In the context of the latest fuel strikes by European fishermen, George Monbiot has an excellent piece in the July 8th Guardian that explores the role of governments in subsidizing the destructive “tragedy of the commons” that is ocean fisheries.

It is, however, a shame that Monbiot makes no reference to what many observers are starting to realize:  that the solution to solving over-fishing lies in getting the government out of the business of political management of the resources that fishermen depend on, and putting responsibility, control and incentives to invest in resource management back in the hands of fishermen. 

Although government interference in resource markets has been a resounding failure (witness the destruction of the US salmon fisheries), a light at the end of the tunnel has appeared in the form of privatization through “ITQs” or Individual Transferable Quotas, as noted by:

Ron Bailey, science correspondent of Reason, in “How to Save New England’s Fishing Villages; If only the fishers will allow it” (September 28, 2005) and in”Pick Your Poissons; Economic and ecological diversity for fisheries“(August 25, 2006); and by

Birgir Runolfsson, in Cato’s Regulation, in “Fencing the Oceans A Rights-Based Approach to Privatizing Fisheries” (vol. 20, no. 3, 1997).

Further, Jonathan Adler, law prof at Case Western Reserve University, has a very interesting discussion of how the enforcement of antitrust laws have frustrated cooperative fishery management  (March 2002).

While these materials focus on domestic marine fisheries, similar strategies are needed at regional levels.

There’s an interesting bit of arm-twisting, self-deception, defensiveness and reluctant position-shifting going on in the libertarian science skeptics crowd, and Penn and Teller seem to be letting the social pressure help clear their minds.

At James Randi‘s gathering of skeptics in Las Vegas last month (The Amazing Meeting 6), apparently both Penn and Teller very reluctantly conceded in response to audience q & a that they now “don’t know” whether or not “global warming is Bull****“, but that they certainly hate Al Gore.

After being mocked and criticized by Sharon Begley (Newsweek science columnist) for “basically saying, don’t bother me with scientific evidence, I’m going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore” and for illustrating Begley’s talking point at the meeting that our beliefs are often NOT based on reason (says Begley, “Both Penn and Teller are well-known libertarians and supporters of the libertarian Cato Institute, which has been one of the leaders in spreading doubt about global warming. Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things.”), Penn Jillette offered up a rather whiny response at the LA Times (in an op-ed defensively titled “Climate change? Once more, ‘I don’t know’; Being honest about not knowing enough of the science to make a judgment isn’t the same as an outright denial”):

During our loose Q&A period this year, someone asked us about global warming, or climate change, or however they’re branding it now. Teller and I were both silent on stage for a bit too long, and then I said I didn’t know.

I elaborated on “I don’t know” quite a bit. I said that Al Gore was so annoying (that’s scientifically provable, right?) that I really wanted to doubt anything he was hyping, but I just didn’t know. I also emphasized that really smart friends, who knew a lot more than me, were convinced of global warming. I ended my long-winded rambling (I most often have a silent partner) very clearly with “I don’t know.” I did that because … I don’t know. Teller chimed in with something about Gore’s selling of “indulgences” being BS, and then said he didn’t know either. Penn & Teller don’t know jack about global warming … next question. …

Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject? … You can’t turn on the TV without seeing someone hating ourselves for what we’ve done to the planet and preaching the end of the world. Maybe they’re right, but is there no room for “maybe”? There’s a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?

To be fair (and it’s always important to be fair when one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous), “I don’t know” can be a very bad answer when it is disingenuous. You can’t answer “I don’t know if that happened” about the Holocaust.

But the climate of the whole world is more complicated. I’m not a scientist, and I haven’t spent my life studying weather. I’m trying to learn what I can, and while I’m working on it, isn’t it OK to say “I don’t know”?

I mean, at least in front of a bunch of friendly skeptics?

Of course, given the tricks that we play on ourselves, it’s entirely possible that Begley did not accurately capture the gist of Penn and Teller’s remarks, but even if they both said they “don’t know” at TAM6, it’s a lack of knowledge that rather curiously didn’t prevent them from spending the past five years mocking climate change concerns.

