Libertarians and Climate Change [Archive]

davefoc

7th December 2009, 02:18 AM

THe vast majority of Libertarians deny there is a AGW problem precisely because if there is such a problem, the Free Market will not solve it.
A classic case of ideology over reality.

I don't know what the percentages are but certainly this is the view of some libertarians.

Based on the musings of Shanek mostly, but maybe Tsukasa Buddha is another example, my perception is that some libertarians, rather than deal with the problem of third party consequences, just tend to pretend that there aren't any. I say this as a person with a libertarian view about the importance of free markets to the general welfare of a society.

One of the most important roles of government is to work to see that third party damages are compensated for or limited by the first and second parties to a transaction. As the population increases third party consequences become more important and government action to protect third parties becomes more important.

It is true that government actions to curtail a corporations ability to pollute a river to prevent damage to third parties involve coercion as Tsukasa Buddha says. But it is certainly not immoral coercion. The third parties harmed by the pollution are too diffuse and their average individual damage is small so that is difficult for them to mount effective action against the polluters but cumulatively their damage is very significant and they reasonably, IMHO, look for the government to limit the pollution to their river.

For libertarians opposition to government efforts to deal with AGW may fit with their general ideology that tends to deny the existence of third party consequences. But I think AGW denial in general is a complicated phenomena that stems from a synergistic effort by conservative partisans and fossil fuel producers to manipulate public opinion for their benefit and libertarians may just be along for the ride.

Chaos

7th December 2009, 03:02 AM

That's been the long-standing answer, but a handful have revised their views in light of overwhelming evidence (I'm thinking of Reason's Ron Bailey). Now those few say that it's too late to do anything, and government regulations on emissions will do more harm than good. Their solution is that we adapt.

Will the free market help me grow gills? I´m going to need them, when sea levels rise.

Chaos

7th December 2009, 03:04 AM

I don't know what the percentages are but certainly this is the view of some libertarians.

Based on the musings of Shanek mostly, but maybe Tsukasa Buddha is another example, my perception is that some libertarians, rather than deal with the problem of third party consequences, just tend to pretend that there aren't any. I say this as a person with a libertarian view about the importance of free markets to the general welfare of a society.

One of the most important roles of government is to work to see that third party damages are compensated for or limited by the first and second parties to a transaction. As the population increases third party consequences become more important and government action to protect third parties becomes more important.

It is true that government actions to curtail a corporations ability to pollute a river to prevent damage to third parties involve coercion as Tsukasa Buddha says. But it is certainly not immoral coercion. The third parties harmed by the pollution are too diffuse and their average individual damage is small so that is difficult for them to mount effective action against the polluters but cumulatively their damage is very significant and they reasonably, IMHO, look for the government to limit the pollution to their river.

For libertarians opposition to government efforts to deal with AGW may fit with their general ideology that tends to deny the existence of third party consequences. But I think AGW denial in general is a complicated phenomena that stems from a synergistic effort by conservative partisans and fossil fuel producers to manipulate public opinion for their benefit and libertarians may just be along for the ride.

Oh yes, I (sort of) fondly remember Shanek´s rambling about the "anti-corporate environmentalist agenda" and his claims about "the plethora of solution that the free market has created", none of which he could actually show us, of course.

Cain

7th December 2009, 06:19 AM

Will the free market help me grow gills? I´m going to need them, when sea levels rise.

Use this as a market opportunity to buy underpriced property inland. Bailey is also a "transhumanist," so as a strong proponent of "liberation technology" and "morphological freedom" he believes we should be able to alter our genetic line. Of course, this is all too bad if you're a poor farmer from Bangladesh.

Most libertarians seem to acknowledge market failure in the case of police protection. Until the outbursts against Obama's cap and trade, I thought that a few generations down most would come to accept some sort of emissions trading scheme.

Darth Rotor

7th December 2009, 07:47 AM

Will the free market help me grow gills? I´m going to need them, when sea levels rise.
No you won't, all you'll need to do is use the evolution provided feet at the end of your legs to walk a few meters, or a few kilometers, inland to where you won't be underwater. ;)

Don't even need a free market to solve that problem.

fishbob

7th December 2009, 08:32 AM

No you won't, all you'll need to do is use the evolution provided feet at the end of your legs to walk a few meters, or a few kilometers, inland to where you won't be underwater. ;)
. . . and kick the fellow that is already there off his property, so he walks uphill and kicks that fellow of his property, and so on. A case study in $&(^# flowing uphill.

Praktik

7th December 2009, 08:43 AM

Well, to me there's a natural place for libertarians to support efforts to combat AGW - and that's using economics.

One of the big gaps in the way costs and prices are determined is that externalities are not really counted. So the cost of poisoning a lake with industrial sources, for example, is paid by society and not by the company. Sure, there are cases where fines and cleanup costs are assessed, but it hasn't always been that way and enforcement is spotty and not guaranteed of winning.

So where a market-oriented libertarian could end up is in using the power of the market to change behaviour. Because externalities have not been counted the perverse effect of the market is to encourage disregard for the environment in the pursuit of pure profit.

If those profits were threatened by those externalities, we'd have a system-wide reorienting of production strategy to incorporate those costs into their model.

How to achieve this?

Well it is partly already happening. Society is making its own demands and through public shaming and outcry certain red-letter cases are pursued. There is a demographic of customers out there that want their products to be made in an environmentally sensitive way. Companies are changing to serve that customer base.

Libertarians would split from this point, for advocating for a further cultivation and expansion of that customer base that gives money in greater proportion to "green products", and those that would use market mechanisms like a "cap and trade" type system to literally create the mechanisms to bring externalities into the equation and change behaviour.

Since the product of that regulation is in fact, a new market, I think there must be some libertarians out there that support that.

Anyway, I don't see any inherent reason why AGW and libertarianism are incompatible. I can only explain the lack of prominence of these ideas with American libertarians by pointing out that the "take action" weight on AGW resides in the party that's more comfortable with government regulation in general, and most libertarians would self-identify against whatever that party stands for and probably would have given AGW arguments short-thrift for that reason.

Neally

7th December 2009, 08:57 AM

. . . and kick the fellow that is already there off his property, so he walks uphill and kicks that fellow of his property, and so on. A case study in $&(^# flowing uphill.Sounds more like a governmental approach. The market approach would be the two arrive at an agreed upon price.

Francesca R

7th December 2009, 10:23 AM

Yes but the terms of the transaction could be something like:

Party A: Tenders consideration in the form of land and buildings
Party B: Doesn't shoot Party A

Beerina

7th December 2009, 10:55 AM

The short answer is yes. If people wanted to be delivered from disaster, the free market would deliver it. This is the well-known "common goods" problem of libertarianism.

The longer answer is that most Libertarians seem unwilling to believe that global warming is an issue at all, so the free market is no more likely to deliver us from disaster than it is to deliver us from Santa Claus.

Rather than sit back as people start another bash Libertarians thread, I'll respond.

In theory, Libertarians don't have a problem with stopping contamination of shared things like air or waterways. After all, remember it's about doing whatever you want with what you own, not with things you don't own (or don't completely own, if you want to maintain a fractional share ownership of common things like that.) And the rules governing this (hopefully advised by science) are a fine area for democracy.

Having said that, remember that during the industrial revolution, massive polluting was coincidental (but not a coincidence) with increasing lifespans as that allowed general increase in wealth as well as non-farming specialization, which helps increase the rates of technological advance.

So one should be very careful when passing environmental regulatory laws, and keep in mind that a "filthy but throbbing economy" could very well be better for the people than a "clean but hampered" economy, as actually measured by studies of longevity, health, wellness, number of wii games, your pick.

davefoc

7th December 2009, 11:48 AM

Rather than sit back as people start another bash Libertarians thread, I'll respond.

I hope I wasn't one of the libertarian bashers you were referring to and I hope you don't count it as libertarian bashing to notice that some libertarians tend to unrealistically minimize externalities.

In theory, Libertarians don't have a problem with stopping contamination of shared things like air or waterways. After all, remember it's about doing whatever you want with what you own, not with things you don't own (or don't completely own, if you want to maintain a fractional share ownership of common things like that.) And the rules governing this (hopefully advised by science) are a fine area for democracy.

I think that is exactly correct, however if one discounts the value of publically held property such as air and water, in favor of privately held property, a kind of private property religion is created and I think that is what constitutes some forms of libertarianism.

Having said that, remember that during the industrial revolution, massive polluting was coincidental (but not a coincidence) with increasing lifespans as that allowed general increase in wealth as well as non-farming specialization, which helps increase the rates of technological advance.
Good point.

So one should be very careful when passing environmental regulatory laws, and keep in mind that a "filthy but throbbing economy" could very well be better for the people than a "clean but hampered" economy, as actually measured by studies of longevity, health, wellness, number of wii games, your pick.

Yes, and I think this is one of the things that is out of whack in the US today. And especially in California. Bureaucracies have been set up with the goal of reducing pollution as an over arching goodness without the need to make cost/benefit analysis of their decisions. Businesses are routinely driven out of California, and a significant driver of that process is the California EPA that seems to be manned by zealots who are incapable of considering the unintended consequences of their actions.

Francesca R

7th December 2009, 12:11 PM

So one should be very careful when passing environmental regulatory laws, and keep in mind that a "filthy but throbbing economy" could very well be better for the people than a "clean but hampered" economy.One should indeed be very careful--particularly about imposing income losses today that are believed to benefit those who will be around tomorrow. In many instances, the benefit of hindsight affords the realisation that the exact opposite of that is the better strategy (It would have been a shame if capitalists around Lancashire, England had decided not to build choking smelly textile mills in the 18th century so that we could have cleaner air today).

Of course, there are many examples where civilisations have raped their environment to the point of irreversible decay (See Diamond 2006 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Survive/dp/0140279512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260216482&sr=1-1))

The point about libertarian bashing, is that those libertarians that say "Never act collectively to preserve the supply of public goods. It is teh gubmint violence!" are not being careful at all. Just stupid.

psychictv

7th December 2009, 12:13 PM

Having said that, remember that during the industrial revolution, massive polluting was coincidental (but not a coincidence) with increasing lifespans as that allowed general increase in wealth as well as non-farming specialization, which helps increase the rates of technological advance.

What's the connection you're proposing here?

Businesses are routinely driven out of California, and a significant driver of that process is the California EPA that seems to be manned by zealots who are incapable of considering the unintended consequences of their actions.

And yet we still have a higher per-capita GDP in CA than states like Nevada, Utah, or Texas where some of those businesses are moving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

And surely you have noticed that countries with the toughest environmental restrictions like the U.S., or E.U. member nations, are pretty prosperous places compared to the third world nations with lax environmental protections.

Francesca R

7th December 2009, 12:24 PM

What's the connection you're proposing here?I can't speak for Beerina, but I would characterise it as growth that is bad for the environment is still better than no growth. And when a society is poor, and newly industrialising/urbanising and generally getting richer from a very low base (like--the equivalent of a couple of dollars income a day per person), looking after the environment is a luxury it can not, and should not be required to afford.
And surely you have noticed that countries with the toughest environmental restrictions like the U.S., or E.U. member nations, are pretty prosperous places compared to the third world nations with lax environmental protections.This is my point. They don't get to be able to consider their environment until they are rich.

