First of all - in an extreme case, assuming imminent, objective catastrophe, I would support strong coercive action (not necessarily "government," but maybe) against greenhouse gas emittors. None of the proposals put forward by any government are anywhere near strong enough to do anything significant about global warming anyway. A non-state solution to the current case (assuming the situation is the media consensus, which I would dispute on a number of levels*) would be as follows: Organized activism. Individuals interested in combating global warming form associations. Now, few individuals would be willing to reduce their "carbon footprint" if they were the only ones to do it, which is why collective action would be needed. Institute a central register for all people on the planet who share this concern. This central register (probably along with other rating agencies, and watchdogs) would certify if a product was approved or not as "greenhouse-safe". The register could also be connected to debit / credit cards, so that the card would only approve of "greenhouse-safe" products, and joining either the central global warming registry, or one of a network, would require the use of one of these cards. People would be motivated to join a global warming registry for the same reason people buy nice-looking clothes: social capital. And as we know, people are willing to pay a premium for social capital, coupled with genuine concern for the planet. As more people join the registry, it goes from being elite to effectively mandatory - not instantaneously, but on a gradient. The three things that will drive the growth of the global warming registries are: 1. Growth of the registries (returns to scale, returns to standard, returns to network) 2. Economic advancement ie. increase in the world median income 3. Global warming concern, awareness, and activism
As the registry grows, firms will then either cater to registry members or non-members. Firms which originally did not meet the registry standards will have to restructure at least part of their production line to satisfy the new demands of the registry members, as the new standards are in effect a boycott. Though the boycott is not aimed at a specific company, but a mode of production. The registry agency would be run by AGW activists and entrepreneurs. It is responsible to its members. Likely, there would be a network of competing registries similar to the network of competing credit cards we have today (but without the state-corporate collusion).
If people don't join or aren't convinced by the AGW arguments, then either (A) you have to make a better argument, (B) you have miscalculated the social cost of AGW as they do not subjectively value what you think they value, or (C) in the extreme case, lobby the state or military to take strong strong immediate action (nothing like the piffle being proposed now).
The agency could form its own enforcement arm (which would be much much more efficient than government enforcement) and that could be state-sanctioned or more preferably the state would just not be in the way. Private defense wouldn't be too much a problem if you had significant support seconded by apathy, as you would have a much lower marginal cost of personnel than a purely for-profit military. In the extreme case where you believe there is going to be objective catastrophe - like hundreds of millions killed or something - then a "disruption of the social order" is of little net cost. [I'd suggest military economist John Robb's excellent book "Brave New War" which details exactly why non-governmental, decentralized militaries are so so much more efficient than government or government-supported ones.] The registry enforces compliance by (A) threatening to remove the "greenhouse-safe" certification - this is similar to the Better Business Bureau, private cert. agencies, and so forth - and (B) negative publicity and (C) short-sell attacking the companies stock and whatnot and (D) physical enforcement in the more extreme case, if government gets out of the way. some people will be people willing to physically coerce against polluting firms if the awareness spreads and the argument is convincing. And to go even further, once the registry agency has enough members, it can field its own enforcement personnel against all firms that do not conform to the standards (assuming government doesn't keep them from doing so). If the registry agency grows in Europe, the US, ANZ, etc. it will have the advertising and communication power to break into China and India's market as their median income rises enough so people there marginally value social capital like the people in the West. They are also affected by exports to the West, so they will already be incentivized away from GHG. If the anecdotal effects of global warming become clearer, you will see significant growth and it will keep compounding. Eventually it will become effectively mandatory for most firms as the opportunity cost of not been certified will be prohibitive. Contrariwise, for the nation-state, the proposed solutions have been much more problematic and suffer from enormous incentive and calculation problems. I honestly think that if the AGW situation is as popularly described, that government getting out of the way and allowing voluntary human organizations (eg. registry agency) to take care of the problem would be more likely to meet the problem.
I see no possible solution from government other than drastic and effective action which in lieu of obvious immediate catastrophe is never going to happen. But again, if you believe there is some clear tipping point after which there is objective catastrophe, you should want governments and militaries to take strong action. However, you then have to deal with the incentive and efficiency problems of the state.
