Libertarians and Climate Change

[Earthborn]

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"...

 

[drkitten]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Earthborn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

DR

 

[GreyICE]

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.