Chaos

7th December 2009, 12:30 PM

Rather than sit back as people start another bash Libertarians thread, I'll respond.

In theory, Libertarians don't have a problem with stopping contamination of shared things like air or waterways. After all, remember it's about doing whatever you want with what you own, not with things you don't own (or don't completely own, if you want to maintain a fractional share ownership of common things like that.) And the rules governing this (hopefully advised by science) are a fine area for democracy.

Having said that, remember that during the industrial revolution, massive polluting was coincidental (but not a coincidence) with increasing lifespans as that allowed general increase in wealth as well as non-farming specialization, which helps increase the rates of technological advance.

So one should be very careful when passing environmental regulatory laws, and keep in mind that a "filthy but throbbing economy" could very well be better for the people than a "clean but hampered" economy, as actually measured by studies of longevity, health, wellness, number of wii games, your pick.

Screw that. I´d rather be poor fifty feet above sea level than rich fifty feet below sea level.

What you write translates as, "Yeah, well, the world may come to an end, but as long as I´m enjoying the spoils of causing it to end that´s fine by me". In other words, typical Libertarian shortsighted selfishness.

Darth Rotor

7th December 2009, 12:44 PM

Screw that. I´d rather be poor fifty feet above sea level than rich fifty feet below sea level.
As previously noted, your feet are an avaiable asset for resolving this problem. Inability to adapt can be lethal.

I suggest you look up the town of Pozzuoli, Italn (Sophia Loren's home town) and consider the Roman era city/town underwater in the local bay. Funnily enough, lots of people still live in the general locale, above the water line.

DR

davefoc

7th December 2009, 01:09 PM

...
What you write translates as, "Yeah, well, the world may come to an end, but as long as I´m enjoying the spoils of causing it to end that´s fine by me". In other words, typical Libertarian shortsighted selfishness.

I didn't know exactly what Beerina meant, but based on the way I took it, it seemed very reasonable to me.

A balance needs to be drawn between protecting the environment and the general welfare. A general, anything that reduces pollution is in net good is a great view, if that is your religion. But if one gives a crap about people one understands that people may on occasion opt for material wealth over the promotion of your environmental religion.

I say this as a person that thinks Republican efforts to prevent the regulation of strip mining bordered on a criminal conspiracy between the polluters and the Republicans. And who in general thinks that a lot of environmental efforts have been very important to the quality of life in the US. But environmental legislation that is enacted by true believers in the religion of environmentalism without consideration for the costs of their regulations can do enormous harm to the lives of people. And that I thought was the point Beerina was making.

psychictv

7th December 2009, 01:56 PM

A general, anything that reduces pollution is in net good is a great view, if that is your religion.

Or, you know, if you simply look at the facts. No religion is required.

Here's a look at the economic benefits alone (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://docs.google.com/viewer%3Fa%3Dv%26q%3Dcache:pwW3YW2KtLIJ:web.mit.ed u/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt113.pdf%2Bbenefits%2Bof%2Breduced%2Ba ir%2Bpollution%26hl%3Den%26gl%3Dus%26pid%3Dbl%26sr cid%3DADGEESjPi89-CCV9CzKEYBv8O6wcMGk5i2b4X-8tht9tNgJYpFYv9sdqSHmrFQYMBJf4bL308Jwu3OtnK5-aYgIP4S9KVvkc8eAktpDb8TCv2qxiyWTRMvm7P_XUol2a6QOiF hEjFmK6%26sig%3DAHIEtbTOgjDaiWpZq1DUhyVD1ntS-raioA&ei=l3gdS5PhN4rssQPT04z3Bw&sa=X&oi=gview&resnum=1&ct=other&ved=0CAoQxQEwAA&usg=AFQjCNHViKQIfiW1B5n-5CQsbsZkp7ZC8g), from the first google result for "benefits of reduced air pollution" (without quotes).
"Benefits of air pollution regulations in USA rose steadily from 1975 to 2000 from $50 billion to $400 billion (from 2.1% to 7.6% of market consumption)."

But if one gives a crap about people one understands that people may on occasion opt for material wealth over the promotion of your environmental religion.

Nice framing. You could use that reasoning to justify any criminal activity.

But environmental legislation that is enacted by true believers in the religion of environmentalism without consideration for the costs of their regulations can do enormous harm to the lives of people.

Can you give any such examples where environmental regulations have done enormous harm to the lives of people?

psychictv

7th December 2009, 02:20 PM

And when a society is poor, and newly industrialising/urbanising and generally getting richer from a very low base (like--the equivalent of a couple of dollars income a day per person), looking after the environment is a luxury it can not, and should not be required to afford.

Why not? What about cases where the environmental alternative isn't much more expensive than the dirty alternative, or where it actually provides further economic benefits by creating new jobs and industries? It doesn't make sense to compare currently developing nations to the industrial revolution since they have the benefit of not having to make the same mistakes that were made in the past.

They don't get to be able to consider their environment until they are rich.

It's not "their environment", just the environment.

Chaos

7th December 2009, 02:27 PM

As previously noted, your feet are an avaiable asset for resolving this problem. Inability to adapt can be lethal.

I suggest you look up the town of Pozzuoli, Italn (Sophia Loren's home town) and consider the Roman era city/town underwater in the local bay. Funnily enough, lots of people still live in the general locale, above the water line.

DR

Why should I, who contributed an infinitesimal part to this mess, bear the burden of everybody´s irresponsibility? Why should not everybody bear the burden of preventing sea level change?

Or in other words - are you going to give me half of your high-altitude property for free, since between the two of us you caused half the global warming that got mine sunk?

Undesired Walrus

7th December 2009, 02:34 PM

So one should be very careful when passing environmental regulatory laws, and keep in mind that a "filthy but throbbing economy" could very well be better for the people than a "clean but hampered" economy, as actually measured by studies of longevity, health, wellness, number of wii games, your pick.

Except when you put out huge amounts of C02 it doesn't become the problem of one economy, but many. After a while, it becomes the world's problem, and that of those in poorer countries who hadn't pumped all that C02 in the first place and disproportionately suffer.

David Wong

7th December 2009, 04:35 PM

Man, it'd be so much easier to take them seriously if they didn't use idiotic language like "religion of environmentalism."

Yes, it's a "religion" if I want you to stop poisoning the air I breathe just so you can get rich.

And they wonder why we make fun of them.

theprestige

7th December 2009, 07:08 PM

Government coercion is immoral. War, pestilence, famine, and death -- those are all fine, but Jesus, Mary, and Joseph spare me from the immorality of government coercion to prevent those.
To be fair, I think the actual libertarian position is that governments often cause all those other horrible things, and that therefore, as a rule of thumb, its preferable to limit a government's power to coerce whenever possible, as a way to avoid the other things on the list.

daenku32

7th December 2009, 07:53 PM

The free market would solve it because we would adapt to changes or rationally choose greener options as time goes by, or global warming would happen because that is our free choice under capitalism, and what would be immoral is government coercion. Libertarianism doesn't need to solve anything.

Having said that, remember that during the industrial revolution, massive polluting was coincidental (but not a coincidence) with increasing lifespans as that allowed general increase in wealth as well as non-farming specialization, which helps increase the rates of technological advance.

So one should be very careful when passing environmental regulatory laws, and keep in mind that a "filthy but throbbing economy" could very well be better for the people than a "clean but hampered" economy, as actually measured by studies of longevity, health, wellness, number of wii games, your pick.

It's in cases like these where libertarianism is one huge collectivist system. So, the argument is that we the market happen to ignore AGW. Therefore, the results of AGW is of our own doing and therefore just. This totally ignores the fact that those who wanted change were overruled by those with majority power (power that is highly undemocratic), and that many island nations will simply be drowned, along with much of the coast line in developing nations, none of which hardly contributed nearly as much to the problem as those who freely chose to ignore it.

I threw in Beerina's post as well. Essentially, regulation that prevents cancer in the workers should be ignored because there is net societal benefit by having these workers exposed to carcinogens. Oh, and that village down river as well. What is that if not collectivism?

ZenFountain

7th December 2009, 08:20 PM

Libertarianism is the ultimate feel good philosophy. Anything that does not compute, such as free markets solving climate change without pesky government interference, is simply denied, wished away or obscured in flimsy rhetoric.

Francesca R

8th December 2009, 01:28 AM

Why not? What about cases where the environmental alternative isn't much more expensive than the dirty alternative, or where it actually provides further economic benefits by creating new jobs and industries?Do you have any examples? Because things are not usually like that. More likely it is: "Build and operate a fairly dirty and unsafe facility or don't have one". I think your choice is largely false and a red herring.

It doesn't make sense to compare currently developing nations to the industrial revolution since they have the benefit of not having to make the same mistakes that were made in the past.Another way of viewing this comparison is to note that they have made tremendous mistakes by not having developed already. The last thing you should be doing is recommending some growth-retarding strategy that may be kinder to the environment.

Francesca R

8th December 2009, 01:30 AM

Why should I, who contributed an infinitesimal part to this mess, bear the burden of everybody´s irresponsibility?Whoa. What a libertarian/fundie comment. . . .

Francesca R

8th December 2009, 01:32 AM

Chaos

8th December 2009, 02:56 AM

Whoa. What a libertarian/fundie comment. . . .

Huh?

The trouble with the approach I commented on is that, in the example given, the high-altitude landowners reap all the benefits of polluting while having none of the drawbacks, while for the low-altitude landowners it´s the other way around.
Sure a better approach would be, since both high-altitude and low-altitude landowners have done plenty of polluting, to have both high-altitude and low-altitude landowners either pay to prevent the consequences, or share whatever is left after the consequences have taken place.

Beerina

8th December 2009, 08:53 AM

I hope I wasn't one of the libertarian bashers you were referring to and I hope you don't count it as libertarian bashing to notice that some libertarians tend to unrealistically minimize externalities.

This is true. However, others tend to overestimate the value of externalities (e.g. preservation of species) because it supports an interventionist narrative, a behavior denied them due to the failure of the class warfare and heavy-handed socialist narratives in the 60s and 70s. By the way, as an operative theory, this has yet to be disproven with a counterexample.

I think that is exactly correct, however if one discounts the value of publically held property such as air and water, in favor of privately held property, a kind of private property religion is created and I think that is what constitutes some forms of libertarianism.

I submit it's demonstrable that valuing private property ownership at extremely high levels is directly linked to the general welfare of people in a society, as actually measured by actual statistics (http://juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/) of health, longevity, "and number of wii games".

To rephrase what I said earlier, if you truly care about The People, then you want this. If you truly care, and value science.

Yes, and I think this is one of the things that is out of whack in the US today. And especially in California. Bureaucracies have been set up with the goal of reducing pollution as an over arching goodness without the need to make cost/benefit analysis of their decisions. Businesses are routinely driven out of California, and a significant driver of that process is the California EPA that seems to be manned by zealots who are incapable of considering the unintended consequences of their actions.

It's fascinating, actually. I've been listening to Dr. Dean Edell podcasts, and they include the commercials. Apparently he's California-based, so they include the local station's commercials, too.

