Hi everyone. I just finished writing a post on my blog about the ethical status of climate change. I'm wondering if anyone interested in the subject would mind letting me know what they think. Here's the link: http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/01/harm-to-future-people-in-light-of-non.html
David Gordon has some interesting comments on this issue: "Do Future Generations Have Rights?" Mises Review Vol. 9, No. 3 (Fall 2003).
A quibble: I don't like the use of the term 'climate change'. It is a vague and sloppy term that was deliberately put forth by environmentalists as a tool for propaganda. Terms with more precision should be used.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Actually, climate change is a more precise term put forth by scientists to combat the term "global warming," which was put forth by environmentalists. It refers to the idea that the phenomenon being discussed is not simply a rise in global average temperatures, but a wide variety of climatic changes such as sea level rise, shifting climate zones, increased variability in regional climatic conditions, and increased frequency, severity, and longevity of extreme climate events like floods, heat waves, and droughts. How can describing a changing climate as being impacted by "climate change" be interpreted as propaganda? It's probably the most emotionless and value-free term that can possibly be used. As for its being vague, I challenge you to find a less vague word which covers all of the phenomena under the "umbrella" of climate change.
But thanks for the link; I'll check it out today.
Jeez! Talk about dense writing! None of Beckerman's points are surprising, and many are pretty objectionable, but he does make some important points; thanks for pointing me to the review. To respond to Beckerman's most centrally important point, that future people can't have rights because they don't exist, it's not necessarily fair to say that they flat out don't exist. They don't exist now, that's for sure, but they will exist, and therefore they can have properties. To demonstrate this, it's only necessary to say "Future people will have the property of being people." If we can say this, we can also say, "Future people will have the property of having rights" without speaking gibberish.
The real difficulty is saying "Future people will have rights that we can possibly infringe." As I discussed in my blog, this is rather hard to do. This is especially true in the context of climate change, in light of the Non-Identity Problem, because it's hard to see how "Future people can be harmed by people in the present." If we can't say that, then we'd have to say "Future people will have rights which can be infringed in the absence of harm." Because that's something most libertarians are uncomfortable with, it looks like my work's cut out for me.
But seriously, I can't get anyone to bite on this conversation?
Which climate change? The one man is not responsible for? Climate changes all the time, and did so long before man came on earth. In the 1200s, the global emperature was up to 3°c warmer than now, and it was more a blessing than a malediction for people. And btw why climate change could only be bad?
Please don't fall in the trap of marxist movements who found in manmade global warming their last excuse against capitalism.
Time will tell
Okay, so in addition to the original post I linked to above, I've written a little more on the issue:
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-future-people-have-right-to-inherit.html
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-would-it-mean-to-say-that-future.html
Richandler, I think you might be interested in reading the posts I've linked to, as they provide something of a counterpoint to the view you offered. I don't mean to imply that you're wrong; it's just that a lot of people are going to disagree with that view, and it might be worth examining the reasons that they might do so.
Tim, I'd be interested to see evidence of the Earth being 3 degrees celsius warmer in the 1200's than it is now. As far as I'm aware, such a claim is in opposition with the IPCC's claims regarding global temperatures for that period, though perhaps it was that warm in Greenland during that time period (I have to assume you're trying to make some point about the "Medieval Warm Period"). As far as I know, the mainstream view is that the warmth seen in parts of the Northern hemisphere between the 10th and 14th centuries did not reflect a worldwide phenomenon, but rather a somewhat regional one. But if you have some evidence towards the contrary, which was somehow not taken into account by the IPCC, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Of course, the fact that there was a Medieval Warm Period would say anything about the beneficiality of climate change. I'm not aware of any records from tropical regions during that period, and so even if the Medieval Warm Period was a worldwide phenomenon, I'm not sure why you'd say that it was "...more a blessing than a malediction for people." Even if the people of Europe (whose records we do have) were made better off, it's fully possible that people in other parts of the world were significantly harmed, and we just don't know about it. Before I even considered the ramifications of the alleged "fact" that the Earth was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period (which the IPCC does not believe to be the case), I'd need to see evidence that the IPCC is wrong about its claims, and evidence that the beneficial effects of the Medieval Warm Period were not only limited to certain parts of the Northern Hemisphere, but were actually uniformly distributed.
