TT`s Lost in Tokyo : enviros

Note to William Anderson: Limited liability is a key to understanding the Great American Ponzi scheme

TokyoTom — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:15:00 GMT

William Anderson (an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and economics prof. at Frostburg State University) has a thoughtful New Year's Day post , pointing out how Paul Krugman fails to understand the causes of ouir economic stagnation and financial...(read more)

Dialogue with Stephan Kinsella on the state grant to shareholders of limited liability for corporate torts - a gift that keeps on giving

TokyoTom — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:53:00 GMT

Stephan Kinsella , in two recent blog posts, Left-Libertarians on Corporations "Expropriating the Efforts of Stakeholders" and Corporations and Limited Liability for Torts , kindly provided a forum to discuss the issue of the limited liability...(read more)

[Update] Another Clear Thinker at Mises warns us about "The vicious lie behind the global warming scare"!!!

TokyoTom — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:08:00 GMT

This time it`s David Veksler , with a post on the main LvMI blog , with the title I`ve quoted above. Why is it that so many Mises commentators flee from reason and prefer a fever-pitched focus on strawmen when it comes to addressing environmental issues...(read more)

Environmental damage as theft: report by prominent enviros "highlights the need for secure ownership of wildlife resources by poor people"

TokyoTom — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:44:00 GMT

Yes, even enviros recognize the importance of clear and enforceable property rights in protecting wlidlife. A new report by TRAFFIC , the wildlife trade monitoring network, and WWF finds that "Well-managed wildlife trade has the potential to deliver...(read more)

Thanks, Dr. Reisman; or, How I Learned to Hate Enviros and Love Tantrums

TokyoTom — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:49:00 GMT

In my recent post, " Escape from Reason: are Austrians conservatives, or neocons, on the environment? ", I noted two recent posts by George Reisman and Sean Corrigan and wondered whether a significant number of LvMI blog authors and commenters...(read more)

April Fools?! WSJ starts an enviro blog!

TokyoTom — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:30:00 GMT

"No, your computer isn't misfiring. Welcome to a new Wall Street Journal blog, Environmental Capital." So says the WSJ's announcement of its new blog, which replaces its Energy Roundup blog and, in addition to continue to track daily...(read more)

John Baden: is this free market enviromentalist stalwart a Mt. Pelerin misanthrope/watermelon?

TokyoTom — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:02:00 GMT

...(read more)

Does Cordato favor carbon taxes? McKitrick's "innovative carbon tax proposal"

TokyoTom — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:11:00 GMT

[Snark level - medium]

[update below]

Austrian economist Roy Cordato is playing at collectivism by bringing favorable attention to Ross McKitrick's "T3" carbon tax proposal on Cordato's blog, Environment NC (hosted by the John Locke Foundation, where he is Vice President for Research & Resident Scholar).

Says Dr. Cordato:

"Canadian economist/statistician Ross McKitrick has a good article in the Christian Science Monitor describing his innovative carbon tax proposal. The tax is tied to actual temperatures as measured in the tropical troposphere. It is an interesting approach in that it does not involve betting on the science coming from either side of debate."

McKitrick raised his intriguing carbon tax idea six months ago at the Financial Post.

Steve McIntyre put the proposal up at the Climate Audit blog - in a post which is apparently still open for comment. This tax was discussed on ealier on the Mises blog here . Some comments by yours truly litter both sites.

I'm not sure Dr. Cordato fully understands what he is up to - give the misanthropic enviros, "alternative energy" rent-seekers and their political gatekeepers an inch, and they're guaranteed to take a mile. If McKitrick's idea gets any play at all, it's probably to the effect that, despite his criticism of some scientific work, McKitrick thinks that climate change IS something to be taken seriously and that TAXES are an appropriate policy tool.

Dr. Cordato seems determined to help move the Overton Window further in the direction of the Warmers. Is he intentionally yielding ground?

[update:

I note that Austrians who oppose environmental measures that involve the coercive machnery of the state would probably dismiss such measures as "faux environmentalism". Here, the T3 proposal of McKitrick and favorably commented on by Dr. Cordato is an example of such "faux environmentalism". I guess that makes ME the "faux environmentalist" for drawing our dear readers' attention to Dr. Cordato's post. My humble apologies!]

Bali: Murdoch & 149 Other Top Vile Collectivists/Capitalists Call for Global Poverty ...

TokyoTom — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:19:00 GMT

and for a legally binding UN framework to tackle climate change. Just who are these vile collectivists, red enviros, misanthropes, and others caught up in the totally groundless AGW hysteria?

[Snark Alert!]

Let's go to FOX News - which headlines "Top Corporations Demand Action on Global Warming". Fox says that "more than 150 global companies — worth nearly $4 trillion in market capitalization — have signed a petition urging "strong, early action on climate change"". Amazingly, the news report ends with a disclainer: "FOXNews.com is owned and operated by News Corporation, which is among the signatories of the Bali Communiqué." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314224,00.html

Just what the heck is going on?

On November 30, UK and EU Corporate Leaders Groups on Climate Change (spearheaded by the Prince of Wales) published the "Bali Communiqué", by which leaders of 150 global companies encouraged world leaders to work for a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change.

