TT`s Lost in Tokyo : rent-seeking

To John Quiggin: Reassuring climate "delusions" help us all to avoid engaging with "enemies" in exploring common ground

TokyoTom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:04:00 GMT

I left the following comment on John Quiggin`s "Libertarians and delusion" post (other comments are noted in my preceding posts):

TokyoTom

November 6th, 2009 at 14:03 | #34

@jquiggin

“ have started to entertain the view that there is either an actual or perceived conflict between reality and libertarian ideology.”

Thanks for this concession, John, but of course this is true for ANY ideology (as well for the rest of us more perfect humans who always have to battle with cognitive conservatism). And yes, it leads to a combination of tribalism and wishful thinking, and in some cases a denial of inconvenient science.

Sea Bass says it well: “So what we have is many libertarians, who are usually not experts on the science of climate change, being asked to blindly accept scientific conclusions that are often promoted by people and organisations whose political beliefs are antithetical to their own.”

Thinking that libertarians are more susceptible to “delusion” than anyone else is itself a cognitive trap – one that provides comfort to those who believe that there is a serious cause for concern about climate change (me too), and that it`s one easily addressed by government, and leads them to ignore the empirical evidence for the ways governments screw up (and are manipulated, and to conclude that those who oppose government action are evil.

I`ve made several references to the empirical case for caution in thinking that government is going to make things better rather than worse; the work of Lin Ostrom and the reasons the Nobel Prize committee gave her the award are a recent one. But as I noted in comments to a post by Tim Lambert earlier this year on the “economists`s consensus”:

85 “Free market people do not argue that all government allocation of goods is ineffective. It simply suffers from a high incidence of moral hazard and inefficiency, and if it does not account for the market (which it has little incentive to do as it is mostly about politics) any growth from it will likely be unsustainable.”

Well said, Craig; commonsense examples of moral hazard and inefficiency can be seen in:

* our oversupply and overuse of our “defense”, e.g., Iraq & Halliburton, Homeland Security, domestic spying, military-industrial stuff generally;
* our agricultural pork: price supports, ethanol, sugar;
* the government’s provision of “war on drugs” to save us from mad reefer smokers, etc., resulting in Prohibition-like crime/corruption/stifled inner city growth, trampled stae and local rights and troubles in all supplying/conduit countries;
* cheap oil/gas/hardrock mineral/timber/grazing leases;
* an oversupplied but underperforming levee system;
* huge bonuses and huge risks generated at Freddie and Fannie;
* an FDA and Ag Dept that notes bad peanut butter mfg but says nothing, yet prohibits small dairy and meat producers from advertising hormone-free milk and mad cow disease-free beef, etc.

Who couldn’t want more of this?

Posted by: TokyoTom | February 17, 2009 6:47 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/02/the_economists_consensus_on_gl.php

All issues that Tim – and you, too, apparently – just conveniently don`t seem to see at all, or at least have a tough time finding the time or space to address, preferring to delve into arcania about various libertarian cults. But of course now there are lots of environmentalists, voters, pundits and even scientists like Jim Hansen who are decrying what looks like an enormous C&T road wreck emerging as the preferred climate option in Washington.

Just as I am working hard to make sure that libertarians are not blunting their own message by hiding their heads in the sand on the science, so do I think that those who (rightly I think) are concerned about AGW ought to be paying quite a bit more attention to the problems pointed out by libertarians about the misuse of government by powerful insiders, the knowledge problem and bureaucratic perversities.

Sadly, there seems to be little interest by most in exploring the very wide middle ground of undoing the screwed up policies that have helped to generate the frustrations that many feel today and the engender what has become a snowballing fight over the wheel of government.

Why can`t we have a little more exploration of root causes and common ground? Must it remain a no-man`s land, while partisans battle, and corporate interests scheme?

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/03/a-libertarian-immodestly-makes-a-few-modest-climate-policy-proposals.aspx

A few more "delusional" thoughts to John Quiggin on partisan perceptions & libertarian opposition to collective action

TokyoTom — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:33:00 GMT

Further to my preceding posts regarding John Quiggin`s post on "Libertarians and delusionism", I copy below a few of the comments that I left there:

TokyoTom

November 4th, 2009 at 08:13 | #3

John, thanks for raising the topic more widely. However, I think you`ve wandered a bit astray yourself by missing the problem of cognitive traps, as well as missing a libertarian point or two.

I respond more fully here: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/04/john-quiggin-plays-pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey-with-quot-libertarians-and-delusionism-quot.aspx

Tom

TokyoTom

November 4th, 2009 at 18:09 | #33

John, I note that I have made a few additional comments, chiefly in an effort to clarify my understanding of libertarian views on property:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/04/a-few-more-comments-to-john-quiggin-on-climate-and-libertarian-principles.aspx

I look forward to your further thoughts.

Tom

TokyoTom

November 5th, 2009 at 00:43 | #48

John, obviously my own experience at Mises (and at the libertarian law blog Volokh Conspiracy) is that while decidedly irrational “skepticism” and wishful thinking predominates, it is not universal. But those like me who believe that climate concerns are justified and want to analyze policy (and who are critical of ad homs directed toward “enviros”) always face challenges and criticism from those who feel too threaded to venture out into a discussion of policy.

However, outside of boards like that, it seems to me that there is a general swing by libertarian commenters on climate to an acceptance of a rather mainstream science view, though there remains natural policy disagreements. Ron Bailey, science correspondence at Reason and Jon Adler, a resources law prof at Case Western, Lynne Kiesling at Knowledge Problem blog, David Zetland, who blogs on water issues, come to mind. Others, at AEI, CEI, IER and Master Resource are partly in the business of running cover for fossil fuel interests, and so frequently challenge both science and policy.