What I found astounding is how quickly everyone, from libertarians to hardcore enviromentalists, is jumping to conclusions and using this argument to put forward their own theories (no offense meant, your blog post is the sanest I've read in years on the matter) for "rebuilding society".
I can put out with ignoring hard scientific datas because, plainly put, datas available in mainstream published studies have often been willingly manipulated to support a theory, most usually than not the "man-is-responsible-and-we-must-act-quickly" mantra. Why nobody talks about the ethical implications of scientists willingly manipulating the evidence (mostly by omitting datas or tampering with hard evidence) to be published or to obtain easy access to funding? Being scientifically trained and being taught ad nauseam that purpose of science is to critically serve mankind I cannot put up with this, especially with the naive and dangerously simplistic view that once "global warming" is defeated all of mankind's troubles will be solved or how funding for much more important studies (since they are affecting us right now, not fifty or eighty years into the future) is being witheld, particulary by private foundations. These simply follow a market rule: they are putting their money in a highly publicized case, since that's the easiest way to convince generous corporate and private sponsors to keep up their donations. Getting a big corporation to finance your studies about "man-made climate change" is much easier than obtain funding for "genetic impoverishment and large scale epidemic risks in the cattle and swine industries" because of the high media coverage. Too bad State intervention has once again played havoc with simple market laws.
It also astound me how a single bad movie and an even worse book were enough to steer public opinion (if you remember the whole Silent Spring affaire you'll wonder how is possible that it's happening again and you cannot but pray that this time the madness will be stopped in time) and how different are American and European opinions on the matter. Stop your average Joe Public on the Streets of Philadelphia or San Antonio and he'll tell you he's "concerned about man-made climate change" and that "something should be done as quickly as possible to cut carbon dioxyde emissions". Stop him on the streets of Aberdeen or Augsburg and he'll tell you that "man-made global warming is most likely another scam by the State and the ruling elites to come up with new ways to tax us and to control our lives". We Europeans had Diocletianus, Charlemagne and the French Revolution so we are a little more experienced than Americans...
Donny with an A:Okay, so in addition to the original post I linked to above, I've written a little more on the issue:http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-future-people-have-right-to-inherit.htmlhttp://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-would-it-mean-to-say-that-future.htmlRichandler, I think you might be interested in reading the posts I've linked to, as they provide something of a counterpoint to the view you offered. I don't mean to imply that you're wrong; it's just that a lot of people are going to disagree with that view, and it might be worth examining the reasons that they might do so.Tim, I'd be interested to see evidence of the Earth being 3 degrees celsius warmer in the 1200's than it is now. As far as I'm aware, such a claim is in opposition with the IPCC's claims regarding global temperatures for that period, though perhaps it was that warm in Greenland during that time period (I have to assume you're trying to make some point about the "Medieval Warm Period"). As far as I know, the mainstream view is that the warmth seen in parts of the Northern hemisphere between the 10th and 14th centuries did not reflect a worldwide phenomenon, but rather a somewhat regional one. But if you have some evidence towards the contrary, which was somehow not taken into account by the IPCC, I'd be interested to hear about it.Of course, the fact that there was a Medieval Warm Period would say anything about the beneficiality of climate change. I'm not aware of any records from tropical regions during that period, and so even if the Medieval Warm Period was a worldwide phenomenon, I'm not sure why you'd say that it was "...more a blessing than a malediction for people." Even if the people of Europe (whose records we do have) were made better off, it's fully possible that people in other parts of the world were significantly harmed, and we just don't know about it. Before I even considered the ramifications of the alleged "fact" that the Earth was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period (which the IPCC does not believe to be the case), I'd need to see evidence that the IPCC is wrong about its claims, and evidence that the beneficial effects of the Medieval Warm Period were not only limited to certain parts of the Northern Hemisphere, but were actually uniformly distributed.
