Hermann Goering on Anthropogenic Global Warming

hjmaiere: 

"anthropogenic global warming is a manufactured issue, selected specifically for its ability to slough off `libertarian approaches.`"

While I respect your suspicions (as I have repeatedly acknowledged, unfortunately with a big government politics is now full of rent-seeking), this assertion runs fairly close to paranioa.  Beware the frumious bandersnatch, my friend!  The fact that you aren`t convinced does not push everyone who disagrees with you into either the class of those who have "manufactured" this issue - use "strained and contrived" science, "outright lies", "appeals to authority and scare tactics" - or the sheep.  There IS some real science behind climate change, as a even quick look at skeptics arguments indicates.

"selected specifically for its ability to slough off `libertarian approaches.`" 

Now what is THAT supposed to mean?  That the global warmers are so frightened by libertarian arguments and the powerful presence of rational libertarians on the policy scene (I`m mean, look how effective libertarians in checking the general abuse of government under Bush) they they specifically came up with the AGW argument so they could persuade everyone NOT to listen to the libertarians?  Hardly.  If you`re suggesting that it is not too easy to apply libertarian insights to climate change, then perhaps you might have a point.  Certainly libertarian and Austrian insights are potent and central - that if there is a problem, it is one that relates to either resources that are unowned, or for which there are no clear or enforceable property rights (and limited ability to homestead), or which are purportedly "public" resources and so mismanaged and/or abused by rent-seekers.  But are you simply throwing up your hands at what Cordato calls the "hard cases"?

Environmentalism itself has clearly been called upon to play the role of civil religion.

This is rather sheer nonsense.  Only you are rational and good, and everyone else around the world is either a scoundrel in a frock or a Kool-aid swallower?

as political discourse is concerned, the only real point to be made is that the nature of the State is such that the institutionalization of authority in any form sufficient to address anthropogenic global warming would only do far more harm than anthropogenic global warming itself could possibly do. More importantly, it already does.

You might have a good argument here, but unless you`re content to confine your voice to an echo chamber, this is just a start, and it is hardly "the only real point".  Libertarians need to be engaged more proactively than this.  Yandle has some good suggestions, as I have noted elsewhere.

Ugh...please do me a favor and read this: http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-does-it-mean-to-advocate-market.html

 

Anthropocentric global warming theory is nothing but a massive conflation of causation with correlation. Species were going extinct, continents were crumbling into the sea and the temperature of the globe was fluctuating in massive cycles, long before human beings even invented the wheel, much less the internal combustion engine. Just because we're here now doesn't mean that we're responsible this time around, for things that were happening before we were even a factor.

How about thinking about the issue this way:

Imagine that there were a phenomenon which had all the features which the mainstream attributes to global climate change, except that in our imaginary scenario, we would know that it was occurring.  What would the proper libertarian response be to such a phenomenon, if such a thing were to exist?

 

Of course there's no such thing as 'proper libertarian response'. In a free society the workings of the market tend to 'solve' all the problems that people think need to be solved. And a basic libertarian insight is that nobody can foresee how these 'problems' will be soved.

On the other hand I wonder why some people are obsessed with trying to come up with 'libertarian' solutions for non-problems, instead of, say, coming up with ideas to drastically limit, or abolish government.

We can speculate, can we not? After all, libertarians do spend time seeing how property can be used to resolve a variety of problems, and definitely do not shy away from advancing theories as to how the market may handle defence.

Juan, by the reasoning you just advanced, the entire political theory section of this site is completely purposeless.  The answer to all questions would be, "However the individuals involved decide to do it."  What I meant by a "libertarian response" is that where rights are being violated, the appropriate libertarian response would be to acknowledge the violation, and perhaps to offer suggestions as to how those violations might be dealt with in a just manner.

 Donny with and A, what if global warming was addressed by courts in a tort like manner? I think I might understand your theory on the rights of carbon dioxide emissions if it means that you do not have an inherent right to release more than your natural biological needs (essentially all emissions without technological use). After that everything else might be up for review by courts IF it is proven it causes a certain level of damage. Is that what you have meant by carbon emission rights?

Unfortunately I will not be able to see this response tonight since I must now head out but I will check it out tomorrow.

Deist:

I think I might understand your theory on the rights of carbon dioxide emissions if it means that you do not have an inherent right to release more than your natural biological needs (essentially all emissions without technological use)

 

 

To clarify I mean specifically bodily emissions of CO2 having the inherent right since how would you live without that right. But other technological uses, such as cars can be demanded of having some form of technology limiting it's emissions by court liability orders.