There was an interesting ad that apparently the former CEO of eBay is planning to run for guvinator next year. "Higher taxes, jobs fleeing the state, blah blah blah."

I wonder if in the back of every big government type's mind is the scurrilous thought that, "Well, if'n only we could seize control over the entire planet to force all rules the same!" ...so they can't flee us anymore. :(

Francesca R

8th December 2009, 09:00 AM

I submit it's demonstrable that valuing private property ownership at extremely high levels is directly linked to the general welfare of people in a societyOn this rationale, libertarians ought to certainly support tradeable emission permits.

Beerina

8th December 2009, 09:04 AM

One should indeed be very careful--particularly about imposing income losses today that are believed to benefit those who will be around tomorrow. In many instances, the benefit of hindsight affords the realisation that the exact opposite of that is the better strategy (It would have been a shame if capitalists around Lancashire, England had decided not to build choking smelly textile mills in the 18th century so that we could have cleaner air today).

I prefer to treat it as a black box scenario.

Scenario 1: X people with Y lifespan + (box 1) + time = ?

Scenario 2: X people with Y lifespan + (box 2) + time = ?

One of the two has an X and Y that are greatly improved after time, compared to the other.

"Well!" the scientific person would say. "We want that one."

But that box is a bunch of smelly, stinky, polluting factories. The other box is very light industry or no industry at all. There are no heavy factories with advanced smokestack scrubbers in the 1800s.

So if you define caring about The People as whatever gets them the greatest increase in length and quality of life, decade after decade, century after century, then you choose the box accordingly.

Francesca R

8th December 2009, 09:12 AM

Yeah. And what about the sections of my post that veer off your monorail?

Undesired Walrus

8th December 2009, 04:23 PM

I have to ay that Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Calculon

9th December 2009, 12:08 AM

So one should be very careful when passing environmental regulatory laws, and keep in mind that a "filthy but throbbing economy" could very well be better for the people than a "clean but hampered" economy, as actually measured by studies of longevity, health, wellness, number of wii games, your pick.

Perhaps, but there is a disparity about where the health benefits occur. Oil refineries don't exist in the posher areas of the country. The smell of sulpher rarely wafts over the private golf courses of the upper class. The people financially benefiting the most can move anywhere they desire, whereas the people on the lowest section of the economic scale live where they can afford to do so. So the burden of an unhealthy environment is not born equally nor fairly.

Earthborn

9th December 2009, 02:10 AM

It was fairly Libertarian minded people who came up with the concept of "Cap and Trade", because they saw it as basically privatising the atmospheric commons; divide the commons into properties, and the self interested owners will take good care of their own property otherwise it would diminish in value. But as such schemes were actually implemented, most of those self interested owners started viewing the concept as "government regulation" and Libertarians don't want to be caught dead supporting that...

Then fairly Libertarian minded people came up with the idea of offset markets. Purely free market, no government necessary... and carbon neutral to boot, instead of just capped emissions. All you have to do is convince emitters of CO2 of the necessity of reducing emissions and that it was a good idea to pay someone else to do it for them. But then there were clever businesspeople who discovered that they could sell people offsets even if they did not offset the emissions. Libertarians don't like force or fraud, so they had no other choice but to consider offset markets an abomination. Or maybe they could have begged the government to regulate the offset market and stop the fraud, but that's just not in their "nature".

It started looking like the Free Market couldn't actually solve global warming. Luckily oil companies came to their rescue and suggest that global warming was just a fraudulent excuse by the government to grab power, and there was no need to do anything about it. Not that there are still many oil companies believing that, but at least Libertarian ideology is saved.

Earthborn

9th December 2009, 02:20 AM

Beerina

9th December 2009, 11:11 AM

On this rationale, libertarians ought to certainly support tradeable emission permits.

Yes, this is true. If it can be determined what is an acceptable total amount of carbon per year to release, worldwide, then carving that up into tradable blocks is a good way to let the market solve the problem.

Of more concern, though, is that said limit might not need to even exist. Is GW or AGW necessarily bad? And if so, is it worse than the kind of limits such tradable blocks would cause? One look around the world through recent history shows that placing limits on the ability of people to freely pursue their own economic ends shows that government getting in the way correlates directly to a lower quality of life.

I would not consider a sea rise of 20-30 feet over a century or more to be such a problem. I would consider a runaway greenhouse issue that could kill all life to indeed be such a problem. I would consider accidentally inducing another ice age by overshooting a "fix" to be such a problem, as billions would die.

Beerina

9th December 2009, 11:19 AM

Perhaps, but there is a disparity about where the health benefits occur. Oil refineries don't exist in the posher areas of the country. The smell of sulpher rarely wafts over the private golf courses of the upper class. The people financially benefiting the most can move anywhere they desire, whereas the people on the lowest section of the economic scale live where they can afford to do so. So the burden of an unhealthy environment is not born equally nor fairly.

Perhaps true, but wouldn't the solution be to charge facilities that pollute onto areas that are not theirs, in accordance with proper democratic elections to determine the appropriateness of "leakage"?

I would not want to live in an area where my risks of disease were much higher thanks to pollution. But would I pass a law to make it illegal for people to live there? I'm not really concerned with a politician's rhetoric about "fairness" when people freely choose to live in such a place, even if it's so cheap precisely because it's junky and few people want to live there, i.e. supply and demand.

Francesca R

9th December 2009, 12:16 PM

Yes, this is true.Oh good.

If it can be determined what is an acceptable total amount of carbon per year to release, worldwide, then carving that up into tradable blocks is a good way to let the market solve the problem.The market can't really determine that and the price because it doesn't know the true scarcity of a pollution right. One or the other has to be set externally. But, you know, you can always re-iterate the one you set externally.

Of more concern, though, is that said limit might not need to even exist. Is GW or AGW necessarily bad?Well pollution is bad on the grounds that people don't like it. And its an unpriced externality. I am afraid that the price system is not going to be able to determine GW risk in the absence of scientific study.

And if so, is it worse than the kind of limits such tradable blocks would cause? One look around the world through recent history shows that placing limits on the ability of people to freely pursue their own economic ends shows that government getting in the way correlates directly to a lower quality of life.This is odd. With something like the risk of adverse variation in the mean surface temperature of the earth, you appear to err on assuming it away. Yet with the risk of adverse economic costs of priced emissions derivatives, you're worried about armageddon.

Why's that? Have you access to greater evidence that restricting total unpriced emissions of carbon brings on famine, pestilence, riots and social decay?

I take it you never buy any kind of insurance yourself, since its expected value might be negative? And sometimes it gets more expensive if you do risky stuff, which kind of crimps your freedom.

I would consider accidentally inducing another ice age by overshooting a "fix" to be such a problem, as billions would die.OK I recommend populating the science forum with research data that evaluates the risk that carbon trading will precipitate an ice age. You could leave a link to it in this thread when you're done :)

Chaos

9th December 2009, 12:45 PM

I would not consider a sea rise of 20-30 feet over a century or more to be such a problem. I would consider a runaway greenhouse issue that could kill all life to indeed be such a problem. I would consider accidentally inducing another ice age by overshooting a "fix" to be such a problem, as billions would die.

Yes. You would not consider rising sea levels a problem, because you don´t stand to lose everything you own, including the land you live on, like millions of others do.

Thank you for once again demonstrating the typical Libertarian attitude of "let everyone else suffer and die, as long as I am happy".

Phrost

9th December 2009, 12:47 PM

Typical JREF Libertarian thread:

1. OP: "What do Libertarians think of X?"

2. 30 responses by non-libertarians.

Chaos

9th December 2009, 03:41 PM

Typical JREF Libertarian thread:

1. OP: "What do Libertarians think of X?"

2. 30 responses by non-libertarians.

Well, the endless raving and ranting with which Libertarians like to fill any thread that even remotely pushes their buttons provides the non-Libertarians among us with a comprehensive insight into their world view, so we try to pre-empt another volley of ranting and raving by presenting their views for them.

Calculon

10th December 2009, 03:07 AM

Perhaps true, but wouldn't the solution be to charge facilities that pollute onto areas that are not theirs, in accordance with proper democratic elections to determine the appropriateness of "leakage"?

You are discussing things that only exist in a perfect world. There are sections of the U.S. where the economy is reliant on coal extraction and production. The destruction of landscape is going to happen...hills will disappear. But there is also the pollution released into the air, dangers from coal slurry (http://legalectric.org/weblog/2603/), etc. If the people are dependent financially on a corporation that is willing to sacrifice health and safety standards, do you think they will vote in such a manner to help safeguard their safety at the possible cost of their jobs? Some do, but should this be up to a vote? Do the people who live nowhere near but suffer polluted rivers also get to vote? Corporations are in business, and making a profit is part of that. They have no incentive to reduce pollution until MADE to do so. Reducing pollution costs money, therefore is not a priority.

I would not want to live in an area where my risks of disease were much higher thanks to pollution. But would I pass a law to make it illegal for people to live there? I'm not really concerned with a politician's rhetoric about "fairness" when people freely choose to live in such a place, even if it's so cheap precisely because it's junky and few people want to live there, i.e. supply and demand.

I was talking about reducing pollution, not forcing people to live elsewhere. But, there are laws about where people can live, so it is not that odd. Some areas cannot have homes built on them because it floods regularly, or is prone to slides. And there is a difference between "junky" and toxic. Perhaps living near "Gentlemen's Clubs" is junky. But toxic is something else. Some people don't freely choose to live by an airport or next to a refinery...it is what they can afford. But if the area is zoned for residential use, the government has every right to make sure it is as healthy as is possible.

But then again, you don't mind if the water rises 30 feet in a hundred years, so I am not sure why I am responding.

Undesired Walrus

10th December 2009, 04:29 AM

On the issue of global destruction, how would the free market deal with a giant comet heading towards the Earth?

Undesired Walrus

10th December 2009, 04:31 AM

Beerina

10th December 2009, 09:41 AM

If it can be determined what is an acceptable total amount of carbon per year to release, worldwide, then carving that up into tradable blocks is a good way to let the market solve the problem.The market can't really determine that and the price because it doesn't know the true scarcity of a pollution right. One or the other has to be set externally. But, you know, you can always re-iterate the one you set externally.

What I mean by the market is the government, informed by science, says X tons of carbon per year into the atmosphere is "ok". So it creates so many vouchers, N, where each is worth X/N tons of carbon, and then sells them, and they become salable, transferable commodities.

The market then can work out the best use for those things. Now if you want to say some should be preserved for this or that use "which can't afford it", that's fine, but that is also tied to politics, keep in mind.

And if so, is it worse than the kind of limits such tradable blocks would cause? One look around the world through recent history shows that placing limits on the ability of people to freely pursue their own economic ends shows that government getting in the way correlates directly to a lower quality of life.This is odd. With something like the risk of adverse variation in the mean surface temperature of the earth, you appear to err on assuming it away. Yet with the risk of adverse economic costs of priced emissions derivatives, you're worried about armageddon.

Correct. I am far more worried about the potentially disastrous effect on humanity due to political meddling than I am due to global warming in all but the most catastrophic of cases (runaway greenhouse or inducing an ice age accidentally.)

