John Quiggin, a left-leaning Australian economist and professor at the University of Queensland, has noted my recent post on the penchant for bloggers
and readers at the Mises Blog to attack climate science – are “almost universally committed to delusional views on climate science“, as he puts it – though these are not words fairly put into my mouth. Like me, though, Quiggin wonders why wonders why libertarians focus on climate science at the near-exclusion of policy discussions, since (1) he sees “plenty of political opportunities to use climate change to attack subsidies and other existing interventions” and (2) he supposes that the environmental movement`s widespread shift “from profound suspicion
of markets to enthusiastic support for market-based policies such as
carbon taxes and cap and trade” seems like a big win for libertarians.
Quiggin previously commented on “Libertarians and global warming” last June; this seems to be a follow up.
Quiggins posits that Austrians/libertarians exhibit a “near-universal rejection of mainstream climate science,” and asserts that:
we can draw one of only three conclusions
(a) Austrians/libertarians are characterized by delusional belief in
their own intellectual superiority, to the point where they think they
can produce an analysis of complex scientific problems superior to that
of actual scientists, in their spare time and with limited or no
scientific training in the relevant disciplines, reaching a startling
degree of unanimity for self-described “sceptics”
(b) Austrians/libertarians don’t understand their own theory and
falsely believe that, if mainstream climate science is right, their own
views must be wrong
(c) Austrians/libertarians do understand their own theory and correctly
believe that, if mainstream climate science is right, their own views
must be wrong
John concludes:
“Overall, though I, think that acceptance of the reality of climate
change would be good for libertarianism as a political movement. It
would kill off the most extreme and unappealing kinds of a priori
logic-chopping, while promoting an appreciation of Hayekian arguments
about the power of market mechanisms. And the very fact of uncertainty
about climate change is a reminder of the fatality of conceits of
perfect knowledge.”
While John asks a good question and reveals some appreciation of markets, it`s clear that he is still pretty much groping in the dark when it comes to understanding libertarians` concerns about climate policy, indeed, even as to libertarian aims and concerns generally. He also overlooks various cognitive/psychological factors that appear to be at play. Naturally, I appreciate the opportunity for discussion.
1. Before addressing his three possible conclusions, let me note that while “market-based policies such as
carbon taxes and cap and trade” may seem to John “like a big win for libertarians”, this is most definitely NOT the case for most libertarians in the context of climate change, as these “market-based policies” represent an enormous expansion of government that libertarians feel very strongly, based on past experience, will be profoundly porky, counterproductive and costly. In the face of the fight for favor in Washington and the choice of opaque cap-and-trade over a more open rebated carbon tax and other deregulatory options, there is good reason to believe that libertarians are right.
2. Regarding conclusion (a), let me first note that John reveals the self-same “conceit of perfect knowledge” that he accuses Austrians/libertarians of having: the “acceptance of reality of climate change” would undoubtedly be good for everyone, but just what is that reality, and how can a layman of any stripe confirm himself that climate is changing and that man is responsible? The very fact that this “reality” is nearly impossible to confirm personally (even over the course of a lifetime) means that even those whom John considers as having “accepted reality” have basically just adopted a frame of reference, on the basis of the consistency of the AGW frame with other previously established mental frames, a reliance on authority, peer-group acceptance, etc.
“Reality” in this case inevitably, for most people, has very large personal and social components; accordingly, both “acceptance” and “skepticism” of it may look like a group belief, which may help to explain why it is possible to perceive “a startling
degree of unanimity” of views on climate science, the contents of such views varying by group.
As for Austrians/libertarians, while I don`t think it is fair to conclude they (we) are characterized by delusional belief in
their own intellectual superiority, but that many do have a belief, not so much in the superiority of their intellect, but in the correctness of their views on political science and economics (this is common in other groups, of course). This may affect their views on climate science, for several reasons that I have noted to John previously, and may be related for some of them to his conclusions (b) and (c).
3. Concerning conclusions (b) and (c), these are both over-generalizations; libertarians are a heterogenous bunch. But if I may generalize myself, to me there appears no conflict whatsoever between Austrian views, which are primarily about interpersonal relations and the role of government, and climate science. “Mainstream science” has nothing to do with these views, so if Austrians are wrong about “mainstream climate science”, this does not imply that any Austrian views
must be wrong. So Quiggins` (c) is wrong.
Quiggins`(b) – that Austrians may not understand their own theory and
may falsely believe that, if mainstream climate science is right, their own
views must be wrong – may be right for some Austrians, but certainly not generally. Rather, what I suspect is going on is much more ordinary, as I previously noted to Quiggin as a comment on his related June post; that I need to repeat myself indicates that maybe John is having cognitive difficulties of his own (emphasis added):
John, thanks for this piece. As a libertarian who believes that
climate change IS a problem, I share some of your puzzlement and have
done considerable commenting
on this issue [see this long list]. Allow me to offer a few thoughts on various factors at
work in the general libertarian resistance to taking government action
on climate change:
– As Chris Horner noted in your linked
piece, many libertarians see “global warming [as] the bottomless well
of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government.” Even those who
agree that is AGW
is a serious problem are worried, for good reason, that government
approaches to climate change will be a train wreck – in other words,
that the government “cure” will be worse than the problem.
–
Libertarians have in general drifted quite far from environmentalists.
Even though they still share a mistrust of big government,
environmentalists generally believe that MORE
government is the answer, while ignoring all of the problems associated
with inefficient bureaucratic management (witness the crashing of many
managed fisheries in the US), the manipulation of such managment to
benefit bureaucratic interests, special interests and insiders
(wildfire fighting budgets, fossil fuel and hard rock mining, etc.) and
the resultant and inescapable politicization of all disputes due to the
absence of private markets. Libertarians see that socialized property
rights regimes can be just as “tragedy of the commons” ruinous as cases
where community or private solutions have not yet developed, and have
concluded that, without privatization, government involvement
inevitably expands. Thus, libertarians often see environmentalists as
simply another group fighting to expand government, and are hostile as
a result.