I'm not completely sure what I think the best answer is, actually.  That's part of the reason it's so frustrating that people won't actually engage the issue; I'm writing my thesis on this, and although it's due in two weeks, I don't know what my conclusion should be!

Something I have strong intuitions about, but no completely thought out structure regarding, is the idea that if some people emit a whole lot of CO2 in order to maintain lavish, luxurious lifestyles, and other people emit just enough to satisfy their basic needs, and climate change wouldn't occur if everyone only emitted enough to satisfy their basic needs, then the entire responsibility for causing climate change should fall on the people who emitted the large quantities.  Does that make sense?  I guess I can't spell it out more coherently than that just yet, but it just seems so intuitively right that I can't bring myself to accept a view which doesn't accommodate it.

 I will not be able to give this response the most detail since I presently am at work. I might be in danger of boring people to death since I have said this so much but I believe a court based, common law tort approach could be very effective in making people and companies be more aware of the carbon they emit since they would be liable under precedent.

For instance even if you only left a little bit of litter on someones property your still liabile for it. This litter approach could easily be used in issues such as individual car use on the roads and carbon emission. The courts cases could easily implement certain technologies to be applied to car owners if they want to avoid liability. Now the courts could not force all people to do this (unless they are sent to court) but since they all would be liable in court the incentive is great to cover up your liability. This is why companies and others have applied certain technologies to their production in the past, in order to prevent torts. Now if your a car owner and someone for some reason takes you to court since they suspect your car emits a certain level of carbon (more than is needed) the court will see if you have taken the proper "Duty of care". If they find you have not or if you fail to live up to past court precedents for liability you will face a judgment.

Now do you want this to be approached in a Minarchist or Anarchist manner? I think in an anarchist manner the court system alone would be able to handle it. In a minarchist manner the courts would still be able to deal with it but maybe you could have legislation creating liability and maybe setting specified fines and punishments (and nothing more) to help with the process if the government courts fail to tackle the issue.

Also as you and I have talked about I think a stronger push for free trade will create better resource conservation and prevent alot of government subsidized deforestration in the third world.

TokyoTom:

hjmaiere: 

"anthropogenic global warming is a manufactured issue, selected specifically for its ability to slough off `libertarian approaches.`"

While I respect your suspicions (as I have repeatedly acknowledged, unfortunately with a big government politics is now full of rent-seeking), this assertion runs fairly close to paranioa. [...]

I didn't mean the theory of global warming via anthropogenic CO2 was deliberately invented from whole cloth for its political utility. I meant that a whole lot of both conscious and unconscious effort has gone into establishing and maintaining its (entirely artificial) status as a primary political issue of our time, specifically for its service to the institutionalization of political authority. (My claim is more nuanced than that, but I would only be repeating myself.)

 

TokyoTom:

[...] There IS some real science behind climate change, as a even quick look at skeptics arguments indicates. [...]

I can't claim I read everything referenced, but poking around randomly, I saw no "real science." I'm not going to waste time addressing each of the ten or so pages I visited, but l will pick one because its topic was something I happen to know a little about, and refuting it automatically refutes several others:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/223942/43

Contrary to the article's claim, weather is indeed 'chaotic' in the very real and formal sense that there is no such thing as average weather. This means very specifically that you can consider any measurable aspect of the weather, take a moving average over any timescale you want, and you will never get a straight line. This doesn't mean that the weather isn't the consequence of deterministic natural forces—of course we have seasons for a reason. It does mean that the weather is always changing, and that changes in the weather can't be used as proof of anything.

What this means as a practical matter is that if you hear someone say something like "anthropogenic atmospheric particulate matter is causing a cooling effect that is masking the true magnitude of the warming effect of anthropogenic CO2," you can be sure that they're making it up as they go along, and all they really care about is blaming the weather on humans no matter what the weather is actually doing at the moment.

TokyoTom:

[...] If you`re suggesting that it is not too easy to apply libertarian insights to climate change, then perhaps you might have a point. [...]

Not quite. I'm suggesting that the issue gets the attention it does exactly for its ability to distract people from libertarian insights. The problem is not that government doesn't properly enforce property rights. The problem is government itself—the territorial monopoly on the institutionalized use of coercion.

 

TokyoTom:

hjmaiere:

 

Environmentalism itself has clearly been called upon to play the role of civil religion.

This is rather sheer nonsense.  Only you are rational and good, and everyone else around the world is either a scoundrel in a frock or a Kool-aid swallower?

[...]

The 'religious' notion that consumption and material prosperity is evil in and of itself is a common theme recurring throughout history—long before the now-ubiquitous call to "reduce our carbon footprint." There is reason to believe this eschatological tendendency is built into the psyche of everyone to one degree or another. We should expect that it would take root in some form or another just beyond the fringes of our scientific understanding. It always has.