The reason is simple: We have many examples of overbearing, intrusive governments (North Korea vs. South, former USSR & friends) that demonstrate actual massive slowdown, if not actual retrograde results, with respect to the length and quality of human life, as actually measured by scientific studies.

So, to put it bluntly, moving a billion or two people inward from the coasts, slowly, over a century or so, is far less damaging than one USSR's worth if intervention, much less a North Korea's worth.

One could argue it's not even damaging, but one need not go that far to still be way, way ahead in the quality-of-life game.

Why's that? Have you access to greater evidence that restricting total unpriced emissions of carbon brings on famine, pestilence, riots and social decay?

There is loads of evidence that hampering the economy does indeed bring on famine, pestience, riots, and social decay, thanks for asking. Just see last century for hundreds of long-term economic experiments with every level of possible government intervention.

The correct argument you should be making is: Is the downside to limiting total carbon output worse than the downside to not having it?

But if you must have a limit, a free-market based trade system will allow capitalism to do what it does best: find the most economical uses for it. From history, we know the economy will take a hit, but will adjust itself. Stability, where people can't guess what's going to happen, so are afraid to invest, also causes major problems.

I take it you never buy any kind of insurance yourself, since its expected value might be negative? And sometimes it gets more expensive if you do risky stuff, which kind of crimps your freedom.

Why would I not buy insurance? It's a rational decision for a rational mind to purchase insurance against catastrophic problems, such as a car accident, your house burning down, or a major health issue. That's what it's there fore, and why free people freely choose to use it. And, having said that, my dad's uncle rationally chose not to ever insure his car (for damage, anyway) even when new, which included regular Cadillacs. He was an electrician. Retired, he paid $36k per year in income taxes in the 1980s, as another relative helped him on his taxes.

He made such a rational decision in a free society. Up to him. He rolled the dice and won. He also lived in Gross Pointe.

I would consider accidentally inducing another ice age by overshooting a "fix" to be such a problem, as billions would die.OK I recommend populating the science forum with research data that evaluates the risk that carbon trading will precipitate an ice age. You could leave a link to it in this thread when you're done :)

Well, of course that's (probably) not the issue with this cap scheme. But some of the more industrious plans to make large, fast-growth forests that are then mown down regularly and buried, could end with such an f-up. That's another reason to try to rationally look at why anything short of runaway Venus-style greenhouse situation might be better off just left alone.

Beerina

10th December 2009, 09:57 AM

Yes. You would not consider rising sea levels a problem, because you don´t stand to lose everything you own, including the land you live on, like millions of others do.

Thank you for once again demonstrating the typical Libertarian attitude of "let everyone else suffer and die, as long as I am happy".

If you like democracy, and most people won't be in such a situation, what's the problem? I am not the one who says The People can vote away the property of any majority, just because a demagogue has a way with words. So what's the difference here?

And, yes, I would be inclined to consider this as a property rights issue, but I doubt others do. If they even go so far as to worry about those people, it's because it's a (supposedly) huge hassle for them, not because they're going to lose their property per se. I doubt you're defending property rights so much as "stop tromping on poor people" in your mental model of reality.

This is all, of course, embedded in the idea of scientific measurements of the quality and length of life. Said "poor people" in places like Bangladesh that would be hit hardest by rising sea, I will flat out state that they will increase the length and quality of life for themselves far more by industrialization-plus-rising-seas than they will with a busted economy, which they already have, but hampered by huge international treaties.

Back to the black box concept. I am confident enough of these economic theories (http://twitter.com/CMSexperiment) to predict they would do better off with a powerful economy and GW than with no GW + GW's intrusive, heavily politically laden laws. The theories are so solid, having been tested over and over again for a century with billions of people, that it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Beerina

10th December 2009, 10:01 AM

On the issue of global destruction, how would the free market deal with a giant comet heading towards the Earth?

Larger industries and wealthy people would do the same thing the government would do, with missiles, but probably faster, for far less money, and without building a giant aquarium in 30 cities and a $200 billion Space Command in Virginia.

Francesca R

10th December 2009, 10:06 AM

What I mean by the market is the government, informed by science, says X tons of carbon per year into the atmosphere is "ok". So it creates so many vouchers, N, where each is worth X/N tons of carbon, and then sells them, and they become salable, transferable commodities.

The market then can work out the best use for those things. Now if you want to say some should be preserved for this or that use "which can't afford it", that's fine, but that is also tied to politics, keep in mind.K. Don't see any real disagreement on that.

Correct. I am far more worried about the potentially disastrous effect on humanity due to political meddling than I am due to global warming in all but the most catastrophic of cases (runaway greenhouse or inducing an ice age accidentally.)

The reason is simple: We have many examples of overbearing, intrusive governments (North Korea vs. South, former USSR & friends) that demonstrate actual massive slowdown, if not actual retrograde results, with respect to the length and quality of human life, as actually measured by scientific studies.Yes that's a simple reason. One sided, too. I referred you to Diamond 2006 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Survive/dp/0140279512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260216482&sr=1-1) already. Not sure what makes you think implementing carbon trading (or something else) would transform rich-world democracies into predatory dictatorships but it's probably some kind of hyperbolic slippery slope that looms large to you.

There is loads of evidence that hampering the economy does indeed bring on famine, pestience, riots, and social decay, thanks for asking. Just see last century for hundreds of long-term economic experiments with every level of possible government intervention.Approximately 3 billion people have, nonetheless, been able to enjoy at least rising living standards concurrent with and because of government intervention too (and sometimes despite it). Some of them have really done terribly well.

But if you must have a limit, a free-market based trade system will allow capitalism to do what it does best: find the most economical uses for it. From history, we know the economy will take a hit, but will adjust itself. Stability, where people can't guess what's going to happen, so are afraid to invest, also causes major problems.Quite.

Beerina

10th December 2009, 10:17 AM

I would not want to live in an area where my risks of disease were much higher thanks to pollution. But would I pass a law to make it illegal for people to live there? I'm not really concerned with a politician's rhetoric about "fairness" when people freely choose to live in such a place, even if it's so cheap precisely because it's junky and few people want to live there, i.e. supply and demand.

You can't possibly believe this.

Ideally, one would charge those who leaked the pollution to either fix the problem or buy out the property, and, if said leakage was illegal and the result of carelessness or deliberate unlawful behavior, throw them in jail, too.

Not only are the rentees in danger, but the nearby property owners have lost value in their property.

Do you want to make a case that saying it's Ok to live on that land, when it isn't, constitutes fraud? Even if the rentee is fully aware of the consequences? "You're 5x as likely to get cancer."

drkitten

11th December 2009, 07:13 AM

On the issue of global destruction, how would the free market deal with a giant comet heading towards the Earth?

The free market undersupplies public goods. This is well-known to everyone but a libertarian.

Francesca can give you an entire dissertation about this, and I'll not steal her thunder. I'll simply note that "public good" has a technical definition and not having the world destroyed by a giant comet" falls under that definition.

Therefore, the free market would undersupply "not having the world destroyed by a giant comet" and the world would be destroyed.

Praktik

11th December 2009, 07:19 AM

Therefore, the free market would undersupply "not having the world destroyed by a giant comet" and the world would be destroyed.

But - at least we could say the path to our destruction was the path of freedom...

best to go out chin-up, innit?

Undesired Walrus

11th December 2009, 07:40 AM

Larger industries and wealthy people would do the same thing the government would do, with missiles, but probably faster, for far less money, and without building a giant aquarium in 30 cities and a $200 billion Space Command in Virginia.

It's taken the private sector about 60 years longer than NASA and the USSR to get man in space (Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, which will go operational in a few years).

BTW, Missiles would probably do a bad job at stopping a giant comet. You need to lure it away from its course with a probe.

As I've just been reading about it, how good was the private sector at beating the Spanish Flu in Manchester, UK? It took the collective will of the Office of Health to shut down schools, public gatherings, starving it out and saving thousands of lives. It was advice that the rest of the country simply did not follow, to their peril.

Beerina

11th December 2009, 02:48 PM

Correct. I am far more worried about the potentially disastrous effect on humanity due to political meddling than I am due to global warming in all but the most catastrophic of cases (runaway greenhouse or inducing an ice age accidentally.)

The reason is simple: We have many examples of overbearing, intrusive governments (North Korea vs. South, former USSR & friends) that demonstrate actual massive slowdown, if not actual retrograde results, with respect to the length and quality of human life, as actually measured by scientific studies.

Yes that's a simple reason. One sided, too. I referred you to Diamond 2006 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Survive/dp/0140279512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260216482&sr=1-1) already. Not sure what makes you think implementing carbon trading (or something else) would transform rich-world democracies into predatory dictatorships but it's probably some kind of hyperbolic slippery slope that looms large to you.

It's not an issue of becoming a "predatory dictatorship". The economy doesn't care why politicians are pressing a huge thumb down on it, anymore than evolution cares if reproduction is due to tender love or a vicious rape.

That's why such decisions should not be taken lightly -- there are very real, measurable downsides even by well-intentioned laws. Worse, these downsides exist even if the law is correct and necessary. Hence you should also make sure the law, seen as necessary because of some real problem, and a "solution" to said problem, might still end up causing a lower quality of life than doing nothing at all.

Science, especially medicine, is loaded with all kinds of things "that should work", but end up having a net worse effect on the population than the disease. Sometimes these are very hard to determine.

General-purpose 1-a-day type vitamins don't do squat, apparently, and may actually increase the risk of cancer significantly. So, too, for most specific vitamins as general supplements (as opposed to for specific, known health issues.)

You have to understand the math of all this -- a slowdown in technological growth adds up, year after year, compounding like interest. If, after a century, you're just, say, a few years behind in medical tech than you otherwise would be, a paltry 2% slowdown, you're killing millions needlessly every year. This outweighs, without doubt, just about any problem you are trying to solve.

This kind of thing cannot be overestimated. This is also why I'm so virulent about socialized medicine. It slows medical tech development. This kills far more than it saves.

It is also completely counter-intuitive. But that's what science is for.

There is loads of evidence that hampering the economy does indeed bring on famine, pestience, riots, and social decay, thanks for asking. Just see last century for hundreds of long-term economic experiments with every level of possible government intervention.Approximately 3 billion people have, nonetheless, been able to enjoy at least rising living standards concurrent with and because of government intervention too (and sometimes despite it). Some of them have really done terribly well.

Good! Let's study what kinds of intervention helps best.

Here's the fast track: Securing property rights such that people can pursue their own goals without fear of theft or interference by everyone from petty thieves to mafia locals to powerful lobbies looking for rent seeking through the government to government officials demanding kickbacks wins that race.

It's basically the government protecting your farm of everything your produce, so you can sell it, from everything from birds to the lazy grasshopper to a group of marauding ne'er-do-wells to a local church demanding a 50% cut. Except replace wheat with cars and light bulbs and wiis and projection DLPs and Virgin Galactic trips to space and...

Beerina

11th December 2009, 02:59 PM

One sided, too. I referred you to Diamond 2006 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Survive/dp/0140279512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260216482&sr=1-1) already.

By the way, there's apparently a documentary version of this just out, and Roger Ebert's scared ****less about it, which is surprising because he's usually fairly stable and logical and would be well at home in the skeptic community.