In the extreme case, I might not bother with government at all. My AGW activism would be social. I would make "global warming denial" akin to racism. Create a social capital value of AGW activism so high that the arguments from evidence are marginal... because you're not going to get far even with evidential arguments alone, and if you do, governments will merely do something nominally that will make people think the problem is being taken care of while bureaucrats and investment banks and firms in collusion seek rent via the legislation. A registry agency network that captures and perpetuates that social capital will be much more effective than trying to appeal to the statesmanship of democratically elected politicians.
*I don't think AGW a sham so much as a lot of non sequitur. Most of "the debate" is silly on both sides. There are very subjective elements to this risk-analysis and barring objective catastrophe scenarios, there is no "right answer." And even if there were, you still have to do a cost-*benefit* analysis of social welfare, not just a cost analysis, and then you have to demonstrate how the proposed government action will **in praxis** remedy or reduce the problem factoring in the negative effects on social welfare of government action. Speaking of human irrationality, people tend to wildly overestimate worst-case scenarios and overfactor anecdotal evidence.
Speaking of the Bill Gates foundation, corporate charity-funded geoengineering is another possible non-state remedy to AGW.
AGW is a myth. Global temperatures are determined by that giant ball of fire in space. There's no need for any kind of coercion. See Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
We could just uphold property rights, and let people make their own decisions instead.
Also, I'm going to refer again to my article posted on CCF. (One of the few things I wrote that I'm proud of.)
I largely agree, not that it is a "myth" but that it is not the human-caused threat to humanity that is reflected in the media consensus; and given current information requires little-to-no action. I stated this in the op...
However some people are not convinced by that and want to know how this or a problem like this could be resolved sans state.
Also, Richard Lindzen > Willie Soon.
I'll look into his work. Thanks.
I stated this in the op...
I didn't read the whole thing >< (or any of it really).
We could just uphold property rights
How do you propose we individualize property rights for something like the greenhouse gas emissions or affect on global temperature or share of responsibility for some imminent global catastrophe? These are externalities that cannot realistically be internalized. If you have a proposed method by which such property rights could be defined and enforced, I'd be interested in hearing it.
(Again, I'm not supporting the AGW alarmism here, just trying to detail a non-state solution to the problem hypothetically)
Suppose it were shown that the Earth can handle X amount of anthropogenic emissions per year, more than which would cause property damage (by raising sea levels, causing droughts, etc.). Then this amount X is just another scarce, homesteadable resource, and anyone who polluted in excess of this amount would either have to offset it or be subject to an incredibly messy class-action suit (for which, ideally, they would also have to pay the administrative costs). In effect, it's cap-and-trade, except without a central body collecting payments year after year.
Esuric:AGW is a myth. Global temperatures are determined by that giant ball of fire in space. There's no need for any kind of coercion. See Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon.
I don't know whether that's true or not, but it's helpful to consider the hypothetical case to show people that libertarianism is not so rigid that it would be debunked by a simple matter of scientific fact. Otherwise, it comes across as "There is no libertarian solution to AGW, but we got lucky this time because there is no AGW, there is no AGW, there is no AGW..." We must take reality as we find it, and a robust political ideology should not come crashing down on account of it.
Well, first of all, I don't really see these as being real problems. Temperatures, for example, fluctuate over time. There is no standard temperature. If temperatures change over time it's more likely a natural occurrence than from our activity (see my article). If there's a global catastrophe the best thing to do is insure yourself against it. Not sure what kind of global catastrophe there could be besides the typical volcano or hurricane (which isn't really global - maybe another ice age?), so it seems pretty drastic to go out your way and do something to stop or slow down the possible occurrence of a global catastrophe (since it's the Earth we are dealing with). As far as greenhouse gas emissions that can be directly traced to individuals and their actions, I'll let the market handle that.
GW is a media propagated myth. I've read this excellent book and probably you should too:
http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Warming-Vintage/dp/030738652X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272944211&sr=1-4
Cal: How do you propose we individualize property rights for something like the greenhouse gas emissions or affect on global temperature or share of responsibility for some imminent global catastrophe?
How do you propose we individualize property rights for something like the greenhouse gas emissions or affect on global temperature or share of responsibility for some imminent global catastrophe?