There have been several open disputes, where Bailey, Kiesling and others have challenged skepticism at CEI and elsewhere, as I noted on my recent “libertarian views” summary post. Readers might also find this upbraiding of Penn & Teller to be interesting: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/05/penn-amp-teller-quot-bull-quot-artists-get-ready-to-change-their-quot-skeptical-quot-stance-on-climate-change.aspx

BTW, I note that one self-described libertarian group in California has specifically proposed carbon taxes, though this is a rather obscure group and their “Pay Your Air Share” proposal appears to be little-discussed: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/13/quot-pay-your-air-share-quot-libertarian-think-tank-advocates-carbon-taxes.aspx

TokyoTom

November 5th, 2009 at 17:08 | #36

@Freelander
“It is the collective action that is required that extreme libertarians hate so much. ”

Libertarians don`t oppose collective action per se, but are opposed to “collective” actions that are dictated by the state -because it hampers the ability of communities to respond to problems on their own, weakens links between resource users and the relevant resource, frequently locks in benefits for powerful insiders (viz., the big firms that profess to love markets but really love their deals from government that lock in their advantageous position) – thereby setting up enduring fights over the wheel of government -and because the “knowledge problem” generally ensures that solutions will be ham-handed and generate a need for further interventions.

You, John and others might not have noticed, but these are some of the chief conclusions of the empirical research by “tragedy of the commons” expert Elinor Ostrom, and her writings about how counter-productive stated-led “development” and commons-management efforts have been is precisely the reason why the Swedes awarded her the Nobel Prize in economics.
TokyoTom

November 5th, 2009 at 17:19 | #37

Reply | Quote

@Alice
Alice, on the topic of “watermelons”, surely the libertarians have a point that many environmentalists really do not understand how markets or free societies function, but typically this term is used not to explain, but as an ad hom, both to dismiss concerns over climate science and to avoid the heavy work of arguing over policy, as I`ve noted here:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/05/the-road-not-taken-v-libertarian-hatred-of-misanthropic-quot-watermelons-quot-and-the-productive-love-of-aloof-ad-homs.aspx
TokyoTom

November 5th, 2009 at 17:33 | #39

Reply | Quote

John, to sum up, while clearly many libertarians are guilty of wishful thinking as to the climate science, by the same token many environmentalists and leftists seem to blithely ignore all of the problems that are associated with state/bureaucratic responses.

Yes, there are self-deluded on both sides, but to seek to explain away (or dispense with considering) the opposition of others is itself a flight from reason and responsibility.

That this is understandable , human and a common phenomenon in the case of tribal or partisan conflict – as Nick Kristof points out: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/04/17/nick-kristof-on-politics-why-we-conclude-that-i-m-right-and-you-re-evil.aspx – makes it something that we should all the more try to avoid, rather than indulge in, which seems to be the drift of this post and many of your commenters.

On this point, I would recommend that you and others take a look at some of the opposition to cap-and-trade now springing up on the left in the US; see the comments of two EPA lawyers and of Dr. Janese Hansen here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/epa-lawyers-challenge-cap-and-trade-for-climate/

Says Hansen: “I hope that Williams and Zabel give decision makers pause. This is no time to be rushing into costly ineffectual legislation. It is time to call a halt on any legislation this year, and take time to understand the matter. It would take 20 years to fix the mess that Congress, with the help of special interests, seems intent on creating.”

Regards,

Tom

The Road Not Taken IV: My other hysterical comments on climate science & how Austrians hamstring themselves

TokyoTom — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:59:00 GMT

In my initial post, on how Austrians strive for a self-comforting irrelevancy on climate change, I copied my chief comment to Stephan Kinsella.

I copy below my other posts and some of the remarks I was responding to on Stephan`s thread, including the one that I was unable to post - for some reason I am trying to figure out (but that Stephan tells me was not a result of moderation by him; I note my full apology, as stated in my update to my preceding post):

TokyoTom

fundamentalist: "I love the responses from the GW hysteria crowd. They have nothing to offer but ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority."

Am I excluded from the "hysteria" crowd, Roger? Because if I`m in, you seem to have entirely missed my post, and my point, as to the consistency of your arguments with Austrian principles and the effectiveness of approaches like yours in dealing with the rest of the world - including all of the deluded and others who are engaged in bad faith.

Published: October 30, 2009 9:44 AM
Stephan Kinsella [Note: this is the comment to which I responded with the remarks copied on my preceding post]

"Tokyo" asked me to respond to his post but it's so rambling I am not sure what to respond to. To me this is very simple. I think we are in an interglacial period. It's going to start getting cooler eventually, unless by then we have enough technology and freedom (no offense, Tokyo) to stop it. If there is global warming maybe it can delay the coming ice age by a few centuries.

If there were really global warming why not just use "nuclear winter" to cool things down? You don't see the envirotards advocating that! :) (see Greenpeace to advocate nuking the earth?)

In any event as I see it there are several issues. Is it warming? Can we know it? Do we know it? Are we causing it? Can we stop it? Should we stop it?

It seem to me we do not know that it's warming; if it is, it's probably not caused by Man; and if it is, there's probably nothing we can do to stop it except effectively destroy mankind; there's no reason to stop it since it won't even be all bad, and in fact would be overall good. I do not trust the envirotards, who hate industrialism and love the state, and seek anything to stop capitalism and to give the state an excuse to increase regulations and taxes; why anyone thinks these watermelons really know what the temperature will be in 10, 100, 1000 years, when we can't even get accurate weather forecasts a week out, is beyond me.

That said, I'll take the watermelons seriously when they start advocating nuclear power. Until then, they reveal themselves to be anti-industry, anti-man, techo-illiterates. (See Green nukes; Nuclear spring?.)

Published: October 30, 2009 10:03 AM
TokyoTom

[my prior version ran off without my permission; this is a re-draft]

It seems like I can lead a horse to water, but I can`t make him think,

We all have our own maps of reality and our own calculus as to what government policies are desirable and when, but as for me, the status quo needs changing, and the desire of a wide range of people - be they deluded, evil, conniving or whatnot - to do something on the climate front seems like a great opportunity to get freedom-enhancing measures on the table and to achieve some of MY preferences, chiefly because they help to advance the professed green agenda. [To clarify, I didn`t mean that I want to advance "the green agenda", but that the pro-freedom policy suggestions I have raised should be attainable because greens and others might see that they also serve THEIR agendas.]

