - hence the big rush to put through the taxation before people start figuring out that they have been conned.
Published: April 23, 2009 10:31 PM
D.W. MacKenzie
James,
I did not try to debunk AGW. I merely referenced the work of others that does so. As Walt notes, the computer models are wrong, and the debate will likely fade over the next five years.
Austrian economics already has an answer to warming problems, if they existed. Common resource pools (CPR's) already solve common's problems, usually having to do with water rights. CPR's are largely self governing organizations, which at the most rely the state only for some backup enforcement of rules/contracts. CPR arrangements could be extended to air rights. I am not sure, off hannd, if strictly private CPR's could manage the atmospheric commons. But such a CPR arrangment would square much better with free market ethics (I assume you are thinking in terms of natural rights), than would global or regional taxing authorities. See Elinor Ostrom's book on CPR's. I suppose Austrians could develop this argument further, but why bother? Climate scientists are abandoning the AGW crowd, and most of the public will follow their lead.
DWM
Published: April 24, 2009 7:30 AM
Salem The Cat
Climate scientists are certainly not abandoning the idea of AGW, and that's kind of the point.
In a recent 2009 poll conducted by the earth sciences department of the University of Chicago found that out of over 3,000 scientists surveyed, 97.4% of "climatologists who are active in scientific research believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures". Even if you don't believe global warming is human caused, it's absurd to claim that a significant number of climatologists agree.
The point is, that there is not a weakening consensus, and our country is already far into the process of making policy changes on climate change. Simply claiming "AGW isn't happening anyways and we'll all forget about it in a few years" might be a pleasant lullaby, but leglislation is still going to get passed. The best that Austrian economists can do, is prove that their is a superior way of dealing with the problem, and hope that this can counteract support for some of current unreasonable proposals.
I, and apparentally some of the other people on this board, would actually like to see the common resource pool argument taken further. Free-market ideas for solving global pollution problems are certainly never going to be taken seriously if no one can even come up with one.
Published: April 24, 2009 11:53 AM
Poptech
"Climate scientists are certainly not abandoning the idea of AGW, and that's kind of the point. In a recent 2009 poll conducted by the earth sciences department of the University of Chicago found that out of over 3,000 scientists surveyed, 97.4% of "climatologists who are active in scientific research believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures". Even if you don't believe global warming is human caused, it's absurd to claim that a significant number of climatologists agree."
First of all you just misrepresented the survey. That survey said 82% of 3,146 Scientists believe Human Activity plays a significant role. The 97% believe man plays a role (which could mean anything). That is 2,579 scientist who believe man is the cause of global warming (which is currently not occuring BTW).
That is not a consensus. You have 31,478 scientists who do not believe this, which includes 3,803 Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment Scientists.
There is no consensus
Published: April 24, 2009 10:14 PM
Salem The Cat
Let's beat this dead horse some more...
I've seen this before, and although it is interesting, it is not a scientific poll. It's essentially a chain letter which has been going around for the past 10 years, without any verifiable authenticity. If there is another study that supports your view, conducted by a university or scientific organization, and that presents the opinions of all the scientists who respond, that would be a different matter.
I'm sure it doesn't phase you that almost every major scientific society in the United States and Europe endorses the AGW theory either.
I've tried my best to shift this debate towards an economic focus, but that's starting to seem impossible. Ocean acidification has been mentioned by atleast two people so far, and for a very good reason. Even if we ignore global warming, the release of CO2 causes serious global problems, and there should be a debate on how the free-market can deal with this. If no one can even take the idea of global pollution seriously, please point me to a more credible website concerning Austrian economics.
Published: April 25, 2009 12:09 AM
Poptech
It is certainly not a chain letter but a scientific petition of which scientists willfully sign endorsing the following statement...
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
A scientific society releasing a position statement supported by a majority of it's handful of board members is meaningless as no vote was ever taken by the body of it's members. Not only have you lied about the study you quoted, you are now lying about scientific organization's policy statements, implying that the members voted to approve those statements.
Ocean Acidification is not a problem.
Ocean Acidification and Corals (Watts Up With That?)
"The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid."
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT Pollution
Published: April 25, 2009 12:15 PM
gene
The problem lies in the court system. We are unable [with few exceptions], through the court system, to bring the cost of harm and injury from pollutants to their originators and to bring the payment to those affected. Because of this, attempts are made to legislate this cost, and of course, those who legislate, legislate it to their advantage instead of those who are suffering the harm and injury.