In any case, from Ebert's comments (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091209/REVIEWS/912099993), it's apparent they're choking on the same, discredited notion from the 1970s, conflating "Known Reserves" with "All The Oil That's In The Ground And That's It".

Julian Simon shot this down in general (http://juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAQ02A.txt) and also for oil directly (http://juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR11.txt) years ago, with the exact same theory that was tested and proven over and over vs. the 1970s version of said people.

He says it better than me, but basically as the cost of oil goes up, people will look to satisfy the demand harder and harder, which will find more oil, make financially viable extracting harder-to-get oil, create more oil out of thin air engineered bacteria, alternatives to gas for existing engines, alternatives to existing engines and transport modes, etc.

As for plastics, same process, same result.

dudalb

11th December 2009, 04:48 PM

Larger industries and wealthy people would do the same thing the government would do, with missiles, but probably faster, for far less money, and without building a giant aquarium in 30 cities and a $200 billion Space Command in Virginia.

More proof that the Libertarians are living in a world that has little to do with reality.

Francesca R

12th December 2009, 01:10 AM

You have to understand the math of all this [ . . . ] you're killing millions needlessly every year. This outweighs, without doubt, just about any problem you are trying to solve.

This kind of thing cannot be overestimated.

It is also completely counter-intuitive. But that's what science is for.

It's not really what your maths is for no. Consider that, using a 2% interest rate, one cent rendered unto Caesar in Jesus’s day would have accrued interest of about $1.5 quadrillion today (thirty times as much money as is in the world). And go on to ludicrous propositions such as: because a doctor's surgery overspent by $1 on antiseptic wipes one year, then two centuries later a thousand people needlessly lay dead. It's more an attempt to mislead and confuse. Not interested thanks :)

Here's the fast track: Securing property rights such that people can pursue their own goals without fear of theft or interference by everyone from petty thieves to mafia locals to powerful lobbies looking for rent seeking through the government to government officials demanding kickbacks wins that race.Necessary but not sufficient. Plenty of subsistence farmers in Kenya who are, say, 50km from the nearest city, don't really need to worry about anyone abridging their property rights. They do need to worry about a crop yield which is not enough to feed themselves, and is declining due to no investment to maintain the land, and getting malaria, and AIDS killing the most physically productive villagers etc etc. It really doesn't make too much difference if you send them a memo reassuring them you have implemented the non-agression principle within a 10km radius of where they live.

psychictv

12th December 2009, 10:00 AM

a slowdown in technological growth adds up, year after year, compounding like interest. If, after a century, you're just, say, a few years behind in medical tech than you otherwise would be, a paltry 2% slowdown, you're killing millions needlessly every year. This outweighs, without doubt, just about any problem you are trying to solve.

If this were true you should be able to point to some situations where country A did intervention X and was measurably worse off or farther behind in their technology than country B that did nothing.

schplurg

12th December 2009, 12:13 PM

Typical JREF Libertarian thread:

1. OP: "What do Libertarians think of X?"

2. 30 responses by non-libertarians.

My crackpot theory:

That's because there aren't many Libertarians around. Many people, at some point in their lives, think, "Wow, Libertarianism sounds like the way to go!". Then, after some time, reality and reason take over and they move away from it. Because of this, there is a constant, yet changing, Libertarian pool that remains relatively small. There aren't enough of them to go around.

Of course, a few of them never see the light and remain Libertarian. I wish Libertarianism could work, but I've grown to know that it will not.

;)

Merko

12th December 2009, 01:13 PM

It's not surprising that a few libertarian crackpots are AGW deniers. What seems a bit odd though is that it seems to be the norm. Whenever I stumble upon a climate change article in Reason or Wall Street Journal, it seems to be climate change denial. There's probably some dissenting voice, but denial certainly seems to be the default position.

Most libertarians don't deny that government has some important roles to fill. So why do they feel the need to take this extreme position? Why not just acknowledge that sure, government needs to step in here, but we should be relying on market principles as far as possible blablabla.

The way I see it, there are two basic methods to reduce CO2 production:
1) Rationing, ie the planned economy method.
2) CO2-taxation, ie the market-based method.

Rationing is a planned-economy method because it basically means the government figures out who 'needs' to emit CO2. Taxation is a market-based method because you put the cost on what is undesirable, and then you leave it to the market to decide who most 'needs' to emit.

Funnily enough, the solution of the day seems to be cap-and-trade, which falls a bit in the middle. Here, the government first decides who gets the permits, but then there's some room for market principles because you can trade them (assuming the government gave you some in the first place).

This seems like a great opening for libertarians to attack the policy. But they don't attack it on these grounds (with very few exceptions). Why not?

My personal theory is that very few of the 'libertarians' that are visible in the public debate are actually guided by any libertarian principles. I believe that most of them are rather stooges of big business, who use libertarian-sounding arguments to reach preordained conclusions, suitable to their masters. That's why the libertarian outrage against bank bailouts was so faint. And that's why, although these 'libertarians' don't like cap-and-trade, they dislike a straight CO2 tax even more. Because cap-and-trade will at least have the benefit that the government will give their well-connected masters some valuable assets for free.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think cap-and-trade is all bad. It seems to have worked in the past with other types of emissions. I do believe that it is a corrupt system however, and though I'm by no means much of a believer in the free market, I do think that it would be a useful tool for this problem within the context of developed economies. The only advantage I can see with cap-and-trade is that politicians have to be less active in adjusting the system. With a CO2 tax, they would have to monitor the development and increase the tax if the response did not bring CO2 production down as forecast.

EGarrett

12th December 2009, 04:20 PM

Government coercion is immoral. War, pestilence, famine, and death -- those are all fine, but Jesus, Mary, and Joseph spare me from the immorality of government coercion to prevent those.The above comment is a perfect example of how not to post on a message board. I'm not a libertarian but you do a great job of making their opposition look ignorant and childish.

daenku32

12th December 2009, 05:20 PM

The above comment is a perfect example of how not to post on a message board. I'm not a libertarian but you do a great job of making their opposition look ignorant and childish.

Since today is my birthday (and the forum software is hard pressed not to let me forget it) any of MY comments or arguments cannot be wrong.

Argumentum ad natalis dies.

Ergo, libertarians take the importance of non-taxation above all other moral dilemmas.

Chaos

13th December 2009, 01:57 AM

The above comment is a perfect example of how not to post on a message board. I'm not a libertarian but you do a great job of making their opposition look ignorant and childish.

No. The comment you quoted is a perfect example of a clear and concise summary of the moronic drivel Libertarians (Beerina for example) post here. Have you ever actually read any of that crap?

EGarrett

13th December 2009, 06:00 AM

Ergo, libertarians take the importance of non-taxation above all other moral dilemmas.No.

No. The comment you quoted is a perfect example of a clear and concise summary of the moronic drivel Libertarians (Beerina for example) post here. Have you ever actually read any of that crap?I've read and watched a lot of it, and you obviously have paid no attention to it. It's this exact type of ignorant, non-conversational, childish strawman arguing and ranting that turned me from a democrat into a moderate.

How on earth could you expect an objective person to take you seriously when you act like this? This is the way creationists argue. You make the other side look like the fair-minded and thoughtful ones...

Earthborn

13th December 2009, 08:13 AM

The comment you quoted is a perfect example of a clear and concise summary of the moronic drivel Libertarians (Beerina for example) post here.Libertarians don't think that war, pestilence, famine, and death are fine. They tend to think those things are the result of government coercion, and are therefore very bad. Take away the government coercion and war, pestilence, famine and death will disappear, they say.

Chaos

13th December 2009, 08:19 AM

Libertarians don't think that war, pestilence, famine, and death are fine. They tend to think those things are the result of government coercion, and are therefore very bad. Take away the government coercion and war, pestilence, famine and death will disappear, they say.

Except that anyone with one functioning brain cell knows better - Libertarians willfully ignore this and thus prefer government-less war, pestilence, famine and death to non-war, non-pestilence, non-famine and non-death under a government. Or maybe they´re just sticking their fingers into their ears, closing their eyes and chanting "Lalala, I´m not listening"; the results are the same either way.

Neally

13th December 2009, 08:53 AM

The way I see it, there are two basic methods to reduce CO2 production:
1) Rationing, ie the planned economy method.
2) CO2-taxation, ie the market-based method.

There are several other proposed solutions. Cutting carbon and taxing it was near the bottom of the list as prioritized by this group of researchers:
http://fixtheclimate.com/component-1/the-result-prioritization/

drkitten

13th December 2009, 09:16 AM

You know, I stand by what I wrote.

The free market would solve it because [...] global warming would happen because that is our free choice under capitalism, and what would be immoral is government coercion. Libertarianism doesn't need to solve anything.

We -- well, anyone who's cracked a book on economics -- already know that public goods are undersupplied. TB acknowledges that one possible outcome under a free market is unfettered global warming, because no one cares enough to put the resources in to fix it.

People will die given unfettered global warming. Crops will fail, creating famine. A collapsing global food network is likely to lead both to pesilence and to war as countries compete for a shrinking resource pool.

In other words, global warming is extremely likely to lead directly to : war, pestilence, famine, and death.

Government coercion is immoral. War, pestilence, famine, and death -- those are all fine, but Jesus, Mary, and Joseph spare me from the immorality of government coercion to prevent those.

... but only "government coercion" is immoral. TB explicitly prefers W,P,F,&D to the government action to prevent them.

I've noticed how nutcases hate it when people actually read what they write; apparently they're so used to thinking and talking in slogans, bumper stickers, and soundbites that they don't actually bother to go through the implications of what they write. And when someone does go through and point out the implications, that's -- what was the word? -- "ignorant and childish."

Evidently it's knowledgeable to make statements without considering the implications, but ignorant to consider the consequences. Because only by ignoring what libertarians and other extremist nutcases actually write, can you maintain any kind of belief (or "know") that they might be correct.

kevinquinnyo

13th December 2009, 09:43 AM

It seems to me, that many Libertarians underestimate the extent to which public goods are undersupplied, as well as the extent to which a central authority can quickly and easily solve these problems in a top-down way.

On the other hand, some non-libertarians, and in particular, big government advocates, underestimate the efficacy of strong property rights in conjunction with tort remedy.

For instance, the first effectual mitigation of sulfur dioxide emissions was instituted through a lawsuit, not governmental regulation. The State of Georgia sued a copper company and was awarded damages. Part of the case involved imposing regulations, but the disincentive is inherent in the fear of being sued as well, so you can't assume that regulation is the only solution to an externality. The ultimate solutioon for both of these methods is to put a price on polluting that was inappropriately free otherwise.

(please correct me if I'm mistaken on the history here ^^)

On the subject of Libertarianism in general: There is a pervasive thinking among non-libertarians, that libertarianism is always of the deontological breed. ie - "no use of coercion, force, or fraud, don't tread on me, etc."

Where, in reality, there are many people, whose views seem libertarian, but could be more appropriately called utilitarians. These are people who favor maximization of utility as the ultimate goal of any public policy, or lack thereof, as the case may be. If a solution to an inefficiency, social ill, or environmental catastrophe, etc, involves significant government action, centralization and tax, to ensure maximizing utility, then so be it. If doing so would hamper utility, then forget it.