 

 On the other hand I wonder why some people are obsessed with trying to come up with 'libertarian' solutions for non-problems, instead of, say, coming up with ideas to drastically limit, or abolish government.

Juan, the focus of Austrian economics with relation to environmental conflict is a problem-solving one, as I have pointed out many times:  http://mises.org/Community/controlpanel/blogs/posteditor.aspx?SelectedNavItem=Posts&sectionid=31&postid=1381.  Libertarians are actively at work trying to solve environmental problems by promoting environmental markets - and pushing for regulatory, legal and institutional changes that clarify property rights, strenthen enforcement mechanisms and lower transaction costs:  http://www.perc.org/.  The people who are interested in pushing "libertarian" approaches want to work for solutions to problems that they perceive - and to forestall other "solutions" that they see as  counterproductive.  These people may seem "obsessed" to you, but they simply have their own preferences.  You, of course, are entitled to your own preferences, but looking at everyone who has different preferences than you as an enemy does not seem to be a productive style of engagement.

Even with those you disagree with most strongly, there is plenty of room for discussion and agreement on middle ground that would represent an advance of the libertarian agenda - such as deregulation of power markets, elimination of energy subsidies and of depreciation allowances, freer trade and immigration, etc.  The "enviro" agenda presents many opportunities for libertarians with enough confidence to seek them.

You:  I didn't mean the theory of global warming via anthropogenic CO2 was deliberately invented from whole cloth for its political utility. I meant that a whole lot of both conscious and unconscious effort has gone into establishing and maintaining its (entirely artificial) status as a primary political issue of our time, specifically for its service to the institutionalization of political authority.

If the theory of global warming via anthropogenic CO2 was NOT deliberately invented from whole cloth for its political utility, then you appear to be conceding that there MIGHT be something to it from a scientific ground.  But since you immediately thereafter advise that you see "no 'real science'", it  seems to be that we're back to your posiition that there is NOTHING to AGW, other than rent-seeking.  Sorry, that is just a little to dismissive of what other people say they think and prefer for me to buy.

Sure, "a whole lot of both conscious and unconscious effort has gone into establishing and maintaining ... [AGW] ... as a primary political issue of our time".  And sure, some are engaged on this effort in order to further institutionalize political authority.  But is that why everybody - or even most people - are interested in AGW?  I think not.  I think that they're interested because they see a problem, and one not easily solved.

Sure, addressing climate change is difficult, but that doesn't mean we should then deny the issue or direct ourselves mainly at the motives of those who profess concern. This was noted recently by Steven Hayward of the AEI, in his piece "Is 'Conservative Environmentalist' an Oxymoron?" ...
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.22934/pub_detail.asp

"The environmentalists are making noises because there are obvious market failure, tragedy of the commons issues that confront us, and very little is being done to address them. We can tell the environmentalists that they do not understand the institutional underpinnings of the problem or the appropriate cure, but responsibility lies in acknowledging that a number of problems exist that we should be working to cure."

You:  This doesn't mean that the weather isn't the consequence of deterministic natural forces—of course we have seasons for a reason.

If there are deterministic "natural" influences on the climate, can there be deterministic human influences on the climate?  Or should we embrace as without any possible consequence the prospect of restoring to the atmosphere the CO2 that has been locked away for millions of years and bring atmospheric CO2 to levels not seen since the age of the dinosaurs?  Should we also abandon as sheer, unscientific fantasy any hope of ever terraforming Mars?

The 'religious' notion that consumption and material prosperity is evil in and of itself is a common theme recurring throughout history—long before the now-ubiquitous call to "reduce our carbon footprint." There is reason to believe this eschatological tendendency is built into the psyche of everyone to one degree or another. We should expect that it would take root in some form or another just beyond the fringes of our scientific understanding.

Interesting point, but I'm not sure I agree - it's easy enough to point to how wasteful people are with resources when they are extremely abundant.  But if there is such a predilection, don't you suppose it is there because it is evolutionarily advantageous - and serves the purpose of moving a community of users when resources start to seem scarce from a position of unregulated free-for-all access to one of community property that is subject to agreed terms of use?  Yandle addresses some of these issues here:  http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/Article.Asp?Aid=4064

Regards,

Tom

This was noted recently by...John Smith....of the AEI

American Enterprise Institute ? Isn't that the headquarters of neoconservative 'thought' ?

TokyoTom:

[...]