– Libertarians are as subject to reflexive, partisan
position-taking as any one else. Because they are reflexively opposed
to government action, they find it easier to operate from a position of
skepticism in trying to bat down AGW scientific and economic arguments (and to slam the motives of those arguing that AGW
must be addressed by government) than to open-mindedly review the
evidence. This is a shame( but human), because it blunts the libertarian
message in explaining what libertarians understand very well – that
environmental problems arise when property rights over resources are
not clearly defined or enforceable, and also when governments
(mis)manage resources.
I`ve discussed a number of times how we all easily fall into partisan cognitive traps, as summarized here.
A related piece of the dynamic is that some libertarians may feel that if they agree that AGW may be a problem, that this will be taken – wrongly – by others in the political arena as a conclusion that the libertarian message is no longer relevant.
4. Some support for these points can be seen in Edwin Dolan`s 2006 paper, “Science, Public Policy and Global Warming: Rethinking the Market Liberal Position” (Cato), in which Dolan suggests that many libertarian climate skeptics are acting quite as
if they are “conservatives” of the type condemned by Friedrich Hayek.
Dolan cites Hayek’s 1960 essay, “Why I am Not a Conservative” (1960),
in which Hayek identified the following traits that distinguish
conservatism from market liberalism:
• Habitual resistance to change, hence the term “conservative.”
• Lack of understanding of spontaneous order as a guiding principle of economic life.
• Use of state authority to protect established privileges against the forces of economic change.
• Claim to superior wisdom based on self-arrogated superior quality in place of rational argument.
• A propensity to reject scientific knowledge because of dislike of the consequences that seem to follow from it.
Further support is provided by Jonathan Adler, a libertarian law professor at Case Western who focusses on resource issues, and who has concluded that climate change is a serious concern, and that man is contributing to it. His February 2008 post, “Climate Change, Cumulative Evidence, and Ideology” (and the comment thread) is instructive:
“Almost every time I post something on climate
change policy, the comment thread quickly devolves into a debate over
the existence of antrhopogenic global warming at all. (See, for
instance, this post
on “conservative” approaches to climate change policy.) I have largely
refused to engage in these discussions because I find them quite
unproductive. The same arguments are repeated ad nauseum, and no one is
convinced (if anyone even listens to what the other side is saying). …
“Given my strong libertarian leanings, it would certainly be
ideologically convenient if the evidence for a human contribution to
climate change were less strong. Alas, I believe the preponderance of
evidence strongly supports the claim that anthropogenic emissions are
having an effect on the global climate, and that effect will increase
as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere. While I reject most
apocalyptic scenarios as unfounded or unduly speculative, I am
convinced that the human contribution to climate change will cause or
exacerbate significant problems in at least some parts of the world.
For instance, even a relatively modest warming over the coming decades
is very likely to have a meaningful effect on the timing and
distribution of precipitation and evaporation rates, which will, in
turn, have a substantial impact on freshwater supplies. That we do not
know with any precision the when, where, and how much does not change
the fact that we are quite certain that such changes will occur.
“So-called climate “skeptics” make many valid points about the
weakness or unreliability of many individual arguments and studies on
climate. They also point out how policy advocates routinely exaggerate
the implications of various studies or the likely consequences of even
the most robust climate predictions. Economists and others have also
done important work questioning whether climate risks justify extreme
mitigation measures. But none of this changes the fact that the
cumulative evidence for a human contribution to present and future
climate changes, when taken as a whole, is quite strong. In this
regard, I think it is worth quoting something Ilya wrote below about
the nature of evidence in his post about 12 Angry Men”:
People
often dismiss individual arguments and evidence against their preferred
position without considering the cumulative weight of the other side’s
points. It’s a very easy fallacy to fall into. But the beginning of
wisdom is to at least be aware of the problem.
“The “divide
and conquer” strategy of dissecting each piece of evidence
independently can make for effective advocacy, but it is not a good way
to find the truth”
I noted the following in response to Adler:
I think that there are many Austrians who understand WHY there might
be a climate change problem to which man contributes, as the atmosphere
is an open-access resource, in which there are no clear or
enforceable property rights that rein in externalities or that give
parties with differing preferences an ability to engage in meaingful
transactions that reflect those preferences.
But, flawed human beings that we are, we have difficulty truly
keeping our minds open (subconscious dismissal of inconsistent data is
a cognitive rule) and we easily fall into tribal modes of conflict that
provide us with great satisfaction in disagreeing with those evil
“others” while circling the wagons (and counting coup) with our
brothers in arms.
Sadly, this is very much in evidence in the thread to your own post.
5. I have pulled together a post that indicates that a number of libertarians are trying to engage in good faith on climate change, and which may also serve as a good introduction for interested readers to libertarian thinking on environmental issues.
6. Finally, let me note that many of the problems that concern libertarians also concern progressives, chief of these being the negative effects of state actions on communities, development and on open-access (and hitherto local, indigenous-managed) commons. This is the same concern that the Nobel Prize committee expressed when extending the prize in Economics to Elinor Ostrom, signalling their desire for a change in international aid policy.
