Economics Questions

Re: Global Warming

Daniel James Sanchez — Tue, 08 May 2012 22:31:13 GMT

Please notice that the term "global warming" (which itself followed "global cooling" by only a few years) has been supplanted by "climate change" as if the natural climate is static. The chief originator of the theory, Roger Revelle, repudiated his conclusions shortly before his death in 1991.

Re: Global Warming

John James — Tue, 08 May 2012 20:14:51 GMT

Clayton:
To supplement the geoengineering point further, I want to mention Bjorn Lomborg's work to put the AGW problem into perspective by ranking it with the world's other biggest problems:

Unless we can fix AGW very cheaply, it's simply not worth our while.

In that same vein, Jerry Taylor made the similar point (quite well, I'd say) in the very first episode of Stossel (he makes it throughout the show, but here's a nice clip):

Notice the anti-human tendencies of his opponent here (all too common within this "green movement"). She doesn't really care about people, she cares about controlling behavior, even to the detriment of people...

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Global Warming

Clayton — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:48:53 GMT

I think JJ closed the thread with Levitt's geoengineering alternatives. Who pays for these in the absence of government? Charity should easily be able to raise the funds given that AGW will "kill us all" if it is not stopped. Sure, there will be free-riders but those bearing the cost benefit enough that the fact that the rest of us are free-riding will not deter them from acting.

To supplement the geoengineering point further, I want to mention Bjorn Lomborg's work to put the AGW problem into perspective by ranking it with the world's other biggest problems:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Unless we can fix AGW very cheaply, it's simply not worth our while.

Clayton -

Re: Global Warming

John James — Tue, 08 May 2012 03:55:52 GMT

Sphairon:
Interestingly, I'm not even on board with the AGW alarmists. I just find it funny that you react to the really not so far-fetched proposition of humanly influenced climate change with such vitriolic anger.

I would hardly consider claiming people who aren't "on board with the AGW alarmists" (which apparently you put yourself in that group) to be "living under a rock" the same thing as simply alleging "humanly influenced climate change is a no so far-fetched proposition."

In your world, is there a respectable climate science beside the exploding kids and the quirky court cases?

I don't know how to answer that. I don't consider exploding kids and declaring climate alarmism a religion to be "science" of any sort...let alone a respectable one.

Does it have anything to contribute to our understanding of the world's climate?

You mean can we use scientific study to further human understanding of the climates of Earth? I don't see why not. But I also don't see what this has to do with what we're talking about.

Or do we have to resort to guilt-by-association rhetorics to discredit their findings, lest the objective correctness of our own world view be threatened?

I still am not sure what you're talking about. I don't know what "guilt-by-association" you're speaking of. The "science" that has been at the forefront of the vast majority of this "global cooling, no wait global warming, no wait, nevermind, climate change" alarmism has proven itself to be inconclusive at best...all the way up to downright fraudulent. This contention is supported by the "scientists" who act more like conspirators and sabateurs (than truth-seekers employing a logical methodology) in their private communication and treatment of their "research".

My worldview requires alleged scientific claims to be demonstrated in a scientific manner, and does not simply assume that anything anyone deemed an "expert" says is gospel (and I mean that in the most figurative, as well as the most religious sense possible...as has been established, we are now dealing with a bona-fide religion.)

So again I'm confused as to where this "threat" to my worldview would come from. Unless of course you consider blind acceptance (on a large scale) of incredibly alarming claims (with titanic implications) from people who are literally willing to condemn human beings to death in favor of their faith, a "threat", then yeah. I guess I would probably agree, such behavior is a threat to my (what I would consider) much more reasoned, logical, and rational worldview...as, if more and more people come to accept the former as "reasoned, logical, and rational", I do see the possibility of something like my worldview (which rejects such nonsense) to fade or disappear completely. Especially if the psychos are willing to murder people for it.

Sphairon:
In all earnestness, have you ever even tried to make an objective comparison? Contrasted the number of geophysical scientists who openly advocate AGW positions to those who deny any major link? Compared the number of articles in favor of AGW to those critical of it?

In all earnestness, no, because I'm quite sure it's irrelevant. I was just playing your game. Since you brought up my worldview, I'll refer back to that. In my view, the popularity of any idea does not in any way affect its validity or level of truth. It was the majority opinion of 15th century "experts" that there was nothing but water between Europe and India. Less than 200 years ago it was the majority opinion of "experts" that bloodletting was a proper treatment to prevent inflammation of open wounds, and that it was a potential cure for illness.