This is due not to the workings of a "free market" but to the longstanding lack of one. The carbon tax is but another attempt to bring into balance what cannot be brought into balance. Fighting against it will also not solve any problems. The fundamentals of the entire system are flawed. "limited liability" must be removed. Until then, lack of true liability removes all threat from pollution liability.
Published: April 25, 2009 12:15 PM
Martin OB
I'm increasingly frustrated with the general attitude in this blog regarding environmental issues.
I think one of the problems here is as follows: Many Austrians support Rothbard's concept of property rights based on homesteading. Since no-one is homesteading the wildernesses where so many endangered species live, they remain unowned. Unowned resources are not effectively protected (tragedy of the commons), but Rothbardians can't accept any proposals to make those resources owned without homesteading them.
Another problem seems to be that they support tort law to deal with damages to owned resources, but sometimes the damage comes from the aggregate effect of what seem individually harmless actions (for instance, small emissions of pollutants ) from most of the human population. To address this problem, a general agreement should be reached on how much pollutants per capita should be allowed, and those who exceed those limits should be held liable for the damages, even if the emissions of those who remained below the limits also contributed. Of course those limits would be somewhat arbitrary, but way better than no limits. There is some degree of arbitrariness in all legislation, and there's always some form of legislation, even in anarchist societies, even if it's just the whim of the mightiest.
A third problem is that many of the strategies to fight environmental problems have to be global to some degree, involving governments of all countries. Many Austrians tend to favor local government over centralized government, not to speak of international treaties which tend towards some form of "world government". Well, some problem are global, and they have to be addressed that way. If not global warming, then some other challenge will require global coordination.
I insist, I don't care whether the environmental alarmists exaggerate or not, be it in their assessment of risks or their reaction to potential damages. Maybe global warming is not happening, maybe it's not anthropogenic, maybe it won't cause massive extinctions, maybe warming and extinctions are not that bad ... so what? It's not our business to decide on other people's subjective valuations. They should be taken as given, and then we should come up with Austrian solutions which are at least as effective as statist ones.
Some interesting links I've found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_environmentalism
http://www.ti.org/liberty.html
Regards!
Published: April 25, 2009 3:28 PM
gene
you bring up some good points Martin, especially that as far as this blog goes, environmental issues don't seem to exist.
There should be a way to enforce liability on any pollutant that is harmful in any quantity. payment should be to anyone who is harmed.
For instance, you license an auto to drive in a state. Each auto has certain measured pollutants. Your fee reflects the amount of pollutants your particular car produces multiplied by the miles you drive. Payment should probably go to those who are liable, anyone breathing in your state! There would be zero need of controlling manufacturing as people would choose cars with lower pollutants to avoid payment.
The gas tax would be better served to fund all road construction [assuming the State is still paying for this].
Oil companies manufacture toxic products but they are not the ones who are "combusting" those products. So they should be paying those who are harmed and injured by their products, the health of all workers in the industry down to the pump jockeys, all neighborhoods affected by refineries, any ground water contamination etc., cancers, etc. This will bear into the cost of their products.
But none of this can make sense with the privlege of "limited liability". What company would ever produce chemical weapons if they weren't chartered with "limited liability"?
Published: April 25, 2009 5:49 PM
Salem The Cat
I can only assume you have never taken a environmental science course of any kind.
"Ocean Acidification is not a problem?"
The ocean will likely never become acidic, but as the ocean decreases in pH, so does the calcium carbonate saturation state. Calcium carbonate is required for corals and plankton to form their shells, and in low saturation environments they require more energy, and are often completely unable to calcify. You have obviously not spent more than 3 minutes even reading about ocean acidification since your one claim "the ocean will not actually be acidic" is not even a real point of contention. Would you be satisfied with the term "ocean lessening alkalinity"?
Also, you have not pointed me to a serious study comparing scientific opinions on global warming. Search for a university run survey that says "X many scientists believe it's a human caused problem, while X many disagree". It's really very simple, and would be much more impressive than "30,000 random people with any degree somewhat related to the sciences (and who may or may not exist, or changed their opinion in the past 10 years) believe global warming is a scam!".