You might find these remarks by Nicholas Hildyard, Larry Lohmann, Sarah Sexton and Simon Fairlie in “Reclaiming the Commons” (1995) to be pertinent; domestic cap-and-trade is an enclosure of the atmospheric commons, for the benefit of firms receiving grants of permits and costs flowing regressively to energy consumers, and internationally represents a vast expansion of state authority and bureaucracies, with attendant enclosure of local resources:
The creation of empires and states, business conglomerates and
civic dictatorships — whether in pre-colonial times or in the modern
era — has only been possible through dismantling the commons and
harnessing the fragments, deprived of their old significance, to build
up new economic and social patterns that are responsive to the
interests of a dominant minority. The modern nation state has been
built only by stripping power and control from commons regimes and
creating structures of governance from which the great mass of humanity
(particularly women) are excluded. Likewise, the market economy has
expanded primarily by enabling state and commercial interests to gain
control of territory that has traditionally been used and cherished by
others, and by transforming that territory – together with the people
themselves – into expendable “resources” for exploitation. By enclosing
forests, the state and private enterprise have torn them out of fabrics
of peasant subsistence; by providing local leaders with an outside
power base, unaccountable to local people, they have undermined village
checks and balances; by stimulating demand for cash goods, they have
impelled villagers to seek an ever wider range of things to sell. Such
a policy was as determinedly pursued by the courts of Aztec Mexico, the
feudal lords of West Africa, and the factory owners of Lancashire and
the British Rail as it is today by the International Monetary Fund or
Coca-Cola Inc.
Only in this way has it been possible to convert peasants into
labour for a global economy, replace traditional with modern
agriculture, and free up the commons for the industrial economy.
Similarly, only by atomizing tasks and separating workers from the
moral authority, crafts and natural surroundings created by their
communities has it been possible to transform them into modern,
universal individuals susceptible to “management”. In short, only by
deliberately taking apart local cultures and reassembling them in new
forms has it been possible to open them up to global trade.[FN L.
Lohmann, ‘Resisting Green Globalism’ in W. Sachs (ed), Global Ecology:
Conflicts and Contradictions, Zed Books, London and New Jersey, 1993.]
To achieve that “condition of economic progress”, millions have
been marginalized as a calculated act of policy, their commons
dismantled and degraded, their cultures denigrated and devalued and
their own worth reduced to their value as labour. Seen from this
perspective, many of the processes that now go under the rubric of
“nation-building”, “economic growth”, and “progress” are first ad
foremost processes of expropriation, exclusion, denial and
dispossession. In a word, of “enclosure”.
Because history’s best-known examples of enclosure involved the
fencing in of common pasture, enclosure is often reduced to a synonym
for “expropriation”. But enclosure involves more than land and fences,
and implies more than simply privatization or takeover by the state. It
is a compound process which affects nature and culture, home and
market, production and consumption, germination and harvest, birth,
sickness and death. It is a process to which no aspect of life or
culture is immune. ..,
Enclosure tears people and their lands, forests, crafts,
technologies and cosmologies out of the cultural framework in which
they are embedded and tries to force them into a new framework which
reflects and reinforces the values and interests of newly-dominant
groups. Any pieces which will not fit into the new framework are
devalued and discarded. In the modern age, the architecture of this new
framework is determined by market forces, science, state and corporate
bureaucracies, patriarchal forms of social organization, and ideologies
of environmental and social management.
Land, for example, once it is integrated into a framework of
fences, roads and property laws, is “disembedded” from local fabrics of
self-reliance and redefined as “property” or “real estate”. Forests are
divided into rigidly defined precincts – mining concessions, logging
concessions, wildlife corridors and national parks – and transformed
from providers of water, game, wood and vegetables into scarce
exploitable economic resources. Today they are on the point of being
enclosed still further as the dominant industrial culture seeks to
convert them into yet another set of components of the industrial
system, redefining them as “sinks” to absorb industrial carbon dioxide
and as pools of “biodiversity”. Air is being enclosed as economists
seek to transform it into a marketable “waste sink”; and genetic
material by subjecting it to laws which convert it into the
“intellectual property” of private interests.
People too are enclosed as they are fitted into a new society where
they must sell their labour, learn clock-time and accustom themselves
to a life of production and consumption; groups of people are redefined
as “populations’, quantifiable entities whose size must be adjusted to
take pressure off resources required for the global economy. …
enclosure transforms the environment into a “resource” for national or
global production – into so many chips that can be cashed in as
commodities, handed out as political favours and otherwise used to
accrue power. …
Enclosure thus cordons off those aspects of the environment that are
deemed “useful” to the encloser — whether grass for sheep in 16th
century England or stands of timber for logging in modern-say Sarawak
— and defines them, and them alone, as valuable. A street becomes a
conduit for vehicles; a wetland, a field to be drained; flowing water,
a wasted asset to be harnessed for energy or agriculture. Instead of
being a source of multiple benefits, the environment becomes a
one-dimensional asset to be exploited for a single purpose – that
purpose reflecting the interests of the encloser, and the priorities of
the wider political economy in which the encloser operates….
Enclosure opens the way for the bureaucratization and enclosure of
knowledge itself. It accords power to those who master the language of
the new professionals and who are versed in its etiquette and its
social nuances, which are inaccessible to those who have not been to
school or to university, who do not have professional qualifications,
who cannot operate computers, who cannot fathom the apparent mysteries
of a cost-benefit analysis, or who refuse to adopt the forceful tones
of an increasingly “masculine” world.
In that respect, as Illich notes, “enclosure is as much in the
interest of professionals and of state bureaucrats as it is in the
interests of capitalists.” For as local ways of knowing and doing are
devalued or appropriated, and as vernacular forms of governance are
eroded, so state and professional bodies are able to insert themselves
within the commons, taking over areas of life that were previously
under the control of individuals, households and the community.
Enclosure “allows the bureaucrat to define the local community as
impotent to provide for its own survival.”[FN I Illich, ‘Silence is a
Commons’, The Coevolution Quarterly, Winter 1983.] It invites the
professional to come to the “rescue” of those whose own knowledge is
deemed inferior to that of the encloser.