I see no reason to sit at home or simply scoff or fling poo from the sidelines, and let what I see as a bad situation get worse. There`s very little in that for practically anyone here - except of course those who like coal pollution, public utilities, corporate income taxes, big ag corporate welfare, political fights over government-owned resources, energy subsidies and over-regulation, etc. (and those folks aren`t sitting at home, believe me).

I can keep on questioning everyone`s sanity or bona fides, or I can argue strongly for BETTER policies, that advance shared aims.

Does Austrian thinking simply lack a practical political arm, other than those few who have signed up to support special interests?

Ramblin` Tom

Published: October 30, 2009 11:51 AM
TokyoTom

Stephan, if I may, I am appalled and offended by your shallow and fundamentally dishonest engagement here. That there are a string of others who have preceded you in this regard is no excuse.

You: (i) post without significant comment a one-page letter from a scientist - as if the letter itself is vindication, victory or a roadmap for how we should seek to engage the views and preferences of others,

(ii) refuse to answer my straightforward questions (both above and at my cross-linked post, which you visited) on how we engage others in the very active ongoing political debate, in a manner that actually defends and advances our policy agenda, and (putting aside the insulting and disingenuous "Tokyo asked me to respond" and "it's so rambling I am not sure what to respond to"); and

(iii) then proceed to present your own view of the science, the motives and sanity "watermelons" (as if they`re running the show), a few helpful, free-market libertarian "solutions", like open-air explosion of nuclear weapons to bring about a "nuclear winter" effect!

And my attempt to bring your focus back to the question of how we actually deal with others in the POLITICAL bargaining that is, after all, underway is met with silence - other than your faithful report back from your trusty climate physicist expert policy guru friend about .... science (all being essentially irrelevant to my question, not merely the cute little folksy demonstration about how the troubling melting and thinning of Antarctic ice sheets actually now underway simply CAN`T be occurring, but also a further failure to address the very rapid ocean acidification our CO2 emissions are producing)!

Maybe it`s me, but I find this type of insincere and shallow engagement on such a serious issue to be a shameful discredit to the Mises Blog (even if it does cater to those who prefer to think that the big to do about climate - which may very well result in a mass of ill-considered, costly and counterproductive
legislation - is really groundless and so can simply be ignored, aside from a bit of internal fulminations here).

If you are not actually interested in discussing policy on a serious issue, then consider refraining from posting on it.

Maybe it`s not my position to expect better, but I do.

Sincerely,

Tom

Roy Cordato (linked at my name) said this:

“The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute plans within the context of their goals. … ocial welfare or efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. that similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being captured by prices.”

“Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal plan formulation and execution.”

“The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to identify possible ways of resolving it.”

“If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist. This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998; Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced property rights, is not in place.”

Published: October 31, 2009 1:00 PM
TokyoTom

Bala:

"Did rising temperatures cause an increase in atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration".

This is a great, basic question; I`d love to answer it (actually, I already did, though a bit indirectly), but you see, I`m one of the nasty obfuscating members of the socialist hysterical crowd, so I really should defer to others here who have better ideological and scientific stature here (and who hate ad hominems and love reason), such as fundamentalist, or perhaps even our confident lead poster, Stephan Kinsella (who has nothing to offer on the question of how libertarians should engage with others on the political front), or even our humble physicist climate system authority, Dr. Hayden.

Gentlemen, take it away.

Published: October 31, 2009 11:31 AM
TokyoTom

I`m sorry I don`t have time now to respond in more detail to those who have commented in response to mine, but let me note that not one of you has troubled to actually respond to my challenge, which was based on Austrian concepts of conflict resolution, understanding of rent-seeking embedded in the status quo, and the recognition that the present debate on climate, energy and environmental issues presents opportunities to actually advance an Austrian agenda.

In my view, we can either try to improve our lot, by seeking items such as those I laid out previously or condemn ourselves to irrelevancy by standing by and letting the big boys and the Baptists in their coalition hammer out something worse from our Congresscritters.

For this, the correctness of our own views of climate science matters little - nothing, in fact, unless we are willing to DO something about it, by engaging with OTHERS who have DIFFERENT views.

For those who have too much trouble remembering the legal/regulatory changes that I suggested, here they are:

[pro-freedom regulatory changes might include:

* accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
* eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow consumer choice, peak pricing and "smart metering" that will rapidly push efficiency gains),
* ending Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more common-law dependent approaches),
* ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
* speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar), and
* if there is to be any type of carbon pricing at all, insisting that it is a per capita, fully-rebated carbon tax (puts the revenues in the hands of those with the best claim to it, eliminates regressive impact and price volatility, least new bureaucracy, most transparent, and least susceptible to pork).

Other policy changes could also be put on the table, such as an insistence that government resource management be improved by requiring that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens (with a slice to the administering agency).]

Many others come to mind.

Well, what`s it going to be? Relevancy, or a tribal exercise in disengaged and smug self-satisfaction?

Published: October 31, 2009 12:37 PM
TokyoTom

1. Christopher and mpolzkill:

Thanks for the favor of your comments.

I was asking if Austrians never seek to practically engage others on questions of policy; the first of you brings up Ron Paul, but one man is not a policy, nor are his sole efforts a policy program; the other of you suggests succession from the U, which is hardly an effort at pragmatic engagement with anybody over a particular issue. (BTW, here is Ron Paul`s climate program.)

I can see some engagement by libertarians on this issue, but such seeds either (i) die when they fall on the rocky ground of the Mises Blog or (ii) represent work by people paid to criticize one side of the debate, and consistently ignore problems with the definitely non-libertarian status quo.

Why libertarians do not see any opportunity here for a positive agenda? Do they prefer to be taken as implicit supporters of the government interventions that underlie most enviros` complaints?