That medieval warm period was or not wamer than now is not really of any importance. What is interesting is the responsability of Man in the current global warming. And there's plenty of studies to show that the most important factor by far is the sun activity. That while we can see a correlation between co2 concentration and temperature, the temperature change come sooner (by several centuries) than the CO2 one. And so on.
The most funny thing is that we're about to enter a global cooling, because we've passed a peak of the sun activity. So i think that instead of wasting my time in trying to convince that maybe the church of IGCC and their politician friends are wrong, i'll just say wait & see, it shouldn't be long.
Tim, hoping that ecolo-terrorists will not harm the world too much until it realises their lies.
Haha I hope I don't qualify as an "ecolo-terrorist"! I think that the solar attribution of climate change is not completely indefensible, but I don't think it's fair to claim that climate change is caused by the sun, and not by human actions. There are some issues that need to be resolved by those blaming climate change on the Sun, and to my knowledge, they haven't been.
If you're really interested in understanding the nature of what you're talking about, you might start by looking at pages 702-703 of chapter 9 of the new IPCC report, where they briefly address the question, "Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?" But I wouldn't expect that you'd be convinced by such a simple answer, in which case you'll probably want to see the reasoning that went into it.
Accordingly, you might want to look at the IPCC's assessment of the solar forcing (both direct and indirect) on pages 188-193 of chapter 2 of the report. They deal with a lot of the questions about the sun's influence, and I think they did a pretty decent job of summarizing the current state of the science. But if you want to really dive in, there probably isn't any better resource than the Hadley Center's report on the issue, which is heavily relied on by the IPCC and provides an extremely in-depth look at what's going on.
For a little more controversy, you also might look at Peter Laut's paper, "Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate: An Analysis of Some Purported Correlations." He basically bashes some of the most popular theories, accusing people like Svensmark, Lassen, and Friis-Christensen of being bad scientists (think of it as the "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist" of this debate). But if you do read Laut's piece, you should probably read Henrik Svensmark's response, which doesn't address the entire article, but does make an attempt to defend some of his work against the accusation that he manipulated data and used poor scientific practices.
All in all, I don't think it's fair to cite changes in solar output as definitively being the cause of climate change. But it's definitely worth keeping an eye on, and as I hope I've shown, the mainstream has been doing just that.
So I tried to post a response earlier today, but I think something got screwed up along the way. In any case, I wrote a post on my blog addressing this, so here's the link: http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-sun-as-cause-of-climate-change.html
Geoffrey, unfortunately your quibble about "climate change" as opposed to "global warming" is uninformed.
The use of this term was spearheaded by Republicans, based on the advice of one of their spinmeisters, Frank Luntz, who wrote that :
“’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge”
http://www.ewg.org/node/8684.
Luntz has now changed his mind, as he noted in an interview last year (though his spin program still runs on among Republicans and their pet rent-seekers):
TONY JONES: It will be an interesting experiment anyway. Frank Luntz, let me come to another issue that may well be a defining issue in the 2008 US Presidential campaign and the elections, the congressional elections there, but also certainly will be in the Australian elections. That is the whole issue surrounding global warming. Have you crossed a sort of scientific rubicon here yourself?FRANK LUNTZ: I have, and as have most people. When I started doing work on this issue about a decade ago, a majority, a clear majority of Americans, in fact all over the globe, did not buy the science at that point. But over the last 10 years the science has been much clearer. The results have been much more comprehensive and I, like millions of Americans, have changed my point of view and you will see across the globe that people now have come to accept that there is an issue here.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1912828.htm
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
-- Richard Feynman
Donny, I'd say that you're largely right - only those who exist have rights that we can recognize. However, you've oversimplified the fact and thus your argument to boot.
First, while the climate change effects of current GHG releases and other actions are understood to have a long tail, with full effects not being felt for several hundred years due to the inertia in the system, some effects are more immediate and experienced in the first few decades. Thus, what we do today may very well affect ourselves and others living, including our children.