Enclosure is thus a change in the networks of power which enmesh
the environment, production, distribution, the political process,
knowledge, research and the law. It reduces the control of local people
over community affairs. Whether female or male, a person’s influence
and ability to make a living depends increasingly on becoming absorbed
into the new policy created by enclosure, on accepting — willingly or
unwillingly — a new role as a consumer, a worker, a client or an
administrator, on playing the game according to new rules. The way is
thus cleared for cajoling people into the mainstream, be it through
programmes to bring women “into development”, to entice smallholders
“into the market” or to foster paid employment.[FN P. Simmons, ‘Women
in Development’, The Ecologist, Vol. 22, No.1, 1992, pp.16-21.]
Those who remain on the margins of the new mainstream, either by
choice or because that is where society has pushed them, are not only
deemed to have little value: they are perceived as a threat. Thus it is
the landless, the poor, the dispossessed who are blamed for forest
destruction; their poverty which is held responsible for
“overpopulation”; their protests which are classed as subversive and a
threat to political stability. And because they are perceived as a
threat, they become objects to be controlled, the legitimate subjects
of yet further enclosure. …
People who would oppose dams, logging, the redevelopment of their
neighbourhoods or the pollution of their rivers are often left few
means of expressing or arguing their case unless they are prepared to
engage in a debate framed by the languages of cost-benefit analysis,
reductionist science, utilitarianism, male domination — and,
increasingly, English. Not only are these languages in which many local
objection — such as that which holds ancestral community rights to a
particular place to have precedence over the imperatives of “national
development” — appear disreputable. They are also languages whose use
allows enclosers to eavesdrop on, “correct” and dominate the
conversations of the enclosed. …
Because they hold themselves to be speaking a universal language,
the modern enclosers who work for development agencies and governments
feel no qualms in presuming to speak for the enclosed. They assume
reflexively that they understand their predicament as well as or better
than the enclosed do themselves. It is this tacit assumption that
legitimizes enclosure in the encloser’s mind – and it is an assumption
that cannot be countered simply by transferring what are
conventionbally assumed to be the trappings of power from one group to
another….
A space for the commons cannot be created by economists,
development planners, legislators, “empowerment” specialists or other
paternalistic outsiders. To place the future in the hands of such
individuals would be to maintain the webs of power that are currently
stifling commons regimes. One cannot legislate the commons into
existence; nor can the commons be reclaimed simply by adopting “green
techniques” such as organic agriculture, alternative energy strategies
or better public transport — necessary and desirable though such
techniques often are. Rather, commons regimes emerge through ordinary
people’s day-to-day resistance to enclosure, and through their efforts
to regain livelihoods and the mutual support, responsibility and trust
that sustain the commons.
That is not to say that one can ignore policy-makers or
policy-making. The depredations of transnational corporations,
international bureaucracies and national governments cannot be allowed
to go unchallenged. But movements for social change have a
responsibility to ensure that in seeking solutions, they do not remove
the initiative from those who are defending their commons or attempting
to regenerate common regimes — a responsibility they should take
seriously.
Might there be good reason NOT to rush into a vast expansion of government world-wide?
TokyoTom
fundamentalist: “I love the responses from the GW hysteria crowd.
They have nothing to offer but ad hominem attacks and appeals to
authority.”
Am I excluded from the “hysteria” crowd, Roger? Because if I`m in,
you seem to have entirely missed my post, and my point, as to the
consistency of your arguments with Austrian principles and the
effectiveness of approaches like yours in dealing with the rest of the
world – including all of the deluded and others who are engaged in bad
faith.
Published: October 30, 2009 9:44 AM
Stephan Kinsella
[Note: this is the comment to which I responded with the remarks copied on my preceding post]
“Tokyo” asked me to respond to his post but it’s so rambling I am
not sure what to respond to. To me this is very simple. I think we are
in an interglacial period. It’s going to start getting cooler
eventually, unless by then we have enough technology and freedom (no
offense, Tokyo) to stop it. If there is global warming maybe it can
delay the coming ice age by a few centuries.
If there were really global warming why not just use “nuclear
winter” to cool things down? You don’t see the envirotards advocating that! 🙂 (see Greenpeace to advocate nuking the earth?)
In any event as I see it there are several issues. Is it warming?
Can we know it? Do we know it? Are we causing it? Can we stop it?
Should we stop it?
It seem to me we do not know that it’s warming; if it is, it’s
probably not caused by Man; and if it is, there’s probably nothing we
can do to stop it except effectively destroy mankind; there’s no reason
to stop it since it won’t even be all bad, and in fact would be overall
good. I do not trust the envirotards, who hate industrialism and love
the state, and seek anything to stop capitalism and to give the state
an excuse to increase regulations and taxes; why anyone thinks these
watermelons really know what the temperature will be in 10, 100, 1000
years, when we can’t even get accurate weather forecasts a week out, is
beyond me.
That said, I’ll take the watermelons seriously when they start
advocating nuclear power. Until then, they reveal themselves to be
anti-industry, anti-man, techo-illiterates. (See Green nukes; Nuclear spring?.)
Published: October 30, 2009 10:03 AM
TokyoTom
[my prior version ran off without my permission; this is a re-draft]
It seems like I can lead a horse to water, but I can`t make him think,
We all have our own maps of reality and our own calculus as to what
government policies are desirable and when, but as for me, the status
quo needs changing, and the desire of a wide range of people – be they
deluded, evil, conniving or whatnot – to do something on the climate
front seems like a great opportunity to get freedom-enhancing measures
on the table and to achieve some of MY preferences, chiefly because
they help to advance the professed green agenda. [To clarify, I didn`t mean that I want to advance “the green agenda”, but that the pro-freedom policy suggestions I have raised should be attainable because greens and others might see that they also serve THEIR agendas.]
