Gene Callahan: public moral opprobrium is an appropriate non-statist lever against climate change
I previously noted Gene Callahan`s interesting essay, “How a Free Society Could Solve Global Warming”, in the October 2007 issue of The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, at the website of The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).
While I haven`t yet taken the time to review on these pages all of Callahan`s arguments, one of his points that deserves prominent mention – and is particularly salient today – is that public moral pressure is a perfectly appropriate way by which concerned citizens, acting in the market of public opinion, can inflluence behavior that generates externalities:
Even when economic transactions generate so-called negative
externalities (activities that shower harms on third parties), I still
contend that the free market is the best institution for identifying
and reducing the problems.
One way negative externalities can be addressed without turning to
state coercion is public censure of individuals or groups widely
perceived to be flouting core moral principles or trampling the common
good, even if their actions are not technically illegal. Large, private
companies and prominent, wealthy individuals are generally quite
sensitive to public pressure campaigns.
To cite just one recent, significant example, Temple Grandin, a
notable advocate for the humane treatment of livestock, asserts that
McDonald’s is the world leader in improving slaughterhouse conditions.
While many executives at the fast-food giant genuinely may be concerned
with the welfare of cattle, pigs, and chickens, undoubtedly a strong
element of self-interest is also at work here, as the company realizes
that corporate image affects consumers’ buying decisions.
But that self-interest does not negate the laudable outcome of the
pressure McDonald’s has applied to its suppliers to meet the stringent
standards it has set for animal-handling facilities. Similarly, to the
degree that the broad public regards manmade global warming as a
serious problem, companies will strive to be seen as “good corporate
citizens” that are addressing the matter.
(emphasis added, of course)
Person, I agree that “public boycott/suasion campaigns will only give a very noisy signal to corporations of how damaging their activities are to the environment, and it will be skewed toward more visible ones.”
In short, suasion campaigns directed only at private behavior have only limited efficacy, and are really not of the scale needed to deal with real structural issues like climate change.
It is not clear to me that such suasion campaigns are of much use at the legislative/regulatory level, as the fossil fuel interests and their backers are very sophisticated and effective at twisting such efforts – so that it is people like Jim Hansen who look like the bullies, while all attention is drawn away from those who are creating risks and costs for others.
But I do think Gene has put a finger on a phenomenon that is natural and may be efficicious, but in any case is worth understanding.
Heh, too bad I put my comment about this in the more recent post of yours, TT.
I’ll elaborate more here: public boycott/suasion campaigns will only give a very noisy signal to corporations of how damaging their activities are to the environment, and it will be skewed toward more visible ones.
You’ve seen environmentalists (like the “Green Lantern” on Slate) try to calculate which activitiy is “truly” more damaging to the environment. It manifests in, for example, the debates over whether shipping organic food a long distance is worse than shipping factory farm food over a short distance.
The fact is, even for very basic calculations, it gets complicated, and environemtnalists will almost certainly have biased calculations and use them for non-climate purposes when wielding their power — that’s what they already do.
So, I think it’s clear that if you think that this suasion is an acceptable alternative to internalization of environmental damages, you might as well go the way and advocate that all products be free, with only protests to impede those who are “wasteful” (i.e. socialism).