The article on "Co2 is not pollution" is especially hilarious. As if anyone above 5th grade was actually unaware of the most basic usefulness of carbon dioxide. We can consider that strawman effectively burned.
I think it's kind of funny that I've had to try very hard to shift this towards an economic discussion. I study environmental science, and if I have questions about that, I get my information from my classes peer reviewed literature. I suppose it could be some vast scientific conspiracy, but it's somewhat odd how I've yet to meet a professor or read a textbook skeptical of AGW. Since I'm not used to reading economic journals, I thought coming to this blog will help me get some idea of what different economic theories have to say about environmental issues.
I'm not saying that there isn't a free-market solution to these problems, but you really don't seem to have one.
Published: April 25, 2009 6:11 PM
Poptech
Oh I have taken environmental science courses in college which presented unsubstantiated allegations that do match reality.
I can only assume you have never done any real research on the issue.
Here you state another alarmist exaggeration of "Ocean Acidification" which to any rational person would mean the ocean becoming acidic and then claim you really didn't mean that. Please what type of propaganda are you trying to spread?
Consensus is irrelevant in science but for numbers I have a petition signed by 31,478 real scientists, including 3,803 Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment Scientists who disagree with your study. There is clearly no consensus.
What is hillarious is calling Carbon Dioxide (CO2) a pollutant. I will consider all of your commentary which I have proven to be alarmist and exaggerated effectively burned (you cannot even quote your study correctly).
You may study environmental issues but you clearly have no remote understanding of computer systems or the climate models that are used to make the claims that man is causing global warming. This is my field of expertise. I am in no way surprised that many environmental professors exist that are computer illiterate.
There is extensive Peer-Review literature skeptical of AGW:
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, August, 2008)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
Published: April 25, 2009 7:00 PM
Salem The Cat
Yet still.....you don't have a scientific study which compares the opinions of scientists. No matter how many times you copy and paste "3,803 Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment Scientists disagree with your study", you provide no indication of how many scientists support the theory of AGW. Am I supposed to subtract that number from the total number of people in the United States with a degree in the earth sciences?
Do you even know what "alarmist" means? I've made a point not to use environmental rhetoric, and I haven't even mentioned effects of global warming. I briefly outline why ocean acidification is a problem, which seems to have led you to great anger. Apparentally, any acknowledgement that environmental problems even exist, must be alarmist.
It's very telling how you hear about the existence of an environmental problem, then immediately search through blogs to disprove it. You didn't even know what ocean acidification was before I mentioned it(judging by your revelation that the ocean will not become an acid), yet, you were quite sure it could not be happening. I'm sorry you don't understand the definition. I didn't make it up, it's a scientific term and if you find it needlessly alarmist, it's only because you don't know what it is. I suppose scientists are not "rational persons" for using the term.
Do you never read my last paragraphs? Economics.....economics....economics.....I'll learn science in science class....I'm interested in economics.
So....for the sixth time. I'm interested in economic theories about global pollution (OH NO, I USED POLLUTION...ALARMIST!).....I'm interested in economic theories concerning how the release of particular compounds which may cause global environmental problems can be delt with on the free market.
If not, can you agree to this statment. "Austrian economics is incompatible with the existence of global environmental issues (fortunately they don't exist!)".
Published: April 25, 2009 9:40 PM
Poptech
In your regards to your "study" - Am I supposed to subtract that number from the total number of people in the United States with a degree in the earth sciences?
Coral reefs are incredibly resilient to changes in the climate as they have undergone them many times in the past and are still here...
Global warming good news for coral reefs: research (University of New South Wales, Australia)
"Our results show that increases in coral reef calcification associated with ocean warming outweigh decreases associated with increased atmospheric CO2", says CSIRO's Dr Richard Matear. "While initially showing a decrease in calcification up to 1964, ocean warming outweighs the CO2 effect and stimulates recovery of coral reef calcification."
Your concerns with pollution are absurd as Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT Pollution.
Published: April 26, 2009 1:49 AM
gene
You all get your hiking boots on and your snorkeling gear wet and you won't need any scientists. It is all there to see and feel in the remaining coral reefs and glaciers.
Published: April 26, 2009 12:23 PM
Walt D.
As a avid scuba diver, I have to agree with Poptech. I suggest Gene goes diving in Dominica - the water is very warm and the coral reef is one of the most beautiful I have seen. On the other hand, comparitively, the temperature at the Great Barrier Reef is very much colder - you would be very uncomfortable without a wet suit. The temperature difference is somewhere between 10 and 15 deg F.