I see no reason to sit at home or simply scoff or fling poo from the
sidelines, and let what I see as a bad situation get worse. There`s
very little in that for practically anyone here – except of course
those who like coal pollution, public utilities, corporate income
taxes, big ag corporate welfare, political fights over government-owned
resources, energy subsidies and over-regulation, etc. (and those folks
aren`t sitting at home, believe me).
I can keep on questioning everyone`s sanity or bona fides, or I can
argue strongly for BETTER policies, that advance shared aims.
Does Austrian thinking simply lack a practical political arm, other
than those few who have signed up to support special interests?
Ramblin` Tom
Published: October 30, 2009 11:51 AM
TokyoTom
Stephan, if I may, I am appalled and offended by your shallow and
fundamentally dishonest engagement here. That there are a string of
others who have preceded you in this regard is no excuse.
You: (i) post without significant comment a one-page letter from a
scientist – as if the letter itself is vindication, victory or a
roadmap for how we should seek to engage the views and preferences of
others,
(ii) refuse to answer my straightforward questions (both above and
at my cross-linked post, which you visited) on how we engage others in
the very active ongoing political debate, in a manner that actually
defends and advances our policy agenda, and (putting aside the
insulting and disingenuous “Tokyo asked me to respond” and “it’s so
rambling I am not sure what to respond to”); and
(iii) then proceed to present your own view of the science, the
motives and sanity “watermelons” (as if they`re running the show), a
few helpful, free-market libertarian “solutions”, like open-air
explosion of nuclear weapons to bring about a “nuclear winter” effect!
And my attempt to bring your focus back to the question of how we
actually deal with others in the POLITICAL bargaining that is, after
all, underway is met with silence – other than your faithful report
back from your trusty climate physicist expert policy guru friend about
…. science (all being essentially irrelevant to my question, not
merely the cute little folksy demonstration about how the troubling
melting and thinning of Antarctic ice sheets actually now underway
simply CAN`T be occurring, but also a further failure to address the
very rapid ocean acidification our CO2 emissions are producing)!
Maybe it`s me, but I find this type of insincere and shallow
engagement on such a serious issue to be a shameful discredit to the
Mises Blog (even if it does cater to those who prefer to think that the
big to do about climate – which may very well result in a mass of
ill-considered, costly and counterproductive
legislation – is really groundless and so can simply be ignored, aside from a bit of internal fulminations here).
If you are not actually interested in discussing policy on a serious issue, then consider refraining from posting on it.
Maybe it`s not my position to expect better, but I do.
Sincerely,
Tom
Roy Cordato (linked at my name) said this:
“The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal
seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute
plans within the context of their goals. … [S]ocial welfare or
efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. [C] that
similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to
catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being
captured by prices.”
“Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the
heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that
is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal
plan formulation and execution.”
“The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is
conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to
property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to
identify possible ways of resolving it.”
“If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in
either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant
resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist.
This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly
all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998;
Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective
on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen
as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the
market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the
necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced
property rights, is not in place.”
Published: October 31, 2009 1:00 PM
TokyoTom
Bala:
“Did rising temperatures cause an increase in atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration”.
This is a great, basic question; I`d love to answer it (actually, I
already did, though a bit indirectly), but you see, I`m one of the
nasty obfuscating members of the socialist hysterical crowd, so I
really should defer to others here who have better ideological and
scientific stature here (and who hate ad hominems and love reason),
such as fundamentalist, or perhaps even our confident lead poster,
Stephan Kinsella (who has nothing to offer on the question of how
libertarians should engage with others on the political front), or even
our humble physicist climate system authority, Dr. Hayden.
Gentlemen, take it away.
Published: October 31, 2009 11:31 AM
TokyoTom
I`m sorry I don`t have time now to respond in more detail to those
who have commented in response to mine, but let me note that not one of
you has troubled to actually respond to my challenge, which was based
on Austrian concepts of conflict resolution, understanding of
rent-seeking embedded in the status quo, and the recognition that the
present debate on climate, energy and environmental issues presents
opportunities to actually advance an Austrian agenda.
In my view, we can either try to improve our lot, by seeking items
such as those I laid out previously or condemn ourselves to irrelevancy
by standing by and letting the big boys and the Baptists in their
coalition hammer out something worse from our Congresscritters.
For this, the correctness of our own views of climate science
matters little – nothing, in fact, unless we are willing to DO
something about it, by engaging with OTHERS who have DIFFERENT views.
For those who have too much trouble remembering the legal/regulatory changes that I suggested, here they are:
[pro-freedom regulatory changes might include:
* accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate
income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
* eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to
allow consumer choice, peak pricing and “smart metering” that will
rapidly push efficiency gains),
* ending Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise
unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more
common-law dependent approaches),
* ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
* speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most
threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural
corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar), and
* if there is to be any type of carbon pricing at all, insisting that
it is a per capita, fully-rebated carbon tax (puts the revenues in the
hands of those with the best claim to it, eliminates regressive impact
and price volatility, least new bureaucracy, most transparent, and
least susceptible to pork).
Other policy changes could also be put on the table, such as an
insistence that government resource management be improved by requiring
that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens (with a slice to the
administering agency).]
Many others come to mind.
Well, what`s it going to be? Relevancy, or a tribal exercise in disengaged and smug self-satisfaction?
Published: October 31, 2009 12:37 PM
TokyoTom
1. Christopher and mpolzkill:
Thanks for the favor of your comments.
I was asking if Austrians never seek to practically engage others on
questions of policy; the first of you brings up Ron Paul, but one man
is not a policy, nor are his sole efforts a policy program; the other
of you suggests succession from the U, which is hardly an effort at
pragmatic engagement with anybody over a particular issue. (BTW, here
is Ron Paul`s climate program.)