Sure, "a whole lot of both conscious and unconscious effort has gone into establishing and maintaining ... [AGW] ... as a primary political issue of our time".  And sure, some are engaged on this effort in order to further institutionalize political authority.  But is that why everybody - or even most people - are interested in AGW?  I think not.  I think that they're interested because they see a problem, and one not easily solved.

[...]

Since it's the point I've been trying to make all along, I'll repeat it more bluntly one last time. People are interested in anthropogenic global warming because they subconsciously want it to be true. So they tell each other scary campfire stories, skillfully embellishing them with scientific jargon, nodding their heads in reassuring tribal consensus that something can and must be done about the situation. But spending taxpayer money collecting circumstantial evidence that reinforces your preconceptions is not science. Postulating contrived chains of causal relationships is not science. Inferring global cloud cover from 19th-century maritime logs is not science. Argument from authority is not science. Most importantly, any argument that assumes what you claim is proved is not science.

The interesting conversation is about why people want anthropogenic global warming to be true. It was the discussion I was hoping to have when I started this thread. But like the discussion about why the U.S. really invaded Iraq, it is culturally and institutionally off limits.

 

hjmaiere:

The interesting conversation is about why people want anthropogenic global warming to be true.

 

I don't think it has to do with tribal instincts at all. I think this whole global warming thing is just the latest embodiment of the anti-capitalist mentality. It seems to be motivated by plain old envy. Some people just hate the fact that others are better off than they are. They think that they are equally deserving if not more so than their material betters and that the current distribution of wealth is the result of some injustice. Any idea that the creation of wealth is some form of sin and there is a need to redistribute income or punish the capitalist euntrepreneurs is inherently attractive to people, and AWG fits the bill.

 hjmaiere:

People are interested in anthropogenic global warming because they subconsciously want it to be true. So they tell each other scary campfire stories, skillfully embellishing them with scientific jargon, nodding their heads in reassuring tribal consensus that something can and must be done about the situation. ... The interesting conversation is about why people want anthropogenic global warming to be true.

You know, as I've said before, I think that this is an astute and perfectly fair observation.  It cautions us that we should always be aware of "predator", "bogeyman" and "good guy-bad guy" stories.  We do love these stories; it's a constant theme in movies, for example.  But stories like this resonate with us for a reason:  they appeal to us to act cooperatively, to the point of self-sacrifice on behalf of others, to cope with shared threats that societies did confront over the course of human history.

You also added previously another excellent point - that our susceptibility to horror stories renders us vulnerable to manipulation by elites - priests, rulers and demagogues who profit by stirring us up and maintaining our vigilance against supposed threats.

But of course your purpose here is not at all to provide us with anthropological insights, but to take the position that, simply because we are receptive to stories of external threats, that such alleged threats are all frauds.  That, I am afraid, is a logical fallacy and simply doesn't fly.  The fact that there are elites that want to manipulate us doesn't mean that there are no actual threats.

like the discussion about why the U.S. really invaded Iraq, it is culturally and institutionally off limits.

Malarkey.  We've been talking about climate change for going on forty years now, including the question of what motivates practically everybody - and the Mises community at least has certainly been examining why we invaded Iraq.

But spending taxpayer money collecting circumstantial evidence that reinforces your preconceptions is not science. Postulating contrived chains of causal relationships is not science.

Neither is it "science" to write off wholesale what scientists around the world say, including virtually every national academy of science and every domestic scientific body with relevant expertise, or to attack a strawman that all these scientists do is to postulate chains of causal relationships.  Nor is it science to ignore facts regarding the changes in climate and seasons, or all of the voluntary efforts by individuals, corporations and groups to change their own behavior regarding the atmosphere.

What you've really done - entirely consistent with the predilections and reactions of much of the Mises community - is to construct a meta-horror story, where there is no climate change, simply monsters who want to such us dry.  But you really can't sustain your premise, can you?  Is everyone in on the conspiracy but a few clear-headed thinkers like you?

And while you're weaving your conspiracy meme, have you forgotten just what Austrian insights tell us is the chief institutional dynamic behind so-called "environmental" problems - that these are simply conflicts over preferences relating to resources that can't be worked out in the marketplace because of a lack of clear or enforceable property rights?

Juan, if you'd trouble to read Hayward, you'd see that he actually agrees with much of what hjmaiere has to say (which shows that criticism of the "sky is falling" approach is not by any means unique or off-limits). 

But I understand; you share hjmaiere's "let's be afraid of the enviros and everyone else" meme, and enjoy the reflexive reactions it stimulates.  For that reason, you should really steer clear of work like Hayward's, which takes the position that, despite the fact that enviros over-react and frequently suggest counterproductive approaches to environmental issues, there are indeed real issues that should be addressed - and not necessarily by government.