Ron Bailey, science correspondent for Reason, another libertarian climate skeptic who prominently changed his mind two years ago, summarizes here, where he quotes from both Begley and Penn.  Bailey both schools and chides Penn, while acknowledging that there is ample room to debate policy:

Is it happening? Did we cause it? Yes, the balance of the evidence is that it is happening. Is it bad? Relative to what? Can we fix it? Maybe. But at what’s the best way to do so? Are immediate deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions necessary? Some analysts don’t think so. Government-forced conservation? Perhaps there is another way. Skepticism is certainly merited when it comes to proposals that aim to solve global warming.

Finally, is it OK to disdain Al Gore? Sure it is. But even an annoying self-important scold can be right sometimes.

It seems to me that Penn and Teller’s defensiveness clearly signals a shift in their position from broad disagreement with global warming, both on science and on policy, towards conceding the core of the science while focussing on policy.

It’s interesting that apparently that their shift was motivated not by a desire to be right on the science – after all, they have prominently mocked others on climate change without even seriously bothering to address the scientific evidence – but because of pressure from other skeptics who have already changed their own minds.

It’s also interesting that Penn and Teller, who are not known for showing much concern for the feelings of those whom they mock and ridicule, are essentially saying to their fellow skeptics, “hey, this criticism from friends hurts our feelings”.  It’s very interesting that while they talk about their friends they are careful to put Begley at a distance, referring to her as “one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers” (a nice case of misdirection, since even if Begley is less famous or groovy than Penn and Teller, they certainly aren’t scientists either) and complaining that SHE is the one who is “one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous”.　Hey, that nerd Sharon Begley is being MEAN to us! they say.

Yep.  So while Penn and Tell grudgingly concede that maybe all of those AGW “religionists” might be onto something, they need to downplay their own change of mind by continuing to disdain Al Gore, and by directing their ire at that b*tch, Sharon Begley.  Not particularly noble, but a change of mind nonetheless.

This may dishearten others who passionately believe that puny man with his fabulous technology and booming numbers can’t possibly influence the Earth’s climate, but I predict that many will find ways to distract themselves from Penn and Teller’s shift, such as by attacking Sharon Begley and the evil MSM.

See Ron Bailey’s recent summary of developments about whether it may be possible to buy time on climate change with technological fixes.

Libertarian Iain Murray supports government funding of geo-engineering approaches.  See my previous posts for more on geo-engineering.

More at the NYT’s Dot Earth blog

Possible geo-engineering obviously poses a number of sticky issues regarding government action in this area, including justification, choices of technology and responsibility for possible risks.

Dedicated libertarian law professor Jonathan Adler and longtime libertarian policy analyst Indur Goklany discuss the above issue at in a Roundtable entitled “Climate Change and Property Rights” hosted by Shikha Dalmia of the Reason Foundation and made available online last week.

[Update:  Ron Bailey discusses the Adler/Goklany debate here.]

As both Jon Adler and Indur Goklany are serious and even-handed, fortunately the discussion includes none of the cheap, sneering dismissals of the moral issues (as “climate welfare” such as I addressed earlier on these pages and more recently on the main blog, where an author dismisses as “absurd” and another poster labels “beautiful propaganda” my suggestion that Lockean views must be seriously considered when addressing claims that the use of the atmosphere should be shared) that tends to be the hallmark of shallow, reflexive and emotional engagement so frequently encountered here at Mises and elsewhere from purported libertarians with respect to climate change and other environmental issues.

Unfortunately, the exchange between Adler and Goklany is far too academic, and neither commentator makes any effort to seize common ground (and climate change concerns) to push for liberalization of agricultural trade or other institutional changes that would (i) materially improve wealth (and ability to adapt to climate change) in poorer nations and (ii) enhance needed mitigation and adaptation efforts at home.