I can see some engagement by libertarians on this issue, but such
seeds either (i) die when they fall on the rocky ground of the Mises
Blog or (ii) represent work by people paid to criticize one side of the
debate, and consistently ignore problems with the definitely
non-libertarian status quo.
Why libertarians do not see any opportunity here for a positive
agenda? Do they prefer to be taken as implicit supporters of the
government interventions that underlie most enviros` complaints?
2. fundamentalist:
“I don’t see anyone doing that except the GW hysterical crowd.
Honest scientists like Hayden try to present evidence and reason so
that we can have a real debate, and the hysterical crowd flings poo
from the sidelines.”
Thanks for your direct comment (even as you lace it and others with
ad homs), but can`t you see you also are missing my point? Are you NOT
interested in trying to cut deals that would, say:
* accelerate cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate
income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
* eliminate antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow
consumer choice, peak pricing and “smart metering” that will rapidly
push efficiency gains),
* end Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise
unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more
common-law dependent approaches),
* end energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
* speed economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most
threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural
corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar),
* insist that government resource management be improved by requiring that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens,
* end federal subsidies to development on barrier islands, etc. or
* improve adaptability by deregulating and privatizing roads and other “public” infrastructure?
Or is it more productive to NOT deal with those whom you hate, and
stand by while special interests cut deals that widen and deepen the
federal trough?
TT
Published: November 1, 2009 2:21 AM
TokyoTom
Allow me to outline here a few responses to the arguments raised by
Dr. Hayden, even as I do not pretend to be an expert (and, to be
pedantic, even though they are largely irrelevant to the question of
whether Austrians wish to take advantage of the opportunity presented
by the many scientists and others who have differing views, to roll
back alot of costly, counterproductive and unfair regulation).
1. Models: Dr. Hayden disingenuously casts aside what modern physics
tells us about how God plays dice with the universe (via random,
unpredictible behavior throughout the universe), and the limits of
human knowledge (including the ability to measure all inputs affecting
climate, including all of our own), and essentially asks us to wait
until our knowledge is perfect, and our ability to capture and
number-crunch all information relevant to the Earth`s climate
(including changing solar and cosmic ray inputs and ocean behavior)
before any of us, or our imperfect governments, can take any action on
climate.
Physical and practical impossibility aside, is this how any human or
any human organization structures its decisions? Narrowly, Dr. Hayden
is of course right that “the science is not settled”, but so what?
2. Was there a tipping point 300 million years ago (or whenever it was when CO2 levels reached 8000 ppm) ?
Dr. Hayden plays with language, suggesting that a “tipping point” means
something irreversible over hundreds of millions of years, when it`s
very clear that there have in the past been numerous abrupt changes in
climate (some taking place in as little as a few years, with a general
return to prior values sometimes taking very long periods of time) and
that scientists today are talking about tipping points that may be reached in human lifetimes.
Will we lose all mountain glaciers? Will the Arctic become ice-free in
winter? Will thawing release sufficient methane from tundras and seabed
clathrates to push the climate even more forcibly than CO2? Are we set
to lose glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, regardless of what we do?
Will we dry out the Amazon basin, and interrupt the Asian monsoon?
There is plenty of concern and evidence that these things are real
possibilities.
3. “Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.”
But you never tell us whether you, too, Dr. Hayden, are an
“alarmist”. Further down you acknowledge that “Nobody doubts that CO2
has some greenhouse effect” admitting (B) (though not that it may be
the chief factor), but as far as (A) goes, you only acknowledge that
“CO2 concentration is increasing”. Care to make yourself an alarmist by
admitting what cannot be denied – that man is responsible for rising
CO2 concentrations? Or you prefer play with laymen`s ignorance by
irresponsibly suggesting that rising CO2 is now due to warming oceans
and not man`s activities?
– “CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind.”
Yes, but what relevance is this now, when man is undeniably not simply “helping” but clearly responsible?
– “The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution.”
So? Does the fact that CO2 fluctuates naturally do to things other
than man`s activities mean humans` massive releases of CO2 have NOT
made a “meaningful contribution”? It`s very clear that the Industrial Revolution caused a dramatic rise in CO2. Surely you don`t disagree?
– “Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2
level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply
assume that it would be the “pre-industrial” value.”
“Alarmists” of course is simply an unhelpful ad hom; and as for the rest, concerned scientists and laymen clearly note how CO2 has fluctuated prior to the Industrial Revolution.
There undoubtedly many clueless laymen, just as there are some
clueless scientists, so your sweeping statement may be narrowly
accurate.
But in the big picture, it is clear that man has had a drastic
impact on CO2 levels – so what, precisely, is your point, except to
confuse the issue?
– “The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and
increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice
Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.”
Sure, but this doesn`t mean man hasn`t been the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2.
Further, of course, warming oceans CEASED to release CO2 at the
point that atmospheric CO2 started to make the oceans more acidic.
– “The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2
changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the
current warming?”
The lag in the historical record BEFORE man simply shows that CO2,
which has an acknowledged warming effect, was a warming reinforcer and
not an initiator. This does NOT, of course, suggest that massive CO2
releases by man magically have NO effect.
4. Assuming that we ARE changing climate, is that a bad thing?
– “A warmer world is a better world.” Maybe, but are there NO costs,
losses or damages in moving to one? And do those people and communities
who bear these costs or kinda like things as they are have any choice,
much less defendable property rights?
– “The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as
numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. … Those huge
dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land
is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.”
I see; this is not a question of fossil fuel interests homesteading
the sky (or being given license by govt) and so being entitled to shift
risks and costs on us, but them beneficiently bestowing gifts on
mankind – or dinosaurs, as Dr. Hayden may prefer! Wonderful gifts that
cannot be returned for centuries or millenia! Yippee!