Stephen Forde:

 

hjmaiere:

The interesting conversation is about why people want anthropogenic global warming to be true.

I don't think it has to do with tribal instincts at all. I think this whole global warming thing is just the latest embodiment of the anti-capitalist mentality. It seems to be motivated by plain old envy. Some people just hate the fact that others are better off than they are. [...]

While this does indeed describe too many people, it doesn't by itself seem to fully explain things. The Hermann Goerings of the world don't command loyalty merely by promising their cannon fodder material gain. Soldiers fight for reasons that are harder to dismiss than that. I suggest that the social principles at work in wartime, whatever they are, apply just as much to 'civilian' life.

There are obviously people drawn to power who are intelligent, yet simultaneously hold the rest of humanity in genuine contempt. They don't need knives and guns to rob and murder. From the mid-level drug dealer, to the morally-challenged corporate bigwig, to state figureheads and their hidden handlers, they get other people to rob and murder for them.

There are just as obviously people drawn to power who seem to be motivated by an honest desire to do good. Of course the system tends to weed out those who aren't at least partially corruptible, never mind that government—by its very nature—can only do more harm than good.

But there are many people not in direct command of political power, who, to one degree or another, secretly imagine themselves disaffected members of the intellectual elite. They vote, they listen to NPR, they buy local and organic, and they honestly believe that the only real problem with government is that it happens to be in the wrong hands. What needs explaining is how they can think this in the face of so much logic and history to the contrary. How are these people so unwittingly engaged in the service of the plutocracy? How do their ranks manage to extend well beyond those employed directly by the State itself?

People clearly do routinely invest some portion of their sense of identity and self-worth in the 'tribe' whether that tribe be their family, their football team, their religion or their rejection thereof, their political affiliation, their country, or their status as fellow caretaker of the earth itself. And the plutocracy operates through the conflation of political authority with the voice of tribal consensus.

hjmaiere:

But there are many people not in direct command of political power, who, to one degree or another, secretly imagine themselves disaffected members of the intellectual elite. They vote, they listen to NPR, they buy local and organic, and they honestly believe that the only real problem with government is that it happens to be in the wrong hands. What needs explaining is how they can think this in the face of so much logic and history to the contrary.

Because most people aren't very logical and find that life works better when they allow a trusted sovereign to make the big decisions.  Then they get victimized by the Goerings.  The direction of the pack is chosen by the pack leader, for good or ill (usually ill, since the worst get on top).

I rather dislike digging up topics, but it seems like this one's reached no satisfying conclusion as of yet.

I've pondered over a libertarian approach to a problem like AGW for quite a while, but every solution which comes to mind involves force as a necessary component or is inherently ineffective.

One thing I've recently learned about is the carbon credit card. Everyone is supposed to be given their fair share of the atmosphere for free use, but every further pollution needs to be purchased at some central distribution station. To make sure nobody cheats, every carbon-producing activity must be put on the credit card's record, or else punishment may occur. Of course, the implications of such a measure are, to say the least, disturbing. Total abolition of privacy, probably government (who else could do the job of distributing shares?) control over major parts of one's life, the difficulty of defining a fair share and so on. The atmosphere is treated as a commons in that system, but I'm not sure how else it could be defined.

Voluntary solutions to the problem collide with the principle of incentives. I have an incentive to drive a car instead of walking. Instead of running a carbon-clean business, I have an incentive to purchase as little filtering equipment as possible. Even if some customers consciously bought carbon-clean products only, a substantial part of the population would still enjoy riding V8 trucks and buying cheaply produced goods.

The traditional way of restricting pollution doesn't apply here either. A factory polluting my piece of dirt can easily be traced and sued, but AGW is a result of humanity's combined efforts, if you'd like to say so. Everybody, and therefore nobody, can be blamed. If my island sinks due to rising sea levels, who am I going to sue? Everybody? Nobody.

While AGW summits are popping up every other day, while AGW is slowly becoming a major player in popular conscience, libertarians can't seem to figure out a position to be set against the usual statist propositions. It appears like AGW is the statist torpedo against libertarianism.

Let's think, folks. Real hard.

Agreed, but the statists don't have much of worth to contribute so far either. A lot of their schemes involve immense coercion at high costs for little gain. I think the problem is quite general, rather than specific to libertarianism. We just need to think of a better solution than the nonsense advocated by statists. Something I'm going to read up on this year for my applied ethics course.

-Jon 

Sphairon:

While AGW summits are popping up every other day, while AGW is slowly becoming a major player in popular conscience, libertarians can't seem to figure out a position to be set against the usual statist propositions. It appears like AGW is the statist torpedo against libertarianism.