2. fundamentalist:

"I don't see anyone doing that except the GW hysterical crowd. Honest scientists like Hayden try to present evidence and reason so that we can have a real debate, and the hysterical crowd flings poo from the sidelines."

Thanks for your direct comment (even as you lace it and others with ad homs), but can`t you see you also are missing my point? Are you NOT interested in trying to cut deals that would, say:

* accelerate cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
* eliminate antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow consumer choice, peak pricing and "smart metering" that will rapidly push efficiency gains),
* end Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more common-law dependent approaches),
* end energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
* speed economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar),
* insist that government resource management be improved by requiring that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens,
* end federal subsidies to development on barrier islands, etc. or
* improve adaptability by deregulating and privatizing roads and other "public" infrastructure?

Or is it more productive to NOT deal with those whom you hate, and stand by while special interests cut deals that widen and deepen the federal trough?

TT

Published: November 1, 2009 2:21 AM
TokyoTom

Allow me to outline here a few responses to the arguments raised by Dr. Hayden, even as I do not pretend to be an expert (and, to be pedantic, even though they are largely irrelevant to the question of whether Austrians wish to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the many scientists and others who have differing views, to roll back alot of costly, counterproductive and unfair regulation).

1. Models: Dr. Hayden disingenuously casts aside what modern physics tells us about how God plays dice with the universe (via random, unpredictible behavior throughout the universe), and the limits of human knowledge (including the ability to measure all inputs affecting climate, including all of our own), and essentially asks us to wait until our knowledge is perfect, and our ability to capture and number-crunch all information relevant to the Earth`s climate (including changing solar and cosmic ray inputs and ocean behavior) before any of us, or our imperfect governments, can take any action on climate.

Physical and practical impossibility aside, is this how any human or any human organization structures its decisions? Narrowly, Dr. Hayden is of course right that "the science is not settled", but so what?

2. Was there a tipping point 300 million years ago (or whenever it was when CO2 levels reached 8000 ppm) ?
Dr. Hayden plays with language, suggesting that a "tipping point" means something irreversible over hundreds of millions of years, when it`s very clear that there have in the past been numerous abrupt changes in climate (some taking place in as little as a few years, with a general return to prior values sometimes taking very long periods of time) and that scientists today are talking about tipping points that may be reached in human lifetimes. Will we lose all mountain glaciers? Will the Arctic become ice-free in winter? Will thawing release sufficient methane from tundras and seabed clathrates to push the climate even more forcibly than CO2? Are we set to lose glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, regardless of what we do? Will we dry out the Amazon basin, and interrupt the Asian monsoon? There is plenty of concern and evidence that these things are real possibilities.

3. "Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming."

But you never tell us whether you, too, Dr. Hayden, are an "alarmist". Further down you acknowledge that "Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect" admitting (B) (though not that it may be the chief factor), but as far as (A) goes, you only acknowledge that "CO2 concentration is increasing". Care to make yourself an alarmist by admitting what cannot be denied - that man is responsible for rising CO2 concentrations? Or you prefer play with laymen`s ignorance by irresponsibly suggesting that rising CO2 is now due to warming oceans and not man`s activities?

- "CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind."

Yes, but what relevance is this now, when man is undeniably not simply "helping" but clearly responsible?

- "The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution."

So? Does the fact that CO2 fluctuates naturally do to things other than man`s activities mean humans` massive releases of CO2 have NOT made a "meaningful contribution"? It`s very clear that the Industrial Revolution caused a dramatic rise in CO2. Surely you don`t disagree?

- "Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the "pre-industrial" value."

"Alarmists" of course is simply an unhelpful ad hom; and as for the rest, concerned scientists and laymen clearly note how CO2 has fluctuated prior to the Industrial Revolution.

There undoubtedly many clueless laymen, just as there are some clueless scientists, so your sweeping statement may be narrowly accurate.

But in the big picture, it is clear that man has had a drastic impact on CO2 levels - so what, precisely, is your point, except to confuse the issue?

- "The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere."

Sure, but this doesn`t mean man hasn`t been the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2.

Further, of course, warming oceans CEASED to release CO2 at the point that atmospheric CO2 started to make the oceans more acidic.

- "The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?"

The lag in the historical record BEFORE man simply shows that CO2, which has an acknowledged warming effect, was a warming reinforcer and not an initiator. This does NOT, of course, suggest that massive CO2 releases by man magically have NO effect.

4. Assuming that we ARE changing climate, is that a bad thing?

- "A warmer world is a better world." Maybe, but are there NO costs, losses or damages in moving to one? And do those people and communities who bear these costs or kinda like things as they are have any choice, much less defendable property rights?

- "The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. ... Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple."

I see; this is not a question of fossil fuel interests homesteading the sky (or being given license by govt) and so being entitled to shift risks and costs on us, but them beneficiently bestowing gifts on mankind - or dinosaurs, as Dr. Hayden may prefer! Wonderful gifts that cannot be returned for centuries or millenia! Yippee!

[This is only scratching the surface of the letter, but I`m afraid I need to run for now.]

Published: November 1, 2009 4:51 AM
TokyoTom [Note: my original post contained some bolding that went haywire and bolded most of the post; I`ve fixed that.]

Okay, here`s a few more unconsidered thoughts to show how hysterical I am, am hooked on religion, hate mankind, [want to] return us to the Middle Ages and otherwise take over the world:

- "Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better."

Sure, for If only it were so simple. The increase in AVERAGE global temps that we`ve experienced so far has meant little warming of the oceans (a vast thermal sink), and has shown up at higher latitudes, where we have seen a very marked warming and ongoing thawing, a shift of tropic zones away from the equator, disruption of rainfall patterns and stress on tropical ecosystems; all of this is considered to be just the beginning of a wide range of climate effects that have not yet been fully manifested for GHG and albedo changes so far,. much less to further increases in GHGs.

- "CO2 is plant food, pure and simple."