[This is only scratching the surface of the letter, but I`m afraid I need to run for now.]
Published: November 1, 2009 4:51 AM
TokyoTom [Note: my original post contained some bolding that went haywire and bolded most of the post; I`ve fixed that.]
Okay, here`s a few more unconsidered thoughts to show how hysterical
I am, am hooked on religion, hate mankind, [want to] return us to the Middle Ages
and otherwise take over the world:
– “Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.”
Sure, for If only it were so simple. The increase in AVERAGE global
temps that we`ve experienced so far has meant little warming of the
oceans (a vast thermal sink), and has shown up at higher latitudes,
where we have seen a very marked warming and ongoing thawing, a shift
of tropic zones away from the equator, disruption of rainfall patterns
and stress on tropical ecosystems; all of this is considered to be just
the beginning of a wide range of climate effects that have not yet been
fully manifested for GHG and albedo changes so far,. much less to
further increases in GHGs.
– “CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.”
It IS a “pure and simple” plant food, but your rhetoric implies much
more – essentially that CO2 is NOTHING BUT plant food, and large
releases of it have no effect on climate. And this, as you well know,
is NOT a “pure and simple” matter.
– “CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.”
You mean not by your reasonable definition, or under
historical standards. But what IS “pollution”, but a social construct
to describe the outputs of human activity that some of us have found to
be damaging to our persons, property or other things that we value?
Were CFCs released by refrigeration equipment “pollution” before we
discovered that they damage the ozone layer?
Scientists may be qualified to measure particular outputs and their
consequences, but otherwise have no special insights into what others
value.
– “A warmer world begets more precipitation.”
Sure, as warmer air generally holds more water – which in turn has a
warming effect, let`s not forget. But as for the water itself, climate
change leads to more severe rain events in some places but to droughts
in others. And let`s not forget that a warmer world means that mountain
snows don`t last until spring and summer as they once did, leaving
streams and forests drier, and adversely affecting agriculture that
relies on such water.
– “All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient
between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer
and less violent storms.”
Not so fast; this doesn`t hold for rain events or tornadoes.
Further, independent paths of research indicate that while the North
Atlantic may end up with fewer hurricanes, warming is likely to make them more intense.
– How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice
and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?
First, note again the Dr.`s use of a strawman; no one is expect an
imminent melt of “ALL” the ice. But significant melting and thinning of
coastal ice IS occurring, and not merely on the West Antactic
peninsula, which the good Dr. would realize if he`d trouble himself to
compare his simple mental model, of reality with FACTS. As previously
noted, coast ice sheets are plugs that slow the flow of glaciers from
the interior. As these plugs are removed, the glaciers flow more
quickly, via that exotic phenomenon we call “gravity”. I`ve already
addressed this above, with links.
– “If the waters around it warm up, they create more precipitation.”
Yes, but does the new precipitation balance the ice being melted?
Actual, detailed observations tell us that, despite your absolute
certainty, that we are seeing increasing net mass losses far inland,
not merely in Greenland but also in Antarctica. Your religious-like
faith in your own superior understanding doesn`t make the facts go away.
– “The ocean’s pH is not rising. It is falling, ever so slightly.
Obviously your respondent has not the faintest clue as to how pH is
defined. (BTW, the oceans are basic, not acidic.)”
Yes, the good Dr. catches my mistake – pH is falling rather
remarkably (from basic towards acidic) – but he too hastily skates past
the main point, which is that this is due to increased atmospheric
levels of CO2, which prove that the oceans are NOT actually releasing
CO2 (or they`d be becoming more basic).
I provided links in this last year here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007931.asp#c192563
Here`s more:
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/06/our-dying-oceans/
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:y_W6vseUrykJ:www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/20_2/20.2_caldeira.pdf+caldeira+ocean+ph&hl=en&gl=jp&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgEEoFLf7xd9QTyol2TYYmXKPxXFqMq5Nr1IPdGd_yEbV3zIxPi-4Rmhb6d-IQ-r4BPwBqzyhF6GZQw_ka1Eh3Ynn0lYlP7p974IYMHIdLMVE90nWJ81GHAfcdTrUJTNk7W8Man&sig=AFQjCNGg6Idq6GQ5gyrddlXRD8R98NQ_dQ
From the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (UK) :
“Until recently, it was believed that the oceans contained so much
disolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions that any extra would have
little effect. In fact this absorbtion was generally acknowledged a
valuable process in protecting the planet from the worst effects of
rising temperatures and climate change. However, in 2003 a paper was
published in Nature (vol 425) which suggested that the increases in
atmospheric CO2, occurring over the last 200 years, has actually
increased the acidity of the oceans by 0.1 of a pH unit.The pH scale is logarithmic and this change represents a 30% increase in the concentration of H+ ions.
“However, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been
higher during previous times in Earths history and these high CO2
periods didn’t cause ocean pH to change. The difference now is that the
rate at which CO2 concentrations are increasing, is 100 times greater
than the natural fluctuations seen over recent millennia. Consequently,
the processes that ultimately balance the carbon cycle are unable to
react quickly enough and ocean pH is affected. About half of all
released CO2 is absorbed by the oceans but even if we stop all
emmissions today, the CO2 already in the atmosphere has been predicted
to decrease ocean pH by a further 0.5 unit.”
From
Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification”>Wikipedia:
“Dissolving CO2 in seawater also increases the hydrogen ion (H+)
concentration in the ocean, and thus decreases ocean pH. Caldeira and
Wickett (2003)[1] placed the rate and magnitude of modern ocean
acidification changes in the context of probable historical changes
during the last 300 million years.
Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that
surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly less than 0.1 units (on the
logarithmic scale of pH; approximately a 25% increase in H+), and it is
estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 units by 2100 as
the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO2.[1][2][9] These changes are
predicted to continue rapidly as the oceans take up more anthropogenic
CO2 from the atmosphere, the degree of change to ocean chemistry, for
example ocean pH, will depend on the mitigation and emissions pathways
society takes.[10] Note that, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH
is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could
also be described as becoming less basic.”
– “The term global warming has given way to the term climate
change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter
term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If
it warms up, that’s climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change
whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.”
Wonderful observation, except for the fact that IT`S WRONG; the
change instead being deliberately led by Republicans; leading
Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz in 2002 pushed Republicans
to move the public discussion away from “global warming” to “climate
change”, because, as Luntz wrote,
“’Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming.’
… While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it,
climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional
challenge”.
Of course there IS the inconvenient fact that “climate change” is
actually more accurate than simple “global warming”, but who cares
about accuracy anyway, right Dr.?
– “the earth has handily survived many millions of years when CO2
levels were MUCH higher than at present, without passing the dreaded
tipping point.”
I already addressed above the point that while the Dr. seems to
what to recreate the Cretaceous, the better for dinosaurs, most of us
seem rather to like the Earth that we actually inherited and that the
rest of current Creation is adapted for. He is obviously a physicist
and not a biologist, and doesn`t seem to give any thought to the
rapidity of the scale at which we are conducting our little
terraforming experiment, and te challenges the pace of those changes
are posing to ecosystems.
– “To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists
have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models
take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs
are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a
travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.”
To put it bluntly, this is largely rubbish; there is a tremendous
and growing amount of climate change DATA. You just make it your habit
not to let facts get in the way of your own opinions. I would be a
travesty if we continue to countenance posts such as yours, questions
of relevance to Austrian purposes aside.
– “I don’t do politics”
Fine; I can see why that would not be your forte. But what`s very
puzzling is that you seem to think that climate science IS your forte,
when all you`ve show is a shocking level of arrogant ignorance.
– “I don’t pretend to be an economic theorist.”
And on a blog dedicated to Austrian economists, just why, one
wonders, do the “giants” in our Mises world keep filling the Blog pages
with post such as this, which are, on their very face, IRRELEVANT, to
the question of how Austrians wish to address the preferences of other,
the misuses of government and the management of unowned common
resources.
– “he only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats
is, in practical terms, their rhetoric. I don’t pretend to be an
economic theorist.
– “But the notion that we can run an industrialized giant on
chicken manure and sunbeams doesn’t even pass the giggle test. Except
in Washington.”
At long last, you say something something intelligible. Except
Washington spends trillions on nonsense at the drop of a hat, if you
haven`t noticed recent events.
Published: November 1, 2009 10:02 AM
TokyoTom
Sorry if I`ve been a bit intemperate; that I`m rushed doesn`t excuse it.
Dr. Hayden, you are entirely welcome to your own opinion and your
own mental map of reality, but not to your own facts. As to your
opinion and mental map, they are by your own admittance uninformed as
to matters of economics and political science, but I must confess that
I find your understanding of climate science to be seriously wanting.
Given these, I fail to see what you offer here, other than a
convenient, if very thin, cover for others here who don`t want to
think, or to fight to make the world (or our own government) better.
Sincerely,
Tom
Published: November 1, 2009 10:11 AM
TokyoTom
Bala, I appreciate your polite persistence; I`m sorry I haven`t responded yet, but I`ll get to you.
Please note that my time is both limited and my own (though indeed
others have claims on it), and I have no obligation to spend any of it
responding to your importunings regarding climate science, which are
now shading into impertinence.
Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you wish, but a fair reader might note that:
– my priorities may (unsurprisingly) differ from yours,
– my chief points (and Austrian principles as to how to engage with others) have nothing to do with climate science per se,
– I explicitly make no pretense of being a scientist or climate expert, and
– in any case, there is no simple course to understanding reality; we
are all forced to make decisions as to how much energy to devote to
puzzling things out on our own (and overcoming what we know of our own
subconscious cognitive filters) versus outsourcing this effort to
others (by accepting things without deliberation, “on faith” as it
were).
Others who have been around longer will know that I`ve also devoted
what they might consider an unreasonable amount of my time over the
past few years, “hysterical” trying to help others work through climate
science (and policy) issues.
TT
Published: November 1, 2009 8:46 PM
TokyoTom
mpolzkill:
– “Tom, believing you live in a Republic with 300,000,000 people is a delusion which heads off all actual pragmatism.”
This is not a delusion I have, but in any case it`s not at all clear
that this or any other delusion “heads off all actual pragmatism”.
– “Until there is actual representation, everything said by we
proles is literally hot air (unless it’s happens to coincide with
whatever benefits the regime).”
I use “our government” simply as shorthand for what you call “the
regime”, but perhaps may be more accurately described as a multicentric
mess.
In any case, the painstaking efforts of LVMI to grow the Mises
website, and the welcome reception of and contribution to those efforts
by everyone here – yourself included – belies both your near-nihilistic
cynicism and your conclusion, as to virtually every topic discussed
here. Words are deeds, though they be more or less frivolous, weighty,
insightful or consequential.
If the other Mises bloggers agreed with you as to the possible
efficacy of their words, either generally or on this particular topic,
they simply wouldn`t bother to post.
However, I share your concern about efficiacy, which is why I
criticize posts such these (whether by Stephan, George Reisman, Sean
Corrigan, Walter Block, or Jeffrey Tucker), which are, by and large,
more of a circle jerk than an effort to engage.
– “thank you for being respectful”
My pleasure, but you hardly need to thank me; this is a community, after all.
– “even though you mistakenly think I’m a nut.
In this case, it is you who are mistaken (not that you ARE a nut, but that you think I think you are).
Tom
Published: November 1, 2009 9:35 PM