Both Adler and Goklany appear to agree on the fundamental, Lockean-based principles underlying their discussion and would probably agree that, even though the nations that benefit most from climate change (and from the long period of GDP growth when GHG emissions have not been priced) have at least a moral obligation to be concerned about an uncompensated shifting of costs to other (largely poorer) nations, it is nigh impossible to build a legal case mandating compensation. 

I suppose both Adler and Goklany probably also agree that (1) climate change is likely to further bedevil the development problems in poorer nations, which are least capable of adapting to such changes, (2) development problems in such countries is largely related to the failure of governing elites to protect property rights and capital, and (3) traditional development aid has in large measure failed and instead served to benefit well-connected elites from both sides.

I am curious (4) what both Adler and Goklany think about proposals that do not amount to compensation, but recognize the interest that the West has in aiding growth and climate adaptation in the developing world, such as the proposal reported last Friday in Osaka by Treasury secretary Hank Paulson for the Group of 8 industrialized nations to back a special $10 billion fund to help developing countries fight global warming and (5) why they (and other libertarians) do not seem to see that climate change concerns in many way present golden opportunities to urge positive governmental changes, such as greater free trade (and roll back of domestic agricultural subsidies and import restrictions), greater freedom in domestic energy markets, the desirability of allowing accelerated depreciation and lowering capital gains taxes, etc.

Why are libertarians so reluctant to focus on a positive agenda that would actually do some good?

In note that, back in July 2000, Adler proposed a “no regrets” domestic deregulatory agenda when he was associated with CEI: “Greenhouse Policy Without Regrets: A Free Market Approach to the Uncertain Risks of Climate Change“; Jon has subsequently been rather quiet with respect to any specific climate change policy agenda.  Cato has just published an essay by Goklany, “What to Do about Climate Change“, in which Goklany essentially argues that a focus on mitigation (GHG reductions) is a relatively expensive and in effective way to combat climate change or advance well-being (particularly of the world’s most vulnerable populations), as compared with adaption efforts that would reduce vulnerabilities to climate-sensitive problems that could be exacerbated by climate change.

As I have previously noted, there are several libertarians who have recently been urging constructive libertarian approaches to climate change:

• Edwin Dolan, in his Fall 2006 Cato Journal essay, “Global Warming: Rethinking the Market Liberal Position“, analyzes relevant Lockean considerations and cautions that market liberals appear to be hamstringing their own analytic strengths by falling into a reflexive and conservative mind-frames that benefit established economic interests.
• Sheldon Richman of the Foundation for Economic Education also recommends Dolan’s essay and calls for less wishful thinking and greater engagement by libertarians in the December 8, 2006 edition of The Freeman:  The Goal Is Freedom: Global Warming and the Layman.
• Gene Callahan makes a similar warning in his essay “How a Free Society Could Solve Global Warming“, in the October 2007 issue of The Freeman.
• Bruce Yandle, Professor Emeritus at Clemson University, Senior Fellow at PERC (the “free market” environmentalism think tank) and a respected thinker on common-law and free-market approaches to environmental problems, has in PERC’s Spring 2008 report specifically proposed a “A No-Regrets Carbon Reduction Policy“.

I further note that Shikha Dalmia of the Reason Foundation hosted a similar roundtable on climate change policy in October 2006.

Here’s a very interesting piece by Kristof at the New York Times about the reactions of Obama and Clinton supporters, and introducing cognitive science studies of why more information often polarizes, rather than bringing people together. 

Divided They Fall

Simply, we are cognitively wired as tribal animals.  That means we are inclined to see “our side” as right, and the other side as lying and scheming.  And very clever rent-seekers know this and try to use it to jerk us around.