It IS a "pure and simple" plant food, but your rhetoric implies much more - essentially that CO2 is NOTHING BUT plant food, and large releases of it have no effect on climate. And this, as you well know, is NOT a "pure and simple" matter.

- "CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition."

You mean not by your reasonable definition, or under historical standards. But what IS "pollution", but a social construct to describe the outputs of human activity that some of us have found to be damaging to our persons, property or other things that we value? Were CFCs released by refrigeration equipment "pollution" before we discovered that they damage the ozone layer?

Scientists may be qualified to measure particular outputs and their consequences, but otherwise have no special insights into what others value.

- "A warmer world begets more precipitation."

Sure, as warmer air generally holds more water - which in turn has a warming effect, let`s not forget. But as for the water itself, climate change leads to more severe rain events in some places but to droughts in others. And let`s not forget that a warmer world means that mountain snows don`t last until spring and summer as they once did, leaving streams and forests drier, and adversely affecting agriculture that relies on such water.

- "All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms."

Not so fast; this doesn`t hold for rain events or tornadoes. Further, independent paths of research indicate that while the North Atlantic may end up with fewer hurricanes, warming is likely to make them more intense.

- How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

First, note again the Dr.`s use of a strawman; no one is expect an imminent melt of "ALL" the ice. But significant melting and thinning of coastal ice IS occurring, and not merely on the West Antactic peninsula, which the good Dr. would realize if he`d trouble himself to compare his simple mental model, of reality with FACTS. As previously noted, coast ice sheets are plugs that slow the flow of glaciers from the interior. As these plugs are removed, the glaciers flow more quickly, via that exotic phenomenon we call "gravity". I`ve already addressed this above, with links.

- "If the waters around it warm up, they create more precipitation."

Yes, but does the new precipitation balance the ice being melted? Actual, detailed observations tell us that, despite your absolute certainty, that we are seeing increasing net mass losses far inland, not merely in Greenland but also in Antarctica. Your religious-like faith in your own superior understanding doesn`t make the facts go away.

- "The ocean’s pH is not rising. It is falling, ever so slightly. Obviously your respondent has not the faintest clue as to how pH is defined. (BTW, the oceans are basic, not acidic.)"

Yes, the good Dr. catches my mistake - pH is falling rather remarkably (from basic towards acidic) - but he too hastily skates past the main point, which is that this is due to increased atmospheric levels of CO2, which prove that the oceans are NOT actually releasing CO2 (or they`d be becoming more basic).

I provided links in this last year here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007931.asp#c192563

Here`s more:
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/06/our-dying-oceans/
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:y_W6vseUrykJ:www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/20_2/20.2_caldeira.pdf+caldeira+ocean+ph&hl=en&gl=jp&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgEEoFLf7xd9QTyol2TYYmXKPxXFqMq5Nr1IPdGd_yEbV3zIxPi-4Rmhb6d-IQ-r4BPwBqzyhF6GZQw_ka1Eh3Ynn0lYlP7p974IYMHIdLMVE90nWJ81GHAfcdTrUJTNk7W8Man&sig=AFQjCNGg6Idq6GQ5gyrddlXRD8R98NQ_dQ

From the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (UK) :

"Until recently, it was believed that the oceans contained so much disolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions that any extra would have little effect. In fact this absorbtion was generally acknowledged a valuable process in protecting the planet from the worst effects of rising temperatures and climate change. However, in 2003 a paper was published in Nature (vol 425) which suggested that the increases in atmospheric CO2, occurring over the last 200 years, has actually increased the acidity of the oceans by 0.1 of a pH unit.The pH scale is logarithmic and this change represents a 30% increase in the concentration of H+ ions.

"However, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been higher during previous times in Earths history and these high CO2 periods didn’t cause ocean pH to change. The difference now is that the rate at which CO2 concentrations are increasing, is 100 times greater than the natural fluctuations seen over recent millennia. Consequently, the processes that ultimately balance the carbon cycle are unable to react quickly enough and ocean pH is affected. About half of all released CO2 is absorbed by the oceans but even if we stop all emmissions today, the CO2 already in the atmosphere has been predicted to decrease ocean pH by a further 0.5 unit."

From Wikipedia">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification">Wikipedia:

"Dissolving CO2 in seawater also increases the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration in the ocean, and thus decreases ocean pH. Caldeira and Wickett (2003)[1] placed the rate and magnitude of modern ocean acidification changes in the context of probable historical changes during the last 300 million years.

Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly less than 0.1 units (on the logarithmic scale of pH; approximately a 25% increase in H+), and it is estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 units by 2100 as the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO2.[1][2][9] These changes are predicted to continue rapidly as the oceans take up more anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere, the degree of change to ocean chemistry, for example ocean pH, will depend on the mitigation and emissions pathways society takes.[10] Note that, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could also be described as becoming less basic."

- "The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that's climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change."

Wonderful observation, except for the fact that IT`S WRONG; the change instead being deliberately led by Republicans; leading Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz in 2002 pushed Republicans to move the public discussion away from "global warming" to "climate change", because, as Luntz wrote,

“'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”.

Of course there IS the inconvenient fact that "climate change" is actually more accurate than simple "global warming", but who cares about accuracy anyway, right Dr.?

- "the earth has handily survived many millions of years when CO2 levels were MUCH higher than at present, without passing the dreaded tipping point."

I already addressed above the point that while the Dr. seems to what to recreate the Cretaceous, the better for dinosaurs, most of us seem rather to like the Earth that we actually inherited and that the rest of current Creation is adapted for. He is obviously a physicist and not a biologist, and doesn`t seem to give any thought to the rapidity of the scale at which we are conducting our little terraforming experiment, and te challenges the pace of those changes are posing to ecosystems.

- "To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense."

To put it bluntly, this is largely rubbish; there is a tremendous and growing amount of climate change DATA. You just make it your habit not to let facts get in the way of your own opinions. I would be a travesty if we continue to countenance posts such as yours, questions of relevance to Austrian purposes aside.