Second, of course, is that we care about our children and therefore about the world they will inherit from us. It is perfectly legitimate for us to reflect those concerns in our preferences.
Third, based on our instinctual concerns for our own future and that of our children, we have developed other bases for concern about the future, such as a religious and philosophical views that we are entitled to use the Earth only in "usufruct", without materially disrupting or shifting the Earth's fundadmental ecosytems. The Archdruid of warming, James Hansen of NOAA's Earth Institute, has specifically referred to this argument, based on writings by Thomas Jefferson, as noted in these two threads:
www.newsbusters.org/.../2007/08/19/nasa-s-hansen-says-global-warming-skeptics-are-court-jesters-working (with comments by yours truly)
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/was-thomas-jefferson-agw-alarmist.html (my remarks are in the "fast comments")
I view this this argument, to which you direct your attention, as really nothing more substantial than a rhetorical strengthening of our legitimate concern for our own interests, others now existing and our own children and other descendants.
Finally, though this is tangential, you might be interested in a little more of the actual economic discussion about how to weigh future harm/benefits relating to climate change and miigation strategies, some of which is summarized here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/16/the-social-cost-of-ignoring-carbon.aspx.
Sincerely,
TT
Tokyo Tom, I've been treating climate change as being two separate issues. On one hand, it's true that we're emitting CO2 which might cause harm directly to people who are alive today. But I don't see why we'd need a new moral framework for dealing with those sorts of effects. Perhaps we'd want to look at the way that climate change is being caused, since there are some features which aren't present in most pollution cases (I've posted some preliminary thoughts on this issue here, but I'll need to develop the idea a lot more). In terms of thinking about the victims, though, I don't think it's controversial to say that their rights are being infringed.
On the other hand, though, there's this intergenerational sort of problem (which is currently the focus of my research). I don't think anyone disputes that we might want to bequeath an unspoiled Earth to future generations. But the question is really whether it's unjust to contribute to climate change; that is, would we be justified in using coercion to stop you from contributing, in the way that we might if you were about to violate a currently existing person's rights?
Regarding the nature of the concern about future generations inheriting an unspoiled Earth, I've started to try to refine my thoughts a little bit (see this post), but I think I'd rather analyze the argument itself rather than focus on the psychological reasons people might believe it to be true. I confess that all of this is part of my research for my undergraduate thesis, which is about ethical dilemmas arising from global climate change, and to be honest, conclusions like "The environmentalists only think this way because _________" don't really fly in philosophy. Perhaps if there were a specific claim where environmentalists felt one way because _______, while others felt another way because of some incompatible _________, it might be useful. For example, if environmentalists think that all life forms have moral standing, then they might be led to different conclusions than someone who believed that only persons have moral standing. But on a more vague level, it's not really useful to get into what subconscious drivers are leading people to advocate certain positions.
I don't want to get into a discussion about the economics of climate change here, though I've done significant research on the issue and wouldn't mind discussing it elsewhere. I will point out that while I really admire Tol, and acknowledge the importance of his work (especially his role in crafting the IPCC's Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change), I do think that the passage you referenced doesn't fairly portray the debate about the proper role of discounting, and so might be misleading if that matter isn't taken into account. I actually had to write something about that for a class last semester, so if you're interested, I can e-mail it to you.
Donny, you might find it worthwhile to investigate what this guy has to say on intergenerational issues:
http://vlscli.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/taking-posterity-seriously-intergenerational-justice/
http://www.conlaw.org/
And at this recent paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=721025.
BTW, I also had problems with Dr. Reisman's "it's natural!" excuse, and addressed it in this thread (look for one of my posts starting "Professor Reisman"):
I am curious as to what you've written on discounting.
Tom
Geoffrey, I already noted below that the switch to "climate change" was deliberately pushed by the Republican spin machine. I am further curious as to what terms of greater precision you would suggest that would improve the public discussion.
