Libertarians and Climate Change

[Undesired Walrus]

How exactly do Libertarians square their theory of Government with the march of AGW? Is the free market relied on to deliver us from disaster?

 

[drkitten]

How exactly do Libertarians square their theory of Government with the march of AGW? Is the free market relied on to deliver us from disaster?

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.

 

[Chaos]

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.

Indeed. Since there is no way the free market can defeat AGW, AGW cannot exist since if it did, it would mean that the free market cannot solve every problem.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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.

 

[drkitten]

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.

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.

 

[Cain]

Indeed. Since there is no way the free market can defeat AGW, AGW cannot exist since if it did, it would mean that the free market cannot solve every problem.

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.

 

[dudalb]

How exactly do Libertarians square their theory of Government with the march of AGW? Is the free market relied on to deliver us from disaster?

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.

 

[Puppycow]

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.

Uh-huh.
Since the free market is always the best solution to every problem, then anything that can't be solved by the free market must not be a problem.

QED.

 

[davefoc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. . . 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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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.