- "I don’t do politics"

Fine; I can see why that would not be your forte. But what`s very puzzling is that you seem to think that climate science IS your forte, when all you`ve show is a shocking level of arrogant ignorance.

- "I don’t pretend to be an economic theorist."

And on a blog dedicated to Austrian economists, just why, one wonders, do the "giants" in our Mises world keep filling the Blog pages with post such as this, which are, on their very face, IRRELEVANT, to the question of how Austrians wish to address the preferences of other, the misuses of government and the management of unowned common resources.

- "he only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is, in practical terms, their rhetoric. I don’t pretend to be an economic theorist.

- "But the notion that we can run an industrialized giant on chicken manure and sunbeams doesn’t even pass the giggle test. Except in Washington."

At long last, you say something something intelligible. Except Washington spends trillions on nonsense at the drop of a hat, if you haven`t noticed recent events.

Published: November 1, 2009 10:02 AM
TokyoTom

Sorry if I`ve been a bit intemperate; that I`m rushed doesn`t excuse it.

Dr. Hayden, you are entirely welcome to your own opinion and your own mental map of reality, but not to your own facts. As to your opinion and mental map, they are by your own admittance uninformed as to matters of economics and political science, but I must confess that I find your understanding of climate science to be seriously wanting.

Given these, I fail to see what you offer here, other than a convenient, if very thin, cover for others here who don`t want to think, or to fight to make the world (or our own government) better.

Sincerely,

Tom

Published: November 1, 2009 10:11 AM
TokyoTom

Bala, I appreciate your polite persistence; I`m sorry I haven`t responded yet, but I`ll get to you.

Please note that my time is both limited and my own (though indeed others have claims on it), and I have no obligation to spend any of it responding to your importunings regarding climate science, which are now shading into impertinence.

Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you wish, but a fair reader might note that:

- my priorities may (unsurprisingly) differ from yours,
- my chief points (and Austrian principles as to how to engage with others) have nothing to do with climate science per se,
- I explicitly make no pretense of being a scientist or climate expert, and
- in any case, there is no simple course to understanding reality; we are all forced to make decisions as to how much energy to devote to puzzling things out on our own (and overcoming what we know of our own subconscious cognitive filters) versus outsourcing this effort to others (by accepting things without deliberation, "on faith" as it were).

Others who have been around longer will know that I`ve also devoted what they might consider an unreasonable amount of my time over the past few years, "hysterical" trying to help others work through climate science (and policy) issues.

TT

Published: November 1, 2009 8:46 PM
TokyoTom

mpolzkill:

- "Tom, believing you live in a Republic with 300,000,000 people is a delusion which heads off all actual pragmatism."

This is not a delusion I have, but in any case it`s not at all clear that this or any other delusion "heads off all actual pragmatism".

- "Until there is actual representation, everything said by we proles is literally hot air (unless it's happens to coincide with whatever benefits the regime)."

I use "our government" simply as shorthand for what you call "the regime", but perhaps may be more accurately described as a multicentric mess.

In any case, the painstaking efforts of LVMI to grow the Mises website, and the welcome reception of and contribution to those efforts by everyone here - yourself included - belies both your near-nihilistic cynicism and your conclusion, as to virtually every topic discussed here. Words are deeds, though they be more or less frivolous, weighty, insightful or consequential.

If the other Mises bloggers agreed with you as to the possible efficacy of their words, either generally or on this particular topic, they simply wouldn`t bother to post.

However, I share your concern about efficiacy, which is why I criticize posts such these (whether by Stephan, George Reisman, Sean Corrigan, Walter Block, or Jeffrey Tucker), which are, by and large, more of a circle jerk than an effort to engage.

- "thank you for being respectful"

My pleasure, but you hardly need to thank me; this is a community, after all.

- "even though you mistakenly think I'm a nut.

In this case, it is you who are mistaken (not that you ARE a nut, but that you think I think you are).

Tom

Published: November 1, 2009 9:35 PM

This is last version of the comment that I tried to post several times:

method fan:

[my first attempt apparently failed to post, so apologies if this shows up twice]

- "You are insofar wrong, that not only this "data" is analysed but it is also used to "predict" the future of reality by using it in simulations!"

You miss my criticism of Dr. Hayden`s refusal to examine facts about ongoing melting in Antarctica, but of course I do NOT disagree with you that current and paleo data can be used to "predict" the future.

But of course a scientific understanding of the world, and information - in this case, both about the past and current trends of climate inputs - certainly can give us useful information about what the future may hold in store for us.

"There is no sound experimental proof that human activity-emitted carbon dioxide is the cause for some sort of global warming."

Nicely phrased; there of course plenty of experimental proof that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric warming agent, but no experimental proof that it is "the" cause for any global warming.

While we are now running such a global experiment - one that started centuries ago and will not be played out for centuries hence and is, for all intents and purposes irreversible - and thus cannot, in the Popperian sense, even be considered an "experiment".

Whether our ramping up of the experiment is prudent or principled are entirely different questions, and properly the subject of much discussion.

- "These guesses remind one of the idea that rain dances are the cause for rain."

I`m tempted to make a comeback, but surely you realize your flip comparison is entirely inapropos.

Here`s hoping for more sincere discourse.

TT

[Update- apology] The Road Not Taken III: Stephan Kinsella plugs his ears on the Austrians` obstinate, willful irrelevancy in the climate debate?

TokyoTom — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:03:00 GMT

[Note: Stephan Kinsella tells me he has NOT put my posts on his thread on moderation. I believe him, and so (even as I fail to understand why I was unable to post a particular comment after a number of attempts), as noted I would in my original post, I withdraw my charge that he put my comments on moderation, and offer my sincere apology to Stephan (and to LvMI readers) for my mistake and for the offense that I imagine I may have caused to his sense of fair play. I am happy to do this, though of course I deeply regret my mistake.

Stephan, I`m sorry. I take your word that the conclusion I jumped to was wrong.

I am still trying to puzzle through what happened; below I have restored an edited version of my prior post, with the unjustifed portions deleted.

