Political Theory

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

TokyoTom — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:28:53 GMT

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/.

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

Donny with an A — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:27:43 GMT

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

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

TokyoTom — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:21:27 GMT

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.

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

Donny with an A — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:50:41 GMT

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?

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:20:20 GMT

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.

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

Donny with an A — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:09:40 GMT

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."

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:20:33 GMT

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.

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:17:03 GMT

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

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.

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

TokyoTom — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:18:33 GMT

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

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

TokyoTom — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:14:18 GMT

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"):

http://blog.mises.org/archives/004842.asp

I am curious as to what you've written on discounting.

Sincerely,

Tom

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

Donny with an A — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:38:23 GMT

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.

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

TokyoTom — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:18:30 GMT

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,

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

TokyoTom — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 07:21:26 GMT

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

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

Donny with an A — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 05:45:25 GMT

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

Re: Rights, Harm, and Climate Change

Donny with an A — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:30:57 GMT

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.