The Bali Communiqué calls for:

"a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change";
"emission reduction targets to be guided primarily by science";
"those countries that have already industrialised to make the greatest effort"; and
"world leaders to seize the window of opportunity and agree a work plan of negotiations to ensure an agreement can come into force post 2012 (when the existing Kyoto Protocol expires)"

The vile collectivists provided the following business case:

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Climate change presents very serious global social, environmental and economic risks and it demands an urgent global response.

"As business leaders, it is our belief that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs of not acting:

"The economic and geopolitical costs of unabated climate change could be very severe and globally disruptive. All countries and economies will be affected, but it will be the poorest countries that will suffer earliest and the most

The costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change are manageable, especially if guided by a common international vision

Each year we delay action to control global emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that will likely necessitate even steeper reductions in the future, causing potentially greater economic, environmental and social disruption.

The shift to a low-carbon economy will create significant business opportunities. New markets for low carbon technologies and products, worth billions of dollars, will be created if the world acts on the scale required

"In summary, we believe that tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy. Ignoring it will ultimately undermine economic growth.

"It is our view that a sufficiently ambitious, international and comprehensive legally-binding United Nations agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will provide business with the certainty it needs to scale up global investment in low-carbon technologies. We believe that an enhanced and extended carbon market needs to be part of this framework as it offers the necessary flexibility, allows for a cost-effective transition and provides financial support to developing countries."

Companies supporting the communiqué included the following:

US-based: Coca-Cola, Dupont, Gap, GE, Johnson and Johnson, Nike, Pacific Gas and Electric, Sun Microsystems and United Technologies.

European-based: Anglo-American, British Airways, F&C Asset Management, Ferrovial, Nestle, Nokia, Rolls Royce, Shell, Tesco, Virgin and Volkswagen.

Australian-based: Insurance Australia Group, Macquarie, National Australia Bank, News Corporation and Westpac.

Chinese: Shanghai Electric, Zhufeng Technology and Suntech.

More here: http://www.balicommunique.com/communique.html

Well, it's clear that they are all deluded and don't care about impoverishing the rest of the world. They certainly know nothing about science, economics or the potential difficulties that their companies might confront in facing the challenges that they allege. They're just sycophants and fellow-travellers of the evil, misanthropic "watermelon" enviros. http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx.

In other words, there's nothing here folks; move along.

Hysteria from McKinsey: Costs of Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

TokyoTom — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:22:00 GMT

McLinsey released an interesting report on November 30. Details here: http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp.

The summary of the summary?

"Consensus is growing among scientists, policy makers, and business leaders that concerted action will be needed to address rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States. The discussion is now turning to the practical challenges of where and how emissions reductions can best be achieved, at what costs, and over what periods of time.

"The central conclusion
The United States could reduce GHG emissions in 2030 by 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons of CO₂e using tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies. These reductions would involve pursuing a wide array of abatement options with marginal costs less than $50 per ton, with the average net cost to the economy being far lower if the nation can capture sizable gains from energy efficiency. Achieving these reductions at the lowest cost to the economy, however, will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future."

Can Enviros Manage Land? Give ANWR to the Nature Conservancy!

TokyoTom — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:35:00 GMT

The NYT has an interesting article up on Nature Conservancy's extensive holdings in the Adirondacks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/nyregion/29adirondacks.html?ei=5087&em=&en=8d6ce0f734fb4852&ex=1193889600&pagewanted=all

Nothing like ownership to incentivize environmentalists to strive for balance and profits.

Fighting over the wheel of government

TokyoTom — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:43:00 GMT

[update below] Fundamentalist states on an interesting thread: "Most Americans are outright socialists; the rest are socialist sympathizers. They believe that only the government can save them from capitalists."

In response, I raised the following questions:

Do you think Jefferson was wrong when he urged:

"I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
--Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff5.htm

The concentrated wealth and long lives of corporations have long made them a special and powerful class of rent-seekers, eliminating liability for shareholders and vanquishing restrictions on life and acceptable business activities. Are citizens wrong to seek to counterbalance corporations, using in part the very tool of government that corporations have effectively seized?

Let me add here the comment that while ultimately the way forward lies in hacking back government, one cannot deny that rent-seeking by corporations has been and continues to be a major factor in politicizing and hardening conflicts that could otherwise be resolved privately. While bashing "socialists", "enviros" and other citizens groups, it behooves us not to forget the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

[update in response to comments:]

I agree completely that the best way to lessen rent-seeking is to reduce the rents that are available through government.

This implies smaller government, but also suggests that we can make progress by focussing on breathing more life into the federalist structure of power-sharing with the states, the checks and balances between the branches of government, by limiting the ability of either political party to get a local lock on power by gerrymandering.

I appreciate the agreement that citizens are not wrong to seek to counterbalance corporations, but you've missed a point. Corporations are the 800 lb. gorilla not because of ongoing corporate welfare - that's simply the effect. Their powerful advantages over citizens in influencing government comes from their size and financial power, which derives from legislative grants of unlimited life, unlimited purposes and limited liability for their investors. To reduce government, some effort must be made to moderate these advantages.