Regards,
TokyoTom:Geoffrey, unfortunately your quibble about "climate change" as opposed to "global warming" is uninformed. The use of this term was spearheaded by Republicans, based on the advice of one of their spinmeisters, Frank Luntz, who wrote that
The use of this term was spearheaded by Republicans, based on the advice of one of their spinmeisters, Frank Luntz, who wrote that
Okay. So it came back and bit them you know where. Who exactly originated the use of the term doesn't change the fact that environmentalists and the media jumped on it and twisted it to their purposes. I disagree with Donny that the term climate change is more precise. It borders on tautology because climate by definition is always changing. It's practically meaningless, particularly as far as policy is concerned, and can be applied to any environmental phenomenon as a vague scare term. The important questions are: how does it change, what are the specific changes, and why is it changing. As to these questions, I remain unconvinced by the alarmism.
TokyoTom:Geoffrey, I already noted below that the switch to "climate change" was deliberately pushed by the Republican spin machine. I am further curious as to what terms of greater precision you would suggest that would improve the public discussion. Regards, Tom
You mean above I think.
Come on, Tom. I'm sure you can think of something more scientifically precise. If you can't, then what are you doing presenting yourself as such an expert on climate science? Are you not a climate scientist yourself? But even if you aren't, surely you are familiar enough with the science and scientific methodology to provide a more precise term. Indeed, someone so concerned with science ought to be more concerned with precision in things like this.
TokyoTom, I'm not sure if I really like the argument that goes, "America's founding fathers believed in an obligation to future generations regarding the environment that they would leave behind. Therefore, such an obligation should be respected." It simply doesn't go to the core of the issue. Why do people disagree? Is the position taken by the founding fathers a coherent, consistent one? It's easy to say, "A said X, and I believe him, so X." But all it takes is someone to say "Fine, but I think ~X." The problem is especially relevant when a great deal of the underpinning of those classic ideas was rooted in ideas about religion and God's intentions for the use of the Earth. Thanks anyway for the links, though. If you'd like to read what I've written on discounting, PM me your e-mail address and I'll send you what I've got.
Geoffery, the climate is indeed in a state of perpetual flux. The problem in using a more precise term is that there are several different kinds of phenomena that are projected to occur as a result of anthropogenic influence on the climate. Imagine that the distribution of some weather condition looks like a bell curve, where the outermost regions represent "extreme conditions," while the regions nearer to the center were considered more or less "normal." With regard to certain weather conditions, climate change will have the effect of flattening the bell curve (essentially, increasing climate variability). In situations like these, the average condition wouldn't change (so if we were talking about rainfall, the total over the course of the year wouldn't be any different), but you'd have a greater number of extreme events (like extremely dry periods and periods of intense rainfall).
But with other kinds of weather conditions, we'd see something more along the lines of a shift of the bell curve (so if we were talking about average sea level height in a certain region, we might not expect to see an increase in variability, but we would expect that the average would slowly move upward). If we continued to use the old standard of an extreme event, this would result in a slight decrease of extreme events on the trailing edge of the curve, and a much larger increase on the leading edge (so if we said that an extremely low sea level was 4" below a certain water mark on a pier, and an extremely high level was 4" above it, then we'd expect to see fewer extremely low days in light of a general sea level rise, but a lot more extremely high days).
And those aren't the only consequences. Certain areas are characterized by particular kinds of climates, to which life (both human and otherwise) has become adapted. As the climate in those regions changes (either by a shift or an increase/decrease in variability), certain lifestyles or life forms might become ill suited for their current locations. For example, one of the effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere is predicted to be a decrease in the difference between day temperatures and night temperatures, because less heat will radiate into space during the night. Perhaps in some area of the world, there are mice which drink dew, and in the summer, night temperatures only barely drop below the dew point. In a changing climate, such a mouse might die of thirst, not because of warming or anything drastic, but simply because the climate that used to prevail in his region no longer would.
Similarly, someone might live in an area where trees are liable to catch fire in the event of there being many droughts over the course of a year, or a single drought lasting longer than a certain length of time, or reaching some degree of severity. One of the predicted effects of climate change is that in many areas of the world, droughts will become more frequent, longlasting, and severe. Perhaps in the past, such fires were of no real concern, but now they were a significant threat.