Those who are the most vehemently anti-libertarian seem to view a governmental solution as the forgone conclusion, and the market solutions as "the market alternative."

It is a more honest approach to allow the market to operate, and only favor market intervening strategies when you've proven the market to fail.

That is, the burden of proof should always be on those who propose disrupting voluntary transaction, not the other way around.

Just for a simple example.. For instance, if I say, "The Department of Motor Vehicles should be privatized." I should only have the burden of proving this can be done without too much initial chaos or severe problems due to the transition from government-run system to a voluntary market system.

But those in favor of keeping the DMV as a government operation must prove that the market (people) cannot handle this without intervention, and it is thus justified in remaining centralized.

drkitten

13th December 2009, 09:55 AM

It is a more honest approach to allow the market to operate, and only favor market intervening strategies when you've proven the market to fail.

Why?

That is, the burden of proof should always be on those who propose disrupting voluntary transaction, not the other way around.

Why?

Just for a simple example.. For instance, if I say, "The Department of Motor Vehicles should be privatized." I should only have the burden of proving this can be done without too much initial chaos or severe problems due to the transition from government-run system to a voluntary market system.

But those in favor of keeping the DMV as a government operation must prove that the market (people) cannot handle this without intervention, and it is thus justified in remaining centralized.

That seems, frankly, unjustifiably silly and slanted. You need only demonstrate that the new system will not produce "severe" problems, while pro-government advocates must prove that the market cannot do it.

In other words, if both sides stipulate that the government-run system is more efficient and cost-effective, and that privatization will cause problems, but not severe or insurmountable ones, then the government run DMV must be eliminated. The idea that we use the most efficient and cost-effective system has been eliminated.

How is this "utilitarian" in any meaningful word? I would think that a utilitarian viewpoint would demand that privatization prove itself to be superior to the public alternative.

kevinquinnyo

13th December 2009, 10:42 AM

Why?

Why?

Because government intervention, is, by definition, intervening into the market.

The market precludes the intervention, not the other way around.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it, but if it is, then do."

Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who propose government intervention to first prove that it [market, voluntary trade] is in fact, "broke."

That seems, frankly, unjustifiably silly and slanted. You need only demonstrate that the new system will not produce "severe" problems, while pro-government advocates must prove that the market cannot do it.

In other words, if both sides stipulate that the government-run system is more efficient and cost-effective, and that privatization will cause problems, but not severe or insurmountable ones, then the government run DMV must be eliminated. The idea that we use the most efficient and cost-effective system has been eliminated.

How is this "utilitarian" in any meaningful [way]? I would think that a utilitarian viewpoint would demand that privatization prove itself to be superior to the public alternative.

It is true that one would need to prove that privatization (of the DMV/DDS) could function more efficiently than the current public system, but there is still a burden of proof on the part of the public advocate, because the private "alternative" precludes the public method.

That is, if you reduce the system into its basic components, you have a market (human beings engaging in voluntary trade).

Essentially, public intervention cannot exist without the market. However, a market can exist without public (governmental) intervention.

[...] I would think that a utilitarian viewpoint would demand that privatization prove itself to be superior to the public alternative.

You're saying that someone should go ahead and put a bandaid on my arm, and then the burden of proof is on me to prove to you that there is in fact no cut on my arm. I'm saying that's backwards thinking.

Earthborn

13th December 2009, 10:44 AM

There are several other proposed solutions. Cutting carbon and taxing it was near the bottom of the list as prioritized by this group of researchers:
http://fixtheclimate.com/component-1/the-result-prioritization/A bunch of economists talking about the climate and having the gall to call themselves "The Expert Panel"...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1294b25347e865e3.jpg

drkitten

13th December 2009, 10:55 AM

Because government intervention, is, by definition, intervening into the market.

The market precludes the intervention, not the other way around.

Not at all. Not only is this an example of a false dichotomy (there are lots of ways in which government can intervene in a market without "precluding" a market), but it's also false in that if you have a "free" market, that precludes any form of government intervention.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who propose government intervention to first prove that it [market, voluntary trade] is in fact, "broke."

But that's not what you proposed. You proposed that the market-based solution should be preferred even if it were demonstrably inferior, as long as "this can be done without too much initial chaos or severe problems due to the transition from government-run system to a voluntary market system."

In other words, even if
* There will be chaos, but not too much of it.
* There will be minor problems during the transition
* There will be severe long-term structural problems, but they can't be attributed to the transition but instead to the fundamental structure of the privatized system

... the privatized system should still be preferred.

It is true that one would need to prove that privatization (of the DMV/DDS) could function more efficiently than the current public system, but there is still a burden of proof on the part of the public advocate, because the private "alternative" precludes the public method.

Again, this is simply wrong. The existence of publicly-run and -funded schools does not preclude private schools (does U.Mass prevent Harvard from existing?), the existence of public health clinics doesn't prevent public ones (pick any doc-in-the-box you like). For that matter, the existence of a public police force precludes neither private detectives nor private security.

Neally

13th December 2009, 10:59 AM

A bunch of economists talking about the climate and having the gall to call themselves "The Expert Panel"...
The five world-class economists – including three recipients of the Nobel Prize – are specialists in analyzing costs and benefits. This is about getting the biggest bang for the buck for money spent on solutions to global warming. So yes, they are an expert panel.

drkitten

13th December 2009, 11:06 AM

The five world-class economists – including three recipients of the Nobel Prize – are specialists in analyzing costs and benefits.

I see.

This is why we staff our emergency rooms with economists, instead of surgeons, too. Because the economists -- the same ones, in fact -- are specialists in analyzing costs and benefits. They can tell you exactly what the cost/benefit tradeoff is for any particular treatment.

Of course, they don't actually have any medical expertise. So they don't really know whether a proposed treatment would be effective enough in any particular patient; if the patient is complaining of stomach pains, they can't tell whether it's an ectopic pregnancy or appendicitis. But because appendicitis is much cheaper to treat, the cost/benefit ratio is considerably higher.

Merko

13th December 2009, 11:22 AM

There are several other proposed solutions. Cutting carbon and taxing it was near the bottom of the list as prioritized by this group of researchers:
http://fixtheclimate.com/component-1/the-result-prioritization/
So why have they sorted the options so that the most unrealistic ones are all at the top?

I can't see any other reason than that these people want to make sure that absolutely nothing is done. Even if they were just incompetent, we would expect the options to end up in a more or less random order.

I mean, let's look at the top of their list:
1. Research into marine cloud whitening.
First we note that this calls for research into a hitherto completely unproven technology, where we don't know either if it could work, or what unintended consequences it would have. Then, it's pretty obvious that even if it would work, it would be politically impossible to carry this out on the scale that would clearly be necessary.

2. Technology-led policy response
The completely amazing idea of improving technology and using whatever (unspecified) technology we might discover. That's just brilliant! I wish I was clever enough to think of that. Awesome stuff.

3. Research into stratospheric aerosol insertion
See 1.

4. Research into carbon storage.
See 1 again, but at least this option has the advantage that if we were to discover that it was doable, it might actually be politically viable (except, of course, we can't know that as we don't know how it would be done, if it could be done).

5. Planning for adaptation.
As if this was not already being done. Hint: it's one of the major focuses of the Copenhagen discussions.

kevinquinnyo

13th December 2009, 11:24 AM

Not at all. Not only is this an example of a false dichotomy (there are lots of ways in which government can intervene in a market without "precluding" a market), but it's also false in that if you have a "free" market, that precludes any form of government intervention.

But that's not what you proposed. You proposed that the market-based solution should be preferred even if it were demonstrably inferior, as long as "this can be done without too much initial chaos or severe problems due to the transition from government-run system to a voluntary market system."

In other words, even if
* There will be chaos, but not too much of it.
* There will be minor problems during the transition
* There will be severe long-term structural problems, but they can't be attributed to the transition but instead to the fundamental structure of the privatized system

... the privatized system should still be preferred.

Again, this is simply wrong. The existence of publicly-run and -funded schools does not preclude private schools (does U.Mass prevent Harvard from existing?), the existence of public health clinics doesn't prevent public ones (pick any doc-in-the-box you like). For that matter, the existence of a public police force precludes neither private detectives nor private security.

Whoops. I am horribly perverting the word "preclude."

Actually a better way to put it would be "misundertand the definition of."

I was so confused by your response, until I realized that I used the wrong word. I was using the word preclude, instead of the word "precede."

Very sorry for the confusion. Do you understand what I'm saying now, if you replace the word preclude with precede?

edit: So my point is, just to be clear, The burden of proof is on those who suggest a government intervention into the market, because the market precedes, or exists before the intervention of government. The burden of proof should not go the other way around.

And therefore, it would follow that the argument that the market "alternative" need be proven 'broke,' is the equivalent of putting a bandaid on someone's arm without looking, and then demand proof that they aren't bleeding.

Francesca R

13th December 2009, 11:56 AM

Earthborn

13th December 2009, 12:00 PM

So yes, they are an expert panel.Yes, they are just not experts on global warming, and neither are they experts on the engineering challenges, the environmental and ecological impact of all their proposed solutions. All they do is compare the promised results to the presumed monetary costs. "Sure you can get open heart surgery for $100 000, but an African medicine man claims to cure your condition with chewing tobacco and a rusty razorblade for $1, so that is obviously the rational solution."

drkitten

13th December 2009, 12:02 PM

edit: So my point is, just to be clear, The burden of proof is on those who suggest a government intervention into the market, because the market precedes, or exists before the intervention of government. The burden of proof should not go the other way around.

But the market doesn't always precede the government. Indeed, that's what "privatization" is all about; putting the market into a place that has previously been the primary responsibility of government. Indeed, in many cases, the government created the sector (through research) as with the Internet.

I agree that if you want to change the status quo by putting government somewhere that the free market has historically handled, you should be able to demonstrate that this is an improvement. Of course, there's rarely a case where people demand government intervention except in cases of perceived market failure; we didn't start demanding tighter banking regulation in 2005, only in 2008 after the collapse of the unregulated banking system was apparent.

At this point, demonstrating that the current system is "broke" (both literally and figuratively) is relatively easy.

The sheer number of people uninsured (and underinsured) under the present health care system is an argument that the current system is "broke."

But by the same token, government-run social security (the status quo) has worked and worked well since the 1930s, and proposals to "reform" it by privatizing it should bear the burden of proving that social security is "broke." I see no reason to assume that a privatized social security system would work at all, let alone be an improvement.

Similarly, Medicare demonstrably works well, and I see no reason to privatize it without a compelling argument. Just saying "well, you can't prove that the market wouldn't supply medical care just as well" is not an argument for changing the system.

kevinquinnyo

13th December 2009, 12:07 PM

I have given you plenty of evidence that many markets do not precede the coercive intervention of authority. In threads where that is on topic, too.

Indeed carbon permits don't arise as a market without such intervention, which is why you don't tend to see them in societies where the governing authority has not provided them via compulsion.

Thus, your premise is dodgy.

There is/was already a demand and a market for "polluting with carbon emissions." This existed before the government intervened. This market's fairness and efficiency is what's in question. And in the case of pollution, it isn't hard to see how a government can make the market more efficient by internalizing externalities.