Meanwhile, the discussion continues at the Mises Blog, at the above thread.]

In my preceding post I commented on Austrian (dis)engagement on climate issues, as exemplified by Stephan Kinsella`s Mises Blog post, "Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims".

[clip]

Instead of the usual cheerful message LvMI provides when comments are accepted ("Confirmation... Your comment has been submitted!)", my attempts to comment are now met with the message, "Thank you for commenting. Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner."

While there are times that this message is automatically served up for technical reasons, such as not providing proper email address (i.e., by accidently typing in ".comh" instead of ".com") or providing too many links (which may trigger a spamblocking feature), this [seemed to me] to be fairly clearly NOT one of those occasions - I had just successfully posted a couple of comments that included links, and my "failed" post included my usual email address (properly formatted, as I can confirm simply by backing up) and no links.

[clip]

I copy below the comment that I [had supposed] turned his playful non-responsiveness (see his comment to my prior post) into stony silence/silencing:

Published: October 31, 2009 1:00 PM
TokyoTom

Stephan, if I may, I am appalled and offended by your shallow and fundamentally dishonest engagement here. That there are a string of others who have preceded you in this regard is no excuse.

You: (i) post without significant comment a one-page letter from a scientist - as if the letter itself is vindication, victory or a roadmap for how we should seek to engage the views and preferences of others,

(ii) refuse to answer my straightforward questions (both above and at my cross-linked post, which you visited) on how we engage others in the very active ongoing political debate, in a manner that actually defends and advances our policy agenda, (putting aside the insulting and disingenuous "Tokyo asked me to respond" and "it's so rambling I am not sure what to respond to"); and

(iii) then proceed to present your own view of the science, the motives and sanity "watermelons" (as if they`re running the show), a few helpful, free-market libertarian "solutions", like open-air explosion of nuclear weapons to bring about a "nuclear winter" effect!

And my attempt to bring your focus back to the question of how we actually deal with others in the POLITICAL bargaining that is, after all, underway is met with silence - other than your faithful report back from your trusty climate physicist expert policy guru friend about .... science (all being essentially irrelevant to my question, not merely the cute little folksy demonstration about how the troubling melting and thinning of Antarctic ice sheets actually now underway simply CAN`T be occurring, but also a further failure to address the very rapid ocean acidification our CO2 emissions are producing)!

Maybe it`s me, but I find this type of insincere and shallow engagement on such a serious issue to be a shameful discredit to the Mises Blog (even if it does cater to those who prefer to think that the big to do about climate - which may very well result in a mass of ill-considered, costly and counterproductive legislation - is really groundless and so can simply be ignored, aside from a bit of internal fulminations here).

If you are not actually interested in discussing policy on a serious issue, then consider refraining from posting on it.

Maybe it`s not my position to expect better, but I do.

Sincerely,

Tom

[Note: I had intended to excise the following from my comment, but it`s just as well that it slipped in, as it serves to illustrate what productive Austrian approaches to climate issues might look like. I`ve added a link to Roy Cordato.]

Roy Cordato (linked at my name) said this:

“The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute plans within the context of their goals. … ocial welfare or efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. that similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being captured by prices.”

“Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal plan formulation and execution.”

“The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to identify possible ways of resolving it.”

“If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist. This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998; Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced property rights, is not in place.”

The Road Not Taken III: Stephan Kinsella plugs his ears on the Austrians` obstinate, willful irrelevancy in the climate debate

The Road Not Taken II: Austrians strive for a self-comforting irrelevancy on climate change, the greatest commons problem / rent-seeking game of our age

TokyoTom — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:58:00 GMT

[Update: Readers may wish to note the latest developments, as I note in these follow-up posts.]

Stephan Kinsella - whom I have engaged before on the ramifications of the decidedly non-libertarian state grant of limited liabiility to corporations - has a new post up on the Mises Blog on global warming; his first on this subject, as far as I know.

The post is surprisingly short, and consists of a simple introduction by Stephan, to which he has appended a copy of letter to the EPA that one Howard Hayden, a retired physicist, one whom Stephan assures us is "a staunch advocate of sound energy policy" - whatever that means (hey, me too!) - submitted in connection with the EPA`s Supreme Court-mandated consideration of whether to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Stephan also refers to Dr. Hayden`s letter as a "one-letter disproof of global warming claims."

I welcome Stephan to this discussion, which has taken place at the Mises Blog in fits and starts over the past few years. However, the absence of any commentary by Stephan leaves me scratching my head. Where`s the beef? Are this person`s scientific views on climate so convincing or obviously correct, and are the policy implication so straightforward, and correct, that we should all "get it" and agree, without any commentary by Stephan? Or Is Stephan simply playing with our credulity, and his own?

In any case, given both (1) the focus of Austrian economics on productively addressing conflicts between people with conflicting preferences (and the frequently negative role that governments play in resource tussles, generally to the benefit of entrenched insiders and to government itself) and (2) the recent Nobel prize award to Elinor Ostrom regarding the ways that humans work together successfully or not) to address common resources, I am simply disappointed. Is this all that Stephan has to offer?

Observing that Stephan fits within a grand tradition at Mises of shallow thought on climate and other "environmental" issues, I felt compelled to post a few thoughts at Stephan`s post, which I copy below:

Stephan:

Thanks for bringing your post to my attention.

My short response? Remember "Thank you, Prof. Block, for feeding our confirmation biases"?

But since I can`t resist doing what nobody else seems inclined to - I suppose it is, after all, why you invited me to this feast - let me make a few comments on matters that would apparently not otherwise occur to you or to the rest of the community. The fact that most of the contents of Dr. Hayden`s letter is confused twaddle that has been explained in detail countless times (and personally by me, ad nauseum, to the extreme annoyance of most of the blog over the years 2006-2008) aside, it puzzles me that you and others prefer to treat the pages of the Mises Blog as a forum to dismiss - through drive-by postings like this (a la Walter Block) of a particular piece of "skepticism" that caught your fancy - extremely widespread scientific views (held by EVERY major national academy of science, including China and India), rather than engaging in a discussion of preferences, institutions and policies.