 

I don't agree. AWG is not much different than other air pollution problems. I think if one wants to come up with a libertatian solution, one should start with "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution" by Murray Rothbard and "Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights" by Walter Block. An issue like flooding could be prosecuted as a nuisance. Of course the burden of proof would always be on the plaintiff, and something incredibly more rigorous than anything the IPCC has done would be required to proove beyond a reasonable doubt that any particular polluters caused the flooding of one`s land. And untill it is possible to proove that a polluter`s actions constitute a nuisance, AWG ought to be considered a non-legal issue.

Jon Irenicus:

A lot of their schemes involve immense coercion at high costs for little gain.

As they always do. What's troubling about AGW or the politicized environmental movement in general is the moral urgency environmentalists attach to their demands. "If we don't act now, our children will suffer". I've had conversations with people who have seriously bought into the AGW scheme, and this has become highest priority to them. Cut GHG emissions, whatever be the cost. A person with such a mindset wouldn't object to your point made above.

Stephen Forde:

AWG is not much different than other air pollution problems.

In fact, it is. Here's why:

According to Austrian property rights theory, as far as I understand it, pollution is not considered a legal problem unless it happens on the expense of another person's property. That means I can run a dirty factory in the desert as long as only my property suffers damage. GHG emissions are different as they don't tend to stick to your property, but rather slip into the atmosphere and from there, possibly change the climate situation for everybody (if AGW theory turns out to be true).

Furthermore, the implications of CO2 being a main climate driver are staggering. This suggests humans cannot possibly exist without having a harmful effect on somebody's property, as human breathing and almost all industrialized activity require emitting CO2. As Ego pointed out earlier, having children would be equivalent to willingly causing climate alterations. Regardless of whether warming might be beneficial or not, such a proposition provokes a fundamental conflict with the NAP, as humans couldn't keep on living without generating unwanted changes to virtually everybody's property. As I said, everybody's guilty according to AGW.

Stephen Forde:

An issue like flooding could be prosecuted as a nuisance.

And who would be prosecuted? General Motors? OPEC? The international SUV drivers' club?

Stephen Forde:

Of course the burden of proof would always be on the plaintiff, and something incredibly more rigorous than anything the IPCC has done would be required to proove beyond a reasonable doubt that any particular polluters caused the flooding of one`s land.

Even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, the IPCC conclusions to be true, suing a single person or company would be gravely insufficient due to the carbon-bound nature of mankind. You can't just blame an individual for a process caused by many collaborating factors and for that matter, by humanity's combined efforts as well.

That leaves us with two choices:

1) Stick to the status quo and defend the externalization of GHG effects because it would be impossible to call all culprits to account

2) Enforce property rights and bar anyone from alterting the climate, which is impossible due to man's carbon-bound way of life


Possible, if unlikely solutions from my view would be:

1) Homestead the atmosphere. Admit an equal share of the atmosphere's absorbing capacity to every human being which may only be exceeded if new absorbing capacity is purchased from other humans. This is based on the idea of a carbon credit card, however I have been unable so far to figure out how the given limitations on CO2 use could be enforced without totally losing privacy. Basically, I see the same problems as the carbon credit card faces.

2) As with nuclear power plants, demand the owners of GHG emitting facilities store their (bottled?) GHGs on their own property instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. Maybe somebody will find a use for it which doesn't involve altering the climate. You could use it in greenhouses, for example. Of course, major parts of the world economy are based on GHG emitting ways of production because this used to be the cheapest and most convenient way of producing, so the initial shift would be significant. Cars, for example, would have to be converted to other engine types which don't emit GHG gases.

This method doesn't solve the problem of human breathing, if you consider it to be a problem at all. Should human breathing get a free pass to alter climate? I know it sounds silly initially, but if we make one exception, this might cause the whole idea to collapse if we don't put good reasoning behind it. Should natural processes be exempt from restrictions? What, to be graphic, if I pee into somebody's rose garden in spite of better facilities?

Well, I fear I'm getting too much into the absurd. So I'd like to hear your evaluations.

 

 

Sphairon:

Well, I fear I'm getting too much into the absurd. So I'd like to hear your evaluations.

This is basically a reposting:

 

 

 

The issue of anthropogenic climate change is the same in principle to any pollution problem. Anyone has the right to pollute as much as they want so long as they do not damage anyone else’s property or interfere with their use of it. This problem is similar to regular air pollution or water pollution.

 

If there is only a small amount of pollution, property owners will not even notice it, and have no right to complain, since any aggression would have to be noticeable. Some of the pollutants are absorbed by the environment as well. No aggression can take place unless the polluter releases more pollutant than can be absorbed and that will make a noticeable negative impact on the victim’s property. We can call the limit below which no aggression takes place, the threshold of aggression.