However, in your defense, the market for say, tax attorneys is an example of a market that wouldn't exist without the government existing beforehand.

Francesca R

13th December 2009, 12:13 PM

Of course there is a demand for priced pollution. There is not enough supply.

Say it with me: "Voluntary action will under provide public goods."

Francesca R

13th December 2009, 12:29 PM

That is, the burden of proof should always be on those who propose disrupting voluntary transaction, not the other way around.
How is this "utilitarian" in any meaningful word? I would think that a utilitarian viewpoint would demand that privatization prove itself to be superior to the public alternative.Well it isn't utilitarian, it's libertarian.

And I think we have established that is is not because of any false premise like "the market precedes the compulsory action of authority" (since there is ample evidence that little beyond spot markets will flourish, absent any authority/monopoly on "rules" at all)

So it is moral-philosophical. Which is what honest libertarians say it is. The rationale is rooted in avoiding the violation of rights as an end in itself--this being the basis of libertarian philosophy. Thought most people knew that.

drkitten

13th December 2009, 12:34 PM

Well it isn't utilitarian, it's libertarian.

Well, kevin claimed earlier that his approach was utilitarian:

Where, in reality, there are many people, whose views seem libertarian, but could be more appropriately called utilitarians. These are people who favor maximization of utility as the ultimate goal of any public policy, or lack thereof, as the case may be. If a solution to an inefficiency, social ill, or environmental catastrophe, etc, involves significant government action, centralization and tax, to ensure maximizing utility, then so be it. If doing so would hamper utility, then forget it.

[...]

It is a more honest approach to allow the market to operate, and only favor market intervening strategies when you've proven the market to fail.

That is, the burden of proof should always be on those who propose disrupting voluntary transaction, not the other way around.

I simply pointed out that this is an inherently biased (I'd go so far as to say "unfair") burden of proof, and that a proper utilitarian viewpoint would simply say "we do whatever maximizes utility."

If you consider maximizing liberty to trump maximizing utility and efficiency, then you're not a "utilitarian" as kevin claimed.

kevinquinnyo

13th December 2009, 12:35 PM

Of course there is a demand for priced pollution. There is not enough supply.

Say it with me: "Voluntary action will under provide public goods."

Hmm. Now I'm starting to doubt your sincerity.

Not only have I already stated that in this thread directly several times, but in that very post you are responding to, I stated that the government is able to internalize externalities. So, I'm not sure if you're actually wanting to have a conversation, or simply be contentious.

And to be clear, what you said was that there was not a market for carbon trading until the government created it, but that's a dodgy as hell statement, because the government didn't create the market, they just increased the scarcity.

Note that I didn't state my opinion on cap and trade, as much as you seem to think I'm complaining about it.

drkitten

13th December 2009, 12:50 PM

And to be clear, what you said was that there was not a market for carbon trading until the government created it, but that's a dodgy as hell statement, because the government didn't create the market, they just increased the scarcity.

Huh? WTF?

How did the government not create the market for carbon trading? Ten years ago, how much would anyone have paid for the carbon dioxide my factory didn't emit?

Francesca R

14th December 2009, 02:46 AM

Not only have I already stated that [voluntary action will under provide public goods] in this thread directly several times, but in that very post you are responding to, I stated that the government is able to internalize externalities. So, I'm not sure if you're actually wanting to have a conversation, or simply be contentious.Yes but you apparently don't understand it, which you then reveal:

And to be clear, what you said was that there was not a market for carbon trading until the government created it, but that's a dodgy as hell statement, because the government didn't create the market, they just increased the scarcity.Without scarcity (or rather--without a requirement to account for scarcity) there is no market. It fails to exist. The price of carbon emission is zero and the ability to pollute is highly abundant, checked only by tort redress for civil violation of liberty. Notwithstanding your enthusiasm for the latter, the evidence is that it is inadequate--transaction hurdles are massive and enforcement is weak.

Note that I didn't state my opinion on cap and trade, as much as you seem to think I'm complaining about it.As I have mentioned (post 39), libertarians ought to find it satisfactory. However many of them would rather neglect the existence of the external cost, or use the paucity of tort action (which is because of transaction costs) as some kind of evidence that it can't be that serious, or argue that the removal of liberty to pollute is too mean. But others have been arguing right back to Ronald Coase's theorem that all you need to do is affix property rights to a large enough proportion of the earth's mass and the problem will go away. Carbon trading is a step in that direction, and in theory at least it corrects for market failure in much the same way as fixing a hole in the bottom of a swimming pool corrects for swimming pool failure.

leftysergeant

14th December 2009, 04:14 AM

So if you define caring about The People as whatever gets them the greatest increase in length and quality of life, decade after decade, century after century, then you choose the box accordingly.

Your claim that industrialisation is increasing our life spans, and is thus an unquestioned good turns to compost when one considers the possibility that the oceans will suddenly warm to the point that fish spawnings fail and we all starve to death because the wheat fields we were fighting over caught fire in the heat of battle.

Darth Rotor

14th December 2009, 06:32 AM

Why should I, who contributed an infinitesimal part to this mess, bear the burden of everybody´s irresponsibility? Why should not everybody bear the burden of preventing sea level change?

No. You made your bed, you sleep in it. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you live there. Likewise, your insurance rates versus hurricanes ought to be higher than mine, if you lived in the Gulf Coast, as your risks are higher. Mine for blizzards, were I to live in the mountains, ought to be higher than yours in the same case.

Risk: it's a part of your life.

DR

Darth Rotor

14th December 2009, 06:37 AM

Your claim that industrialisation is increasing our life spans, and is thus an unquestioned good turns to compost when one considers the possibility that the oceans will suddenly warm to the point that fish spawnings fail
"Suddenly" is a curious time frame.
[quote] and we all starve to death because the wheat fields we were fighting over caught fire in the heat of battle.
"We all" decrease in numbers as the battles rage, which puts that wheat field's fire into a less dire perspective: more dead bodies, fewer wheat needed to feed who is left, and more compost for the next planting of wheat, corn, barley, rye, oats, whatever. :cool:

DR

GreyICE

14th December 2009, 08:57 AM

I see.

This is why we staff our emergency rooms with economists, instead of surgeons, too. Because the economists -- the same ones, in fact -- are specialists in analyzing costs and benefits. They can tell you exactly what the cost/benefit tradeoff is for any particular treatment.

Of course, they don't actually have any medical expertise. So they don't really know whether a proposed treatment would be effective enough in any particular patient; if the patient is complaining of stomach pains, they can't tell whether it's an ectopic pregnancy or appendicitis. But because appendicitis is much cheaper to treat, the cost/benefit ratio is considerably higher.
Actually ectopic pregnancy is relatively inexpensive, if caught early. Me and my girlfriend learned this the hard way. It still sucks though. General point is good, an expert panel of economists could only really comment on the cost benefit if given effectiveness by scientists, which brings us back to basically trusting the economic effectiveness of various solutions as rated by scientists, or the scientific effectiveness of various solutions using economics.

Lomborg is still interesting, and worth looking into, if only for having a libertarian/free market viewpoint on the subject which is NOT tainted by the denier fiddle-faddle that libertarians usually engage in. IMHO he falls into too much of the 'perfect knowledge' flaw that statistician/economists fall into which is ironically detailed in 'the Beer Game' studies (basically imperfect knowledge results in perfectly awful decisions), but he's still a good counterpoint.

Beerina

14th December 2009, 10:53 AM

It's not really what your maths is for no. Consider that, using a 2% interest rate, one cent rendered unto Caesar in Jesus’s day would have accrued interest of about $1.5 quadrillion today (thirty times as much money as is in the world). And go on to ludicrous propositions such as: because a doctor's surgery overspent by $1 on antiseptic wipes one year, then two centuries later a thousand people needlessly lay dead. It's more an attempt to mislead and confuse. Not interested thanks :)

I am not making that claim. I am claiming that restricting profits will slow things down, and slowing things down kills.

Ironically, your examples show the extreme power of compounding a small percentage.

Had we slowed technology in the mid 1800s, we might, maybe, have 1950-level tech today.

Had the Greeks (or Romans, for that matter) taken the last half-step to full science, we might have been "on the moon 2000 years ago", as one SF-writer put it.

So yes, imagine how many lives would have been saved had that happened. Tens of billions in the intervening 2000 years. We probably wouldn't even be here, with humanity having more or less transcended into more or less immortality long since.

Necessary but not sufficient. Plenty of subsistence farmers in Kenya who are, say, 50km from the nearest city, don't really need to worry about anyone abridging their property rights. They do need to worry about a crop yield which is not enough to feed themselves, and is declining due to no investment to maintain the land, and getting malaria, and AIDS killing the most physically productive villagers etc etc. It really doesn't make too much difference if you send them a memo reassuring them you have implemented the non-agression principle within a 10km radius of where they live.

You pick as a counter-example, a bunch of poor people who are living on a farm, and who might indeed have problems selling their stuff at market?

Last time I checked, farmers weren't the core of advancing technology, but rather the specialists that highly productive farming allows, i.e. city dwellers.

Francesca R

14th December 2009, 11:33 AM

Ironically, your examples show the extreme power of compounding a small percentage.You've got it, yes. They show that "for want of a nail [ . . . ] the kingdom was lost" thought experiments are flawed. Do you know why? Because they leave out counterfactual consequences that are not known and cannot be known.

The predictions you attach to them---about millions dying from some imagined lowering of the growth rate of (medical) capital stock--are as silly as the prophecies of doom from overpopulation that Paul Ehrlich lost a bet to Julian Simon over.

Odd that, since you seem to like citing Simon.

You pick as a counter-example, a bunch of poor people who are living on a farm, and who might indeed have problems selling their stuff at market?Primarily to illustrate that: "OK we've secured your property rights and here's a court to enforce your contracts--Away you go!!" prescriptions for prosperity are not always sufficient. Yet they are--so far--just about the only things you are enthusiastic about.

Chaos

14th December 2009, 12:04 PM

No. You made your bed, you sleep in it. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you live there. Likewise, your insurance rates versus hurricanes ought to be higher than mine, if you lived in the Gulf Coast, as your risks are higher. Mine for blizzards, were I to live in the mountains, ought to be higher than yours in the same case.

Risk: it's a part of your life.

DR

So when my kid kicks a soccer ball through your window, I just say, "well, nobody forced you to build a house there, sucks to be you." Right?

GreyICE

14th December 2009, 12:22 PM

So when my kid kicks a soccer ball through your window, I just say, "well, nobody forced you to build a house there, sucks to be you." Right?

Generalizing it, if you choose to live in areas where lots of soccer balls go through your windows, don't be surprised when insurance companies rate hike you.

leftysergeant

14th December 2009, 12:28 PM

The five world-class economists – including three recipients of the Nobel Prize – are specialists in analyzing costs and benefits. This is about getting the biggest bang for the buck for money spent on solutions to global warming. So yes, they are an expert panel.

Bean counters have no role in the science. Once the scientists figure out how to fix it, it is up to the bean counters to figure out how to pay for it.

