Libertarians and Climate Change

[Francesca R]

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

 

[Undesired Walrus]

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

 

[Calculon]

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]

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]

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.

I am pretty sure that most historians who studied the industrial revolution argue that at first the industrial revolution led to a dramatic drop in life expectancy. Workers had incredibly dangerous work, and lived in crowded and polluted cities in which diseases spread easily. Lifespans only rose after governments built sewage works during the massive sanitation campaigns of the late 19th century.

 

[Beerina]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Typical JREF Libertarian thread:

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

2. 30 responses by non-libertarians.

 

[Chaos]

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]

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, 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]

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

 

[Undesired Walrus]

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.

 

[Beerina]

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]

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 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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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.