 

In terms of justice, numbers do not matter. It is just as much a crime if a whole city pollutes one man’s water supply, as if one man were to pollute a whole city’s. It may be impractical to enforce an injunction on a large scale, but this has nothing to do with justice. A thief will always find it more convenient for him to have your money that for you to. But this has nothing to do with rights, and similarly for large numbers of individuals causing pollution.

 

I would claim that everyone has a right to produce as much CO2 as they please so long as they do not cross the threshold of aggression. The first person to dump CO2 into the air homesteads the right to do so at the same rate indefinitely into the future. The pollution right becomes their property, and they can sell it, trade it, or pass it on to their children.

 

The first person to cross the threshold of aggression is a criminal no matter how little he contributed. Everyone who polluted before him is entirely innocent. Anyone who contributes new pollution beyond the first criminal is guilty of any new damage which is caused. The Rothbardian principle of proportionality in restitution and retribution should apply here.

 

If aggression is not the result of one person’s actions, but the result of many people’s actions, whether acting in concert or not, then they are collectively responsible for restitution, and individually liable to retribution. Any new property producing CO2 beyond the threshold of aggression would also have to be matched by a carbon sink which absorbs at least an equivalent rate.

 

One of the upshots of this is that insurance and legal firms would have incentives to actually figure out the REAL extent of anthropogenic climate change. And they would want to figure it out quickly and accurately. Insurance companies would want to know what the chances are that they would have to pay for their client’s pollution if it should happen to cause a rise in sea levels flooding someone’s home, or making someone’s farm arid and useless. Other insurance firms would want to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that damage to their client’s property was caused by some definite polluter to reduce the amount they would have to pay up. The pricing of risks would allow for economic calculation.

 

This is almost the exact opposite to the way current research is done. The IPCC is an inefficient bureaucracy. Assuming only self-interest, all members of the IPCC have an interest in the growth of their organization. If they were to say that the risks of anthropogenic climate change were small, their organization would receive less funding due to the decrease in perceived importance of their work. If they were to produce conclusive and final research quickly, there would be no more need for their services and they would lose funding. They have no incentive to be fair in their assessment, and every incentive to continue dragging their feet, when it comes to indisputable conclusions.

 

If it were not for their work no one would even bother worrying about climate change. We could imagine in the future, there being new bureaucracies set up by governments or the UN to investigate such threats as meteorites striking the earth, or volcanoes erupting and destroying everything. They would function in a very similar way. They would also perpetuate the perceived need for more research to be done by them.

 

 

With regard to children, their parents are considered their guardians and responsible for the pollution they create. Any increase of the population above the threshold of aggression would have to be paid for by the parents either by buying carbon sinks, or pollution rights.

 

Stephen Forde:

 

 

 

If there is only a small amount of pollution, property owners will not even notice it, and have no right to complain, since any aggression would have to be noticeable.

I wouldn't advocate negligibility as a standard of justice. To illustrate that with an example:

A factory sets up near you and pollutes your land just a little. This causes your corn to grow 0,5% less tall. A hundred years ago, nobody may have noticed due to old-fashioned measurement techniques, but today, my customers may be able to track down exactly what I sell them. If they ordered corn that's five feet tall, they don't want corn which is just 4,975 feet tall.

To use a more AGW-related example: My property is a beach. Due to AGW, sea levels rise just slightly, but enough to cover 0,5% of my property permanently. That may be barely noticeable, but it still happens.

Measurability can develop. The question is, do we treat property rights violations according to measurability? If yes, doesn't that just delay the problem?

(But if you meant to say that AGW may have no harmful effect on peoples' property, I agree. If nothing bad happens, we don't need to argue.)

Stephen Forde:

Some of the pollutants are absorbed by the environment as well.

So we treat "the environment" as a commons? Maybe I want my trees to absorb my own CO2, not yours. Should those who own forest property, then, be allowed to emit more CO2?

 

Stephen Forde:

The first person to dump CO2 into the air homesteads the right to do so at the same rate indefinitely into the future. The pollution right becomes their property, and they can sell it, trade it, or pass it on to their children.

I don't quite understand. Why should only the first person get an allowance to emit GHGs? How does "the same rate" correlate with your formerly defined threshold of aggression? If the first polluter happened to be a factory owner who enjoys traveling on his private plane, would that change matters?

 

Stephen Forde:

The first person to cross the threshold of aggression is a criminal no matter how little he contributed. Everyone who polluted before him is entirely innocent. Anyone who contributes new pollution beyond the first criminal is guilty of any new damage which is caused. The Rothbardian principle of proportionality in restitution and retribution should apply here.