Weighing ecconomic concerns and dismissing science is what got us into this mess in the first place.

drkitten

14th December 2009, 12:35 PM

Bean counters have no role in the science. Once the scientists figure out how to fix it, it is up to the bean counters to figure out how to pay for it.[

Not quite. The bean counters also have to determine out whether or not it's worth paying for the first place, and that's not a question within the scientists' expertise.

leftysergeant

14th December 2009, 12:36 PM

"Suddenly" is a curious time frame.

In some El Nino years, the salmon have to move farther north to find forage. Sometimes the numbers returning are dangerously low.

If we lose one year's entire run of pink slamon, we are just S.O.L. The species is gone. That's pretty sudden, don't you think?

leftysergeant

14th December 2009, 12:37 PM

Not quite. The bean counters also have to determine out whether or not it's worth paying for the first place, and that's not a question within the scientists' expertise.

If it works, it is worth paying for.

drkitten

14th December 2009, 12:41 PM

If it works, it is worth paying for.

Not necessarily. A proposed method that would if successful "work" by reducing the world economy back to hunter-gatherers would not be worth paying for. We'd be better off taking our chances with a rising sea and hoping that the backroom boys develop a better solution fifty years from now.

Chaos

14th December 2009, 03:12 PM

Generalizing it, if you choose to live in areas where lots of soccer balls go through your windows, don't be surprised when insurance companies rate hike you.

That still doesn´t mean the parents of the kid who shot the soccer ball don´t have to pay for a replacement window pane.

Darth Rotor

14th December 2009, 03:29 PM

So when my kid kicks a soccer ball through your window, I just say, "well, nobody forced you to build a house there, sucks to be you." Right?
You seem to confuse cause and effect here. Your kid chose to kick the soccer ball. Come help me fix the window. The usual problem with scaling eludes you, apparently.

Go back to my point about hurricanes and blizzards, and try again, eh?

DR

Neally

14th December 2009, 03:31 PM

If it works, it is worth paying for.

Every hear of cost/benefit analysis? That's what the economic consensus conference was about. Take a hypothetical pot of money and figure out the best way to spend it on the technologies to address GW that the engineers and other scientists had come up with. Some of that allocation included further studies on the feasibility of yet to be proven proposed solutions.

Darth Rotor

14th December 2009, 03:32 PM

In some El Nino years, the salmon have to move farther north to find forage. Sometimes the numbers returning are dangerously low.

If we lose one year's entire run of pink slamon, we are just S.O.L. The species is gone. That's pretty sudden, don't you think?
Let me see: they are extinct? :confused: Is that where you are headed?

Tipping points happen for a lot of reasons, see cod, which has happened, and Bluefin Tuna, which hasn't, yet, but probably will. Neither of them are the consequence of climate change.

DR

kevinquinnyo

14th December 2009, 06:02 PM

Yes but you apparently don't understand it, which you then reveal:

Without scarcity (or rather--without a requirement to account for scarcity) there is no market. It fails to exist. The price of carbon emission is zero and the ability to pollute is highly abundant, checked only by tort redress for civil violation of liberty. Notwithstanding your enthusiasm for the latter, the evidence is that it is inadequate--transaction hurdles are massive and enforcement is weak.

It's not actually scarcity, it's a shortage. A shortage of "being able to pollute," just like there would be a shortage of "bread" if there was a cap on bread production.

What I'm saying is that the government did not create the market, but rather made the price more representative of the cost, thus more efficient. At least in theory, that's what cap and trade sets out to accomplish.

An example of a market that the government did create, is the tax attorney market.

As I have mentioned (post 39), libertarians ought to find it satisfactory. However many of them would rather neglect the existence of the external cost, or use the paucity of tort action (which is because of transaction costs) as some kind of evidence that it can't be that serious, or argue that the removal of liberty to pollute is too mean. But others have been arguing right back to Ronald Coase's theorem that all you need to do is affix property rights to a large enough proportion of the earth's mass and the problem will go away. Carbon trading is a step in that direction, and in theory at least it corrects for market failure in much the same way as fixing a hole in the bottom of a swimming pool corrects for swimming pool failure.

Honestly, if you were able to affix property rights to everything without awkward spatial/physical problems and the like, it would likely eliminate [the problem of] external costs.

Do you disagree with that?

Chaos

15th December 2009, 01:33 AM

You seem to confuse cause and effect here. Your kid chose to kick the soccer ball. Come help me fix the window. The usual problem with scaling eludes you, apparently.

Go back to my point about hurricanes and blizzards, and try again, eh?

DR

And you seem to confuse cause and effect in the climate change thing. The coastal land is sinking because *you* pollute, not because I live there.

Now, back to the simple principle of "you break it, you pay for it", okay?

Francesca R

15th December 2009, 03:14 AM

It's not actually scarcity, it's a shortage. A shortage of "being able to pollute," just like there would be a shortage of "bread" if there was a cap on bread production.I think you'd like to lodge a definition that "with government action" results in "shortage" and "without" means "[natural] scarcity". I reject that taxonomy since I argue that the government action (in cases like environmental pollution) seeks to correct for a number of obstacles the market cannot overcome in its absence. Thus the apparent scarcity in the absence of government action is incorrect (and therefore the associated rights are incorrectly priced, or not priced at all).

Various strictures about the government not getting it right are true, but merely weaken, and do not negate the argument that the government action is still superior to its absence.

Honestly, if you were able to affix property rights to everything without awkward spatial/physical problems and the like, it would likely eliminate [the problem of] external costs.

Do you disagree with that?That's Coase's theorem, and there are a number of problems with it so yes, I disagree, though it is probably beyond the scope of this topic.

Beerina

15th December 2009, 01:08 PM

You've got it, yes. They show that "for want of a nail [ . . . ] the kingdom was lost" thought experiments are flawed. Do you know why? Because they leave out counterfactual consequences that are not known and cannot be known.

The predictions you attach to them---about millions dying from some imagined lowering of the growth rate of (medical) capital stock--are as silly as the prophecies of doom from overpopulation that Paul Ehrlich lost a bet to Julian Simon over.

Odd that, since you seem to like citing Simon.

Primarily to illustrate that: "OK we've secured your property rights and here's a court to enforce your contracts--Away you go!!" prescriptions for prosperity are not always sufficient. Yet they are--so far--just about the only things you are enthusiastic about.

So you are not just suggesting, but relying on some unpredictable event happening, with socialized medicine, that leapfrogs socialized medical technology ahead of the otherwise regular and high progress of capitalism?

First of all, please do that with your own life, not with mine, thanks.

Secondly, this belief is opposed to all human history that shows a heavy-handed government to be a drag on development. And certainly a massive drag on things, like medicine, cars, computers, video games, and Internet routing equipment, that have massive demand in the consumer marketplace.

So what in god's name brings you to the conclusion that this will, for the very first time, turn out the way you hope it will in your mental model of reality, as opposed to all experience and tested, solid scientific theories (http://juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/).

Seriously. From my point of view, I've jammed you into a corner. I cannot comprehend anymore the objections.

I acknowledge that people have a massive emotional investment in their position, and that they believe this type of thing to be helpful. But it's not, precisely because of the counter-intuitive issues.

You seem to be just blanked denying this effect will, or does (as Europe is underway for quite awhile) occur. When challenged, I even offered evidence, which I quickly dug up, showing a correlation between (possibly regulated via sales) profits of drug companies and the rate they introduce new drugs.

There was even a big difference between whether a particular French drug company sold into the unrestricted US or not, as compared to another French company that only sold into profit-regulated Europe. The former produced more new drugs.

Were that to be otherwise, economists worldwide would be stunned! This kind of thing isn't even debated anymore.

I recall earlier posts of yours in another thread claiming government would make up the difference, perhaps in conjunction with relying on the "good hearts" or whatever of doctors and so on doing research purely for whatever reasons. But not at the behest of profit.

So which is it? By the way, your flashing avatar induces seizures in me. You should get rid of the flashing so we can see your cute face. :)

Francesca R

15th December 2009, 01:23 PM

So you are not just suggesting, but relying on some unpredictable event happening
Funny that. Looks to me like you're prophesizing concentrated effluence as a foundation for your whimsy, viz:

you're killing millions needlessly every year. [ . . . ] This kind of thing cannot be overestimated. [ . . . ] This kills far more than it saves.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKK!!!! (Help!) . . . (Thunderclap)

Well please do that with your own notepad and graph paper, not anything that matters to society, thanks :)

(You do sound a little Malthusian, you know. Ehrlichian, whatever. Conditioning?)

leftysergeant

15th December 2009, 05:43 PM

The five world-class economists – including three recipients of the Nobel Prize – are specialists in analyzing costs and benefits.

They are support staff, at best. None of them are experts in climate science.

This is about getting the biggest bang for the buck for money spent on solutions to global warming. So yes, they are an expert panel.

So they enter the picture only when the scientists are sure what will work and not. They are of importance only when deciding between two equally effective measures. If the most costly is the most effective, well, that is the way we have to go.

Human lives and entire non-human species are not a commodity.

leftysergeant

15th December 2009, 05:51 PM

Secondly, this belief is opposed to all human history that shows a heavy-handed government to be a drag on development. And certainly a massive drag on things, like medicine, cars, computers, video games, and Internet routing equipment, that have massive demand in the consumer marketplace.
Last time I read anything on the subject, I recall reading that government kind of INVENTED the internet.

I recall earlier posts of yours in another thread claiming government would make up the difference, perhaps in conjunction with relying on the "good hearts" or whatever of doctors and so on doing research purely for whatever reasons. But not at the behest of profit.\
Profit is still there, no matter who pays the bills. The scientists are still there. Maybe not the gargantuan profits that the capitalists want, but it beats working for a living. This is, of course, just another derail.

leftysergeant

15th December 2009, 05:57 PM

Let me see: they are extinct? :confused: Is that where you are headed?

All the pink salmon spawn at the same time. Lose one run and they are all gone.

Tipping points happen for a lot of reasons, see cod, which has happened, and Bluefin Tuna, which hasn't, yet, but probably will. Neither of them are the consequence of climate change.

The reason for the collapse of the cod was that some idiot decided that the fishing industry needed a bigger voice in fisheries management. "The fisheries industry would not put itself out of business by destroying fish stocks, right?":rolleyes:
The cod are gone because of a LACK of government. Take that, Kevin and Beerina. History is a boot toe to your crotch.

kevinquinnyo

15th December 2009, 06:28 PM

drkitten

16th December 2009, 07:00 AM

First of all, she didn't say "the internet," and second of all, the government did not "invent the internet," despite what Dr. Kitten will tell you.

There were already several networks in place at the time that DARPA contracted out the standardization of TCP/IP.

Wow. Talk about counterfactual history.....

DARPA didn't "contract out the standardization of TCP/IP." ARPA (not DARPA, which didn't exist at the time) designed, built, and implemented the thing.

Every line of code that went into TCP/IP was paid for by ARPA, and ARPANET was the first large-scale packet-switched network. Only packet-switching made the interoperability of TCP/IP possible.

And of course, packet-switching itself was designed, built, and implemented by government money (in this case, the Air Force via RAND corporation's Paul Baran.

So,.... no. The government did create the Internet, all your incorrect libertopian protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.