Again, the number of "experts" who agree to some claim does not impress me, nor does it convince me of the truth or validity of the claim. Evidently, in your worldview (and that of many others) this is not the case. You evidently believe that as long as enough socially awkward people who wear white coats and glasses make a claim, that makes it true. I don't. If you think that makes my view flawed, or false, or somehow inferior to yours, then I'm not sure what else to say.

you'll find that AGW skepticism is a minority position

So was heliocentrism in 3rd century BC, germ theory in the 19th century, and Austrian Business Cycle Theory today. That doesn't make them any less valid.

your assertions of "unfounded hysteria, political persecution, and fraud" are basically completely absent in academic discourse.

...perhaps because the "academic discourse" you speak of is largely where the unfounded hysteria, political persecution, and fraud are stemming from?

Re: Global Warming

Sphairon — Tue, 08 May 2012 02:52:23 GMT

John James:
So anyone who isn't suing in court to get their climate change beliefs legally declared a religion, or making/spreading propaganda featuring children to who aren't motivated to go along with it being literally blown up by their teacher is "living under a rock".

Interestingly, I'm not even on board with the AGW alarmists. I just find it funny that you react to the really not so far-fetched proposition of humanly influenced climate change with such vitriolic anger.

In your world, is there a respectable climate science beside the exploding kids and the quirky court cases? Does it have anything to contribute to our understanding of the world's climate? Or do we have to resort to guilt-by-association rhetorics to discredit their findings, lest the objective correctness of our own world view be threatened?

John James:
I think I'm probably more sorry to inform you that there are many world-renowned scientists (even in the field of climatology) who do not live under rocks [...]

In all earnestness, have you ever even tried to make an objective comparison? Contrasted the number of geophysical scientists who openly advocate AGW positions to those who deny any major link? Compared the number of articles in favor of AGW to those critical of it?

I'll even grant you some leeway with regard to the echo chamber effect of peer review and all that. But even then, you'll find that AGW skepticism is a minority position, and that your assertions of "unfounded hysteria, political persecution, and fraud" are basically completely absent in academic discourse.

Re: Global Warming

John James — Tue, 08 May 2012 00:15:51 GMT

From Jonathan Catalán:

While I apologize for another link to my blog, I think people might find this interesting: Greenhouse Externalities. Its a brief explanation of externality logic and why AGW doesn't call for what its proponents have been asking for in terms of redistributive justice.

Re: Global Warming

Autolykos — Mon, 07 May 2012 23:37:11 GMT

LogisticEarth:
Two problems with this.

Firstly, emitters not in areas affected by the negative effects of climate change will see little direct costs. Insurance companies that cover costal areas or other hazardous regions do not have to be the same that are covering, for example, inland emitters. In your vaccination example, the insuree is directly reducing thier own potential for disease, and as such it makes sense for ANY insurance company to give a discount. However, if you're insuring a factory in Denver against flooding, it's not going to matter how much CO2 they emit directly, so an insurance company not heavily invested in areas made hazardous by climate shifts doesn't have much incentive to give a discount to an inland factory that reduces it's greehouse gas emissions.

That's a very good point, and one that I, in my haste, admittedly did not consider. A partial way around it would be for regional and/or global consortiums of insurance companies to agree to charge higher premiums for wanton emitters, but in the absence of paying out global-warming claims themselves, I don't think it makes good business sense for them to do that.

LogisticEarth:
Secondly, and more importantly, while insurance could hypothetically increase costs for the emitters, those funds are not transferred to those who are affected by negative climate shifts. It's like the government fining an organization for fraud and using the money for whatever purpose it wants. Instead, it should be going to the victims to redistribute resources to the rightful owners. This is key if we want to claim that any solution will lead to a just society.

Another very good point. It's true that the higher premium payments wouldn't go to people already victimized by negative climate shifts, but it would help insurance companies pay out such claims in the future, which is better than nothing IMO.

Your point about a "just society" is intriguing to me. What would you say that is?

Regarding the redistribution of resources to the rightful owners, I think an analogy can be drawn with smoking. Assuming that definite causal links have just been found between smoking and later dying of certain diseases, do you think tobacco companies are now liable for past deaths from those diseases? If so, which ones - or all of them?

Re: Global Warming

John James — Mon, 07 May 2012 22:32:42 GMT

Sphairon:
a problem that is a major concern to anybody who isn't living under a rock.