Again I'm confused. So all the 20th century people were free to happily emit GHGs, but now, as the threshold mark has been crossed, we need to cut back drastically or be criminals?

 

Sphairon:

Measurability can develop. The question is, do we treat property rights violations according to measurability? If yes, doesn't that just delay the problem?

My point is that there needs to be some objective nuisance. How much of a nuisance is a continuum problem, similar to the question of how much work must be done to homestead a good from nature. There is not necessarily a specific point. Any standard will be somewhat arbitrary in this regard. But in theory, there is a point which seperates an invasive amount from a non-invasive amount of pollution. The exact boundary would have to be decided by judges.

Sphairon:

So we treat "the environment" as a commons?

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. But yes, in general when people say "the environment", they are refering to unowned resources.

Sphairon:

Maybe I want my trees to absorb my own CO2, not yours. Should those who own forest property, then, be allowed to emit more CO2?

It depends. How did they come to own the forest? If they just fenced it off, they are not entitled to a greater CO2 easement. The trees would have been there anyway, and they didn't take any positive action to make them more productive. The absorbtion which the trees produce is entirely a natural occurance. They are not responsible for the benefit which the trees give by absorbing CO2 and so they have no claim to it. In a similar way, if someone owns a volcano which erupts and wipes out a city, this is entirely a natural occurance which they are not responsible for. If they planted all the trees producing a carbon sink, this earns them an easement to emit more CO2. And if someone cuts down a forest which is sinking carbon, this constitutes a polluting activity.

Sphairon:

I don't quite understand. Why should only the first person get an allowance to emit GHGs? How does "the same rate" correlate with your formerly defined threshold of aggression? If the first polluter happened to be a factory owner who enjoys traveling on his private plane, would that change matters?

The first polluter earns an easement. Suppose that A, B, and C are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and this causes no damage to anyone's property. All of their actions are peaceful. Now D comes along and pumps some CO2 into the atmosphere. A's property gets flooded as a result. Now, the combination of all of their pollution is sufficient to cause damage, and each necessary but not sufficient by itself. Now, who is the aggressor? And what system of rules should be put in place to prevent this kind of scenario for whatever pollution issue it may be?

There are already several positions on this. The George Reisman position is that no one in this scenario is an aggressor. The damage done to A should be treated as if it were caused by a force of nature. I would recommend reading their articles here at mises.org because they do a really good job at smashing the environmentalists.

There is the conventional environmentalist position. Global warming is a crime against nature, and a sin of all polluters. Government regulations and carbon taxation are the only remedies.

There is a blogger here at mises.org, Donny with an A, who does a really good job attacking Reisman's ethical arguments. His positions is more Lockean. He argues that everyone should get an equal share pollution easement. Putting it into my own words, this is calculated by dividing up the global pollution rate threshold before aggression equally amoung the entire earth's population. Hopefully I'm not mischaracterizing his position. Anyone who pollutes more than their fair share is a criminal. I would recomend reading his blog postings. There quite interesting.

My position I see as being barely an extention of Rothbard's arguments on easements. I think that A, B, and C have all earned easements to pollute, and D is the only aggressor. He is the late comer and his pollution was in combination with all prior pollution, the sufficient cause of damage to A's property.

Sphairon:

Again I'm confused. So all the 20th century people were free to happily emit GHGs, but now, as the threshold mark has been crossed, we need to cut back drastically or be criminals?

I'm not claiming to have any knowledge of how much CO2 the planet can absorb or even if humans can even alter the climate. This entire thing is a hypothetical if-then argument. But if the threshold is reached. The next polluter without an easement is a criminal.

As a side remark, some of these issues you bring up are already addressed at least implicitly in the literature which I recommended two posts earlier. I prefer in discussions like these, when the other person focuses on possible logical errors which I have made or on flaws in the theoretical foundation which I am attempting to build upon.

Yes, Sir. I have to confess I was unaware of the plentitude of material available even on Mises.org on the subject, therefore admittedly in a less than satisfying state to begin an argument. Especially the works of Reisman appear to be pretty extensive.

Thus, if you don't mind, I'll leave it at that and begin reading more intensely on the matter before raising any more questions about arguments which might have been resolved already.

Thanks a lot, however, for the reading recommendations, and for the patience involved in answering my requests.

Just to clarify, my position is not that the Lockean view is correct, only that it seems to capture something important, which is that people who only emit a little bit of CO2 seem like they shouldn't be held to blame for climate change, even though CO2 might be causing climate change.

 

Get used to it! Adapt!