Doesn't it seem like there's no better way to describe these situations as being tied to a changing climate system? I honestly can't see any better way to lump them all together than that. Perhaps you could say that we're worried about anthropogenic "shifts in certain climate systems and altered statistical distributions of climate conditions in others, with varying consequences for humans and the natural environment" but it just seems so much easier to say "climate change."
Donny with an A:Doesn't it seem like there's no better way to describe these situations as being tied to a changing climate system? I honestly can't see any better way to lump them all together than that. Perhaps you could say that we're worried about anthropogenic "shifts in certain climate systems and altered statistical distributions of climate conditions in others, with varying consequences for humans and the natural environment" but it just seems so much easier to say "climate change."
Easier and sloppier. I understand it is easier to employ sloppy terminology and reasoning but it really is a tendency that must be fought while purporting to do or report science. This is particularly the case for highly ideologically charged sciences like those that are relevant to climate change. In the context of the previous sentence it makes sense to use the term 'climate change'. But when we are talking about specific theories, hypotheses and supposed evidence for man-made forcings, and here I'm talking about CO2 induced global warming and its consequences, then it really is sloppy to throw around the term 'climate change' just because it's easier. But, then, I find that ideologues love to use vague and sloppy language to push their agenda. Precision is a handicap here. It's far easier to throw around vague terms that are given a scary connotation and meant to induce guilt.
I guess I just don't see what's so scary about the term "climate change." I mean, the entire purpose of adopting it was that it wasn't scary, and it was more precise than the popular term: "global warming." It's important to have a single term which refers to the cumulative effect of the phenomenon of interest, which is, essentially, a pattern of changes in the climate of the Earth. The term "climate change" refers to exactly what you would expect it to. Nothing fancy or political is going on. I don't see why you're worried about people attaching significance to a term which suggests nothing more than that "the Earth's climate is expected to chang in a number of ways as a result of human activities." Are you objecting to the fact that people are concerned about climate change? If they are, it's because climate change is concerning. There doesn't always have to be a conspiracy going on. The climate is changing, and people are referring to the changes in the climate as "climate change." What on Earth is so imprecise about that?
I don't like the use of the term 'climate change'. It is a vague and sloppy term that was deliberately put forth by environmentalists as a tool for propaganda. Terms with more precision should be used.
So it came back and bit them you know where. Who exactly originated the use of the term doesn't change the fact that environmentalists and the media jumped on it and twisted it to their purposes. ... It borders on tautology because climate by definition is always changing. It's practically meaningless, particularly as far as policy is concerned, and can be applied to any environmental phenomenon as a vague scare term.
But, then, I find that ideologues love to use vague and sloppy language to push their agenda. Precision is a handicap here. It's far easier to throw around vague terms that are given a scary connotation and meant to induce guilt.
I'm sure you can think of something more scientifically precise. If you can't, then what are you doing presenting yourself as such an expert on climate science? Are you not a climate scientist yourself? But even if you aren't, surely you are familiar enough with the science and scientific methodology to provide a more precise term. Indeed, someone so concerned with science ought to be more concerned with precision in things like this.
Geoffrey, (i) you're mistaken about who introduced the more neutral term "climate change" and why (not "environmentalists", "the media" or "ideologues" to induce guilt, but quite a different set of rent-seekers and handlers to shrug off any implications of responsibility) and (ii) you have no suggestions as for a scientifically more precise term, just (iii) surprising slings at me - for asking you a seriously meant question about improving the debate and for doing some of the heavy lifting on the blog of clarifying what the science is (about which I have never presented myself as anything more than another layman) - and a (iv) generalized whining about the undefined "alarmism" of those whom you apparently disagree with.
No judgments here; just a mirror.
So anyway, to get back to the conversation I was trying to start earlier, I've been building on my initial post on my blog, and I think I'm (slowly) making some progress. Here are the link to the running discussion:
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Non-Identity%20Problem
Donny, there's a blog post up at Andy Revkin's/NYT's Dot Earth that touches on this: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/what-does-the-present-owe-the-future/.