Oh I get it. So anyone who isn't suing in court to get their climate change beliefs legally declared a religion, or making/spreading propaganda featuring children to who aren't motivated to go along with it being literally blown up by their teacher is "living under a rock". Got it.

I'm sorry to inform you that a non-climatologist who writes about climatology without even referencing his sources will not be taken seriously by anyone who isn't just reading it to validate their own world view.

I think I'm probably more sorry to inform you that there are many world-renowned scientists (even in the field of climatology) who do not live under rocks, and nonetheless do not find "global cooling/global warming/climate change" to be a "major concern"...rather in fact, refute the claims made by expert climatologists like Al Gore and assert that the entire concept is largely a result of unfounded hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

The paper I referenced uses the scientific consensus

I'm sorry, there's a "scientific consensus"? When did this happen? Where did all the climate scientists sign such a thing? Surely you're not talking about the IPCC reports...

drawing from the same sources the statists use to prescribe taxation and bans.

I fail to see how accepting an assertion for the sake of argument implies anything other than a hypothetical extrapolation...for the sake of argument.

though it does come with a number of pitfalls.

...kind of like the entire AGW assertion.

Re: Global Warming

xahrx — Mon, 07 May 2012 21:57:45 GMT

Re: Global Warming

Sphairon — Mon, 07 May 2012 20:34:38 GMT

Thanks, Kakugo and Autolykos, for your ideas and thank you, LogisticEarth, for that paper. I'll be sure to incorporate your suggestions into my future answers. The ideological climate on SA is certainly completely different from the libertarian blogs and forums that I usually frequent, so I'm trying hard not to alienate them by fixating on concepts they either don't understand or generally reject.

John James:
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Woods said "you could be reading Mises.org for articles on climate change". I thought he said "you could be reading."

Yes. I assumed that reading the self-styled primary internet resource on libertarian theory could yield a thoughtful libertarian solution to a problem that is a major concern to anybody who isn't living under a rock. How silly of me.

John James:
And second, I'm curious as to your implication that someone has to be a climatologist before they can legitimately comment on climate science.

I'm sorry to inform you that a non-climatologist who writes about climatology without even referencing his sources will not be taken seriously by anyone who isn't just reading it to validate their own world view.

John James:
Didn't you just get through telling me these were "non-climatologists commenting on climate science"

The paper I referenced uses the scientific consensus, which does appear to be in favor of AGW, as an orientation point for the judicial process. In that sense, it is drawing from the same sources the statists use to prescribe taxation and bans. That was my point.

John James:
Finally, it's interesting how everyone focuses on changing behavior instead of the actual problem, which allegedly is changing the climate.

Geoengineering is an interesting concept. It shouldn't be dismissed a priori, though it does come with a number of pitfalls.

Re: Global Warming

Kakugo — Mon, 07 May 2012 20:16:36 GMT

Wheylous:

Kakugo, are you suggesting a free-market emission market?

No, I was only replying to the original question by making some very generic and stupid examples for the scenario involved.

Re: Global Warming

John James — Mon, 07 May 2012 19:10:19 GMT

Sphairon:
So I'm reading what mises.org has to offer me when I search for "climate change". [...]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Woods said "you could be reading Mises.org for articles on climate change". I thought he said "you could be reading."

If Mises.org offers such poor resources in the way of information, why are you here?

And second, I'm curious as to your implication that someone has to be a climatologist before they can legitimately comment on climate science. LogisticEarth asked if I was trying to pull some same old defense tactic...could you be the one pulling the old "you're not an expert, and if you offer information from experts, they're not experty enough, and since you're not an expert you can't understand their expert information in the first place, so...shut your face about stuff you don't know about, you ignorant rube."?

based, however, on the same "expert opinions" on climate change.

Huh? Didn't you just get through telling me these were "non-climatologists commenting on climate science", and imply that that makes a person unqualified to do such a thing? Maybe we should listen to what "real" experts say in private.

Your threads don't add many new facets.

Thanks, but they're not "my" threads. In fact, you'll find, I have absolutely no input in possibly any of them.

Finally, it's interesting how everyone focuses on changing behavior instead of the actual problem, which allegedly is changing the climate. I'm sure you'll come back with some reason the experts these guys consulted aren't experty enough, but here ya go...