Claims that the GBR is being destroyed by global warming have to be bogus, otherwise there would be no coral reef in Dominica.
BTW Gene is right about human activity being responsible for coral reef blight in the Caribbean. However, the source was linked to an airborne bacteria in the dust produced by soil erosion caused by poor agricultural practices in Africa! - definitely man-produced but nothing to do with global warming or ocean temperature.
BTW has anyone looked at the ocean fossil record when the CO2 was 3000pm (10 times higher than it is now)? I don't recall anybody saying that marine life had died out.
Published: April 26, 2009 3:27 PM
gene
I have heard Dominica is awesome! We happened to be on San Martin where the reef is much diminished, but lot of good reggae!.
For myself, pollution needs to be attacked at the root. If it is harm and injury [and I definately believe it is], then we need to treat it as such.
Cap and trade is a "wimpy" approach because it allows you to "profit" on the fact that you only cause a limited amount of harm and injury rather than a greater amount. And it distributes the penalty to the government rather than to those who are harmed. I think as much as they may complain in public, industry loves the idea, and so does big government.
One thing that would help immensly is if our government would stop "gifting" all the resources on public land for "the good of all". Get a market price and more care would be taken with the resource which would lead to higher efficiencies.
The whole "greenhouse" debate is a bigtime waste of energy. If most scientists tell me, and it also seems to be the case with my own intuition, that the earth is warming, I will go along with that. If some say man has cause it and some say we don't know, I will go along with that also. But, to dwell on it so much when there are so many "pollution" related problems that are obvious and are not being approached is non sensical. Fix what we can now, and we might not have to worry about maybes later. It seems we are good at avoiding real issues.
Published: April 26, 2009 11:42 PM
wuzacon
Are you guys seriously suggesting that we could have a tax, which was merely collected and returned to the individuals in the public? That has to be the most naive thing I have seen on this website.
Published: April 26, 2009 11:52 PM
DW MacKenzie
As to the global sea warming issue, a study of ocean temps coduncted from 2003-2008 revealed cooling. Sea temps will surely rise at some in the future (as temps do fluctuate), but in recent years they have fallen. This study was conducted by scientists using thousands of buoys that can dive down several thousand feet. I mentioned and referenced this in the article that started this debate. If this study is defective, they please explain. If not, then recent ocean warming is a myth. When I read about this study several months ago I switched from being an AGW skeptic to an AGW denier. The evidence for AGW simply is not there.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that solar activity is the main driver of climate change. With solar activity projected to be weak for the next twenty years (google “solar conveyer”) we could be in for a sharp decline in global temps. It will be interesting to see how long the self-described ‘greens’ cling to their beliefs, as the data goes further against them.
DWM
Published: April 27, 2009 5:35 AM
Martin OB
wuzacon:
Anyway it's far less "naive" than expecting politicians to invest the tax revenues as they see fit, which is the status quo. Even this corruption-prone setting "works" to some degree, in the sense that some useful things are done with tax money. Politicians only steal and squander as much as they can get away with without much of a social uproar. Taking this power away from them can only improve the situation.
Maybe you mean they would never implement such a distribution scheme.
Well, if you believe that politicians will never accept any kind of restriction of their power, even if society at large is convinced of their adequacy and demands them with such conviction that it's in every politician's self interest to embrace those demands, then you might as well abandon all hope of pacific reform.
Published: April 27, 2009 9:40 AM
gene
I agree with Martin, there is no need for this webpage at all if nothing is possible but what already is.
I am not talking tax, though you can call it whatever you want. Harm and injury should be compensated for to those who are harmed and injured. If obvious pollution [toxics, etc] causes harm, then whoever is harmed needs to be compensated and/or the cause ceased. That's simple. Direct compensation from perpetrator[s] to victim[s]. Free market cost, not collect credits and sell them because you cause "less" harm.
If everyone thinks, as many who benefit from the profits do, that there is no harm from say the production of toxic products, then have at it, why bother at all. We'll just continue to allow profit from externalization.
As far as greenhouse and carbon, why are we spending so much energy [kind of a pun] with one grey issue when there are hundreds of known toxins and pollutants that are crystal clear?
Published: April 27, 2009 10:38 AM