First, you have to relieve yourself from the usual nirvana fallacy, always employed by Statists.
Cal: These are externalities that cannot realistically be internalized. If you have a proposed method by which such property rights could be defined and enforced, I'd be interested in hearing it.
These are externalities that cannot realistically be internalized. If you have a proposed method by which such property rights could be defined and enforced, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Government itself is one big externality. Once you realize this, you will see how ridiculesly absurd it is to use the "externality" claim to advocate for government intervention.
There is no rational method by which government can act other then by arbitrary and political calculations. If it is the people of the world that you are concerned about, then I shall inform you (or remind you) that all governments lack any method by which they can ascertain the value of their action as against their costs. So it is not just that there are incentive problems, but also major knowledge problems. This makes any regulations illusory. All central planning is illusory.
The idea behind your government proposal to regulate green house gases, for example, It based on the false notion that there are some objective measures regarding the proper level of greenhouse gas emissions, or worst, that they can be controlled by a central authority. There can be no such objective measures as long as there are costs involved. Every cost-gain analysis is subjective on the part of the individual and no small minority of politicians can possibly know what's best for all of us. It is only through the voluntary action of the decentralized market economy with its price system, that such green house emissions can be controlled in any rational manner, that is, without sacrificing more urgent needs of the vast majority of the public.
psh. might as well post a non-state solution to a mole-man invasion. let's not waste time with solutions to fairy tales when there are more imminent dangers.
(A) If it is (as some would say) natural, then we really don't need to do anything.
(B) If it is (for the sake of the argument) entirely true, then the best way to deal with it would be either a growing efficiency rate (which is always happening anyway, regardless of what the government does) and possibly property protection from big polluters who presumably cause it (Read: Lawsuits!)
"First of all - in an extreme case, assuming imminent, objective catastrophe, I would support strong coercive action (not necessarily "government," but maybe) against greenhouse gas emittors..."
is emittors a typo???
global warming from what i read has ocurred without any help from makind. i guess teh charts i read are reflectign true information. so there may not be a solution to global warming, only a reaction to it in some way.
otherwise i beleive various market schemes have been discussed at length here on air pollution and what i have read called externalities...i can only asume that the discussions were genuine in there stating what they belieed t obe true.
but mankind has also been burning wood in fireplaces for centureis and many seem to keep doing it.
we could just uphold property rights. maybe you could.
if someone was going to freeze to death on a cold night and the lit a fire to keep from freezing and teh smoke bothered you what would you do??
offer them bison skin for warmth??? or let them freeze to death??
if mankinds combustions were actually raising the global tempratures to harmful levels i expect there woudl be more sushi and raw vegatbles eaten so things wouldnt be burned to cook and gasses or pollutants emitted.
otherwise it appears that mankind and not necessarily a govt has determined that buring things bringas about more good than harm. that may be utilitarian...but it history may have shown in to be true. your ancestors could have dies from eating raw meat and you wouldnt be here today.
I think it is extremely difficult to predict how individuals would voluntarily fight global warming if it posed a real and immediate threat. You have proposed a possible chain of events, but there are so many variables here...who knows what would really happen. I would just leave it that freedom is always more desireable than coercion, so the solution would just be to let people do what they want. Free markets have solved countless difficult problems throughout history. Why would it be any different for global warming?
All this is irrelevent once you realize that AGW is a myth, like others have said. It's just a tool to gain control.
The Bill Gates foundation is also a tool of oppression - the perfect example of corporatism at work to enslave us.
Geo-engineering would only serve to put poison in the atmosphere in the name of saving us from poison in the atmosphere.
Esuric wrote the following post at Tue, May 4 2010 5:23 AM: AGW is a myth. Global temperatures are determined by that giant ball of fire in space. There's no need for any kind of coercion. See Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon.
Esuric wrote the following post at Tue, May 4 2010 5:23 AM:
Nice argumet from authority. Also, what astrophysics has to do with climatology?
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
totally. and what does chemistry have to do with medicine?
GW is a media propagated myth. I've read this excellent book and probably you should too: http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Warming-Vintage/dp/030738652X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272944211&sr=1-4
I'm having a tough time figuring out what this book is about from reading the reviews.