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Global Warming

LogisticEarth — Mon, 07 May 2012 18:19:32 GMT

However, I think insurance companies could pass the cost onto wanton CO2 emitters by increasing their own risk premiums. This would be akin to charging a person who refuses to get vaccinated higher health-insurance premiums. But would this amount to a "carbon tax"? I don't think so, because the wanton emitters would be free to not pay for (as much) insurance. Of course, that would bring its own consequences.

Two problems with this.

Firstly, emitters not in areas affected by the negative effects of climate change will see little direct costs. Insurance companies that cover costal areas or other hazardous regions do not have to be the same that are covering, for example, inland emitters. In your vaccination example, the insuree is directly reducing thier own potential for disease, and as such it makes sense for ANY insurance company to give a discount. However, if you're insuring a factory in Denver against flooding, it's not going to matter how much CO2 they emit directly, so an insurance company not heavily invested in areas made hazardous by climate shifts doesn't have much incentive to give a discount to an inland factory that reduces it's greehouse gas emissions.

Secondly, and more importantly, while insurance could hypothetically increase costs for the emitters, those funds are not transferred to those who are affected by negative climate shifts. It's like the government fining an organization for fraud and using the money for whatever purpose it wants. Instead, it should be going to the victims to redistribute resources to the rightful owners. This is key if we want to claim that any solution will lead to a just society.

Re: Global Warming

Autolykos — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:52:04 GMT

I think the economic effects of global warming in a libertarian world would consist of the following:

1. Declining property values in significantly affected areas - this includes most coastal areas and other areas that become (more) susceptible to flooding, severe weather, and drought. Property values in other areas will increase.

2. Increasing insurance premiums in significantly affected areas - this includes property, health, disability, and life insurance, if not others.

3. Shifting patterns of food production and distribution.

4. Shifting patterns of human habitation.

Even if it were established that global warming is primarily, if not solely, caused by human activity in this libertarian world, I don't think it could be reasonably established that any resulting economic damages constitute torts, as those require specific individuals (however many) to be held liable. The logistics alone of conducting lawsuits against thousands, if not millions, of individuals would be cost-prohibitive. However, I think insurance companies could pass the cost onto wanton CO2 emitters by increasing their own risk premiums. This would be akin to charging a person who refuses to get vaccinated higher health-insurance premiums. But would this amount to a "carbon tax"? I don't think so, because the wanton emitters would be free to not pay for (as much) insurance. Of course, that would bring its own consequences.

Re: Global Warming

LogisticEarth — Mon, 07 May 2012 16:00:18 GMT

Spharion, here's an interesting, if not strictly libertarian, solution that's based on market pricing and doesn't involve trading carbon credits or other complicated schemes:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf

Basicaly, the idea would be to have a carbon emission tax that is transferred into a dividend payment that is paid out ot each individual, regadless of need. Obivously this has lots of issues and isn't consistent with the NAP, but it does minimize the problems with regulatory capture, and uses the power of the price system to work things out. Food for thought.

Remember that the discussion over there is very focused on real practical problems, and they don't share the theorectical framework of libertarianism. That is, the moral grounds, praxeology (95% of the posters there have a poor understanding about it's role), etc. It can therefore be pretty tricky if you're attempting to talk about hypotheical theory and they keep hammering away about "how to fix problem X". Remember that theory is the framework that we work within while dealing with the "real world". As such, climate change and human production of greenhouse gasses can be framed as sort of a "lifeboat situation", where a 100% just outcome may not be possible in the real world. If emitters are allowed to continue unabated, then those affected by that aggression are being treated unjustly. If we implement a state solution, then those who are being regulated aren't being treated justly. It's a lose-lose. The question then is, how do we come up with the best, most moral, and most economically efficient solution with the tools that we have.

We're living in an imperfect world and starting from an unjust starting point, remember that. Also, remember that the peope you're talking to over there have a totally different moral and economic theory. Keep that in mind as you formulate your arguments, otherwise you'll lose them. For example, I'm of the belief that anarchy/voluntarism is the morally best system we can have, but I don't neccessarily advocate for exploding the state in one day, as that would lead to a large amount of injustice. Practically speaking, I'm in favor of rolling back the welfare and regulatory state and implementing a universal basic income in it's place. IF we are stuck with a state, and we have to deal with the unjust mess that is human history and current capital/property distribution, then we simply have to do the best we can within it. Jessica Flannigan over on BleedingHeartLibertarians had a good peice on this the other day:

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/bhls-ubis/