Ron Bailey of Reason has two similar posts up:

More Information Confirms What You Already Know

The Culture War on Facts

Anybody see any similarities for what passes for discussion of climate science generally, and at here at Mises?  I’ve got loads of examples for those who can’t seem to see it, or are interested in looking more.  Here are several, most recent first:

Climate spin: Who are the sneaky ones who changed “global warming” to “climate change”?http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/04/09/why-those-sneaky-enviros-changed-from-quot-global-warming-quot-to-quot-climate-change-quot.aspx

Thank you, Prof. Block, for feeding our confirmation biases

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/26/thank-you-prof-block-for-feeding-our-confirmation-biases.aspx

Thanks, Dr. Reisman; or, How I Learned to Hate Enviros and Love Tantrums

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/24/george-reisman-or-how-i-learned-to-hate-enviros-and-love-tantrums.aspx

Escape from Reason: are Austrians conservatives, or neocons, on the environment?

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/19/cool-rationalists-or-conservatives-and-neocons-on-the-environment.aspx

Edwin Dolan: applying the Lockean framework to climate change

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/14/edwin-dolan-applying-the-lockean-framework-to-climate-change.aspx

“Climate Change, Evidence and Ideology”

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/06/quot-climate-change-cumulative-evidence-and-ideology-quot.aspx

John Baden: a Mt. Pelerin misanthrope/watermelon?

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/john-baden-is-this-mt-pellerin-society-member-a-misanthrope-watermelon.aspx

Holiday joy: roasting “watermelons” on an open pyre!

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx

“Heroic” contrarians, proven wrong on AGW, make another slick cry for relevance at Bali

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/15/quot-heroic-quot-expert-voices-proven-wrong-on-agw-make-another-slick-cry-for-relevance-at-bali.aspx

Who knows climate science? The Mises Blog!

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/14/who-knows-climate-science-the-mises-blog.aspx

Goering and Madison on War

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/11/madison-and-goering-on-war.aspx

Bali:  Murdoch & 149 Other Top Vile Collectivists/Capitalists Call for Global Poverty …

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/04/murdoch-amp-149-other-top-vile-collectivists-capitalists-call-for-global-poverty.aspx

Tribal pigheadedness: RedState bans Ron Paul supporters

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/27/tribal-pigheadedness-quot-the-simplest-way-to-explain-the-behavior-of-redstate.aspx

Libertarian denial; clever but not wise

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/12/libertarian-reticience-other-than-to-bash-enviros.aspx

Ron Bailey of Reason, reporting from Bali, has an interesting post up summarizing the discussion by James Connaughton, director of President Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality, on one small aspect of the climate conundrum, namely, what would be actually involved in meeting the energy shortfall implict in targets to reduce CO2 emissions by half by mid-century.

 The crux?

Connaughton offered an interesting thought experiment. The major economies emit 22 gigatons (1 billion tons) of CO2 annually. In one reference case, those emissions would rise to 37 gigatons by 2050. So, Connaughton says, assume that we need to reduce current emissions by half from current emission—by 11 gigatons—to stabilize CO2 atmospheric concentrations. That means that the world would have to find the equivalent energy that producing 25 gigatons of emissions would have produced in 2050.

To get a handle on what this might mean, Connaughton asked, “How big is a gigaton?” One gigaton is equivalent to 273 coal-fired electric generation plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Of course, there are only a few demonstration plants now, and 273 plants represent 7 percent of the world’s current coal-fired generation capacity. Estimates of how much CCS might cost range between $150 to $250 per ton of carbon (or $50 to $80 per ton of CO2). By one estimate CCS would raise the cost of electricity to 25 to 40 percent; others suggest that the increase could be as much as 85 percent.

Connaughton also pointed out that avoiding the emission of a gigaton of CO2 implies building 135 new nuclear power plants. The world has 400 now. In addition, a gigaton is equivalent to 270,000 windmills which is 4-times more than are currently operating. Growing enough biofuels to reduce a gigaton of emissions would take an area twice the size of the United Kingdom. Of course, such projections rely on the deployment of near-term technologies. It’s impossible to tell what new technologies a higher price on carbon fuels might call forth from the world’s laboratories.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123945.html

Further to my post on Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Dr. Roy Spencer, a prominent climate scientist/skeptic and lead guitarist in a contemporary Christian rock band at St. Mark’s Lutheran Church in Huntsville, Alabama, has kindly emailed me the link to two songs that his band has done, mocking Al Gore and climate change. 

And so, without further ado – since I don’t mind a little mockin’, here’s Roy and the rockin’ EcoFreako Commune with:

– “Earth Has A Fever”; and

– “I Want To Mock Al Gore All Night”

http://www.ecofreakomusic.com/.

More on Roy here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001151.html.

But since one good turn deserves another, I’m sure the good doctor will not object to a little ribbing as well.  His conservative views reflect his upbringing and religious faith, which are evident in his praise for “Intelligent Design”.  http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I.  Surely there is no reason to suspect that the same religious faith and conservative views might leak into Dr. Spencer`s climate science — which was persuasive enough to string along libertarian skeptics like Ron Bailey at Reason Magazine (editor of “Global Warming and Other Eco Myths How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death”) and others (such as libertarian law prof Jon Adler; Skeptic Mag’s Mchael Schermer and Gregg Easterbrook) for quite some time — until

— until Dr. Spencer (and his side-kick IPCC member John Christy) was shown to be sufficiently wrong on atmospheric temperatures over two years ago that Ron Bailey and other libertarian pundits abandoned their public doubters positions and converted in droves, Bailey in posts such as “We’re All Global Warmers Now; Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html, “Betting on Climate Change It’s time to put up or shut up“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html, “Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled“, http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html, and “Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore; Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html.

But who cares about science, anyway?  Far more important (and healthier) for us to enjoy the righteous guitar licks he gets in while mocking and rockin Al Gore!

[Update below – Roy Spencer’s band plays “Earth Has a Fever”!]

The speech is worth listening to, especially by those who are inclined to reject Gore’s views on our changing climate, the challenges posed by human activities that affect the climate and his suggestions for political, social and private action, both to mitigate effects and to adapt to them.

CNN video of the speech is here: http://www.climateprotect.org/node/279 (Gore’s website), and the released text is here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html.

The policy core of Gore’s speech was the following:

This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions. This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 – two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.

Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.

We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.

And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon — with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.

The world needs an alliance – especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they’ve taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.

But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters – most of all, my own country – that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other’s behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.

– Al Gore December 10, 2007 

[Anyone familiar with this issue may note Gore DID argue that, as a result of human actions, “the earth has a fever”.  (He went on to say “And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.”)  SOMEWHERE I ran across a great spoof of that by Roy Spencer’s band.  I’ll post it once I dig it up.]

Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the speech by R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC,  Oslo, 10 December 2007.  Pachauri’s speech is here:  http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/ipcc-lecture_en.html.

Flash Update!

Roy Spencer, a prominent climate scientist/skeptic and lead guitarist in a contemporary Christian rock band at St. Mark’s Lutheran Church in Huntsville, Alabama, has kindly emailed me the link to two songs that his band done, mocking Al Gore and climate change.  And so, without further ado – since I don’t mind a little mockin’, here’s Roy and the rockin’ EcoFreako Commune with:

– “Earth Has A Fever”; and

– “I Want To Mock Al Gore All Night”

http://www.ecofreakomusic.com/.

More on Roy here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001151.html.

And since one good turn deserves another, I’m sure the good doctor will not object to a little ribbing as well.  His conservative views reflect his upbringing and religious faith, which are evident in his praise for “Intelligent Design”.  http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I.

But that doesn’t mean that there is any reason to suspect that the same religious faith and conservative views might leak into his climate science — which has proven sufficiently wrong to drive libertarian Ron Bailey at Reason Magazine (editor of “Global Warming and Other Eco Myths How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death”) and others (such as libertarian law prof Jon Adler; Skeptic Mag’s Mchael Schermer and Gregg Easterbrook) into announcing over two years ago that “We’re All Global Warmers Now; Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html, “Betting on Climate Change It’s time to put up or shut up“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html, “Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled“, http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html, and “Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore; Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html.