As I`ve asked Jeffrey Tucker previously, is science the forte of the Mises Blog, or its readers?

Even if those who believe that man`s rising emissions of CO2 have nothing to do with an observably rapidly changing world and pose no threat whatsoever - and that those who disagree all all deluded and/or evil - turn out, after we play our little massive and irreversible game with the Earth for another few centuries, to be absolutely right, is engaging with them by dismissing their concerns an approach that holds even the slightest prospect of success?

It`s as if Austrians were determined to ignore their own principles, stampede themselves into irrelevancy, and to make sure that we get the WORST policy outcomes possible. Why not, if you think others all wrong, deluded or evil, play along with their game, and actually seek policy changes that might not only address the expressed concerns of others in a meaningful way, while also advancing a libertarian, freedom-seeking agenda?

As I have noted in a litany of posts at my blog, most recently one addressed to Bob Murphy, such pro-freedom regulatory changes might include:

accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow consumer choice, peak pricing and "smart metering" that will rapidly push efficiency gains),
ending Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more common-law dependent approaches),
ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar), and
if there is to be any type of carbon pricing at all, insisting that it is a per capita, fully-rebated carbon tax (puts the revenues in the hands of those with the best claim to it, eliminates regressive impact and price volatility, least new bureaucracy, most transparent, and least susceptible to pork).

Other policy changes could also be put on the table, such as an insistence that government resource management be improved by requiring that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens (with a slice to the administering agency).

As Rob Bradley once reluctantly acknowledged to me (in the halcyon days before he banned me from the "free-market" Master Resource blog), "a free-market approach is not about “do nothing” but implementing a whole new energy approach to remove myriad regulation and subsidies that have built up over a century or more." But unfortunately the wheels of this principled concern have never hit the ground at MR [persistently pointing this out it, and questioning whether his blog was a front for fossil fuel interests, appears to be what earned me the boot].

There have been occasional libertarian climate proposals floated over the past few years, but they have never graced the Mises Blog, instead falling gently to the ground unnoticed - apparently, except for me - like the proverbial unstrained koala tea of Mercy.

Austrians seem to act as if the love of reason requires a surrender of it in favor of the comforting distraction of a self-satisfied echo chamber of a type that would warm the cockles of any like-minded religious "alarmist" cult.

Then of course, we have our own home-grown libertarians who are happy to participate actively in the debate (with many excellent points, naturally), but carefully skirt for the purposes of maximum effectiveness (and felicitously, for their own consciences) the fact that their views are funded by the dirtiest class of rent-seekers. Plus we have a few who are happy to regurgitate for us "heroic" "grassroots" efforts that are transparent corporate PR ploys.

Finally, since no one else seems to be remotely interesting in scratching the surface of Dr. Hayden`s letter, here is what a little due diligence turns up:

- sure, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. Some skeptics use this to suggest that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are due not to man, but to a naturally warming. That`s why it`s so interesting that, despite a warming ocean, ocean pH is rising [oops, I meant pH is "falling", as I`ve noted in a previous comment about rapidly changing ocean pH] because dissolved CO2 is also rising (because man`s CO2 emissions are forcing more CO2 to be dissolved in water).

- You ask sarcastically, if the melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else, how will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists? The answer is, simply, that (1) the warming oceans melt and undermine the coastal ice, and (2) as coastal buttresses are removed, gravity brings the continental ice down more rapidly. This process is well underway and apparently accelerating, as described in a study just published in Nature. Note also that not all of Antarctica lies precisely at the South Pole, and that some parts are melting directly as the atmosphere warms.

- finally, not all men are dinosaurs, nor is the rest of extant Creation (save birds, of course). Why should we feel comforted by the fact that we may, in the blink of an eye in geologic time (decades/centuries), be terra-forming the Earth for creatures that no longer exist, while stressing it for the rest of Creation? Do we have no right of preference in climate or in the life we share the Earth with, or have the investors in fossil fuel firms homesteaded the right to modify environmental matters willy nilly, come what may?

Thanks for providing the soapbox, Stephan.

Tom

I note that Stephan closes his introduction to Dr. Hayden`s letter with the following:

"I love Hayden's email sign-off, "People will do anything to save the world ... except take a course in science.""

Would that problems of governance of shared resources were so easy as taking a science course! Then ALL of us Austrians, and not merely our leading lights at the Mises Blog, could simply pack up and go home, and leave everything to a few philosopher-king scientists!

[update] Bob Murphy, Rob Bradley and the Austrian Road Not Taken on Climate by two fossil-fuels gunslingers

TokyoTom — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:14:00 GMT

[Update: I copy at bottom a follow-up exchange I had on Bob`s thread with another reader - radio silence from Bob.]

Bob Murphy has a new post up at his blog, "CBO Testimony Misleads on Cost of Cap-and-Trade", that draws attention to a new blog post at the Institute of Energy Research that Bob says he "had a lot to do with".

The IER post rightly criticizes some of the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office has released, but the IER is playing games itself.

I left the following note at Bob`s (now substantially goosed up for the benefit of readers):

TokyoTom said...

IER? Isn`t that the "free-market" blog that bans libertarians who are not on their pro-coal, pro-pollution wagon? [Oops, I confused this with Rob Bradley`s MasterResource blog; IER is different, in that IER is - much more clearly than MR - an active rent-seeking front for fossil fuel interests, which Exxon made clear last year when it publicly announced that it would no longer fund IER`s "unproductive", climate-skeptic position.]

But while we`re on the subject, let`s not forget:

- Austrians` fundamental objections to cost-benefit analysis;

- that the mining, transport and combustion of coal, in addition to whatever climate "cost" it might have to various people whose preferences can`t be measured, have very real and significant costs in terms of damage to persons and property;

- that federal law authorizes this (via the "Clean Air Act", surface mining laws and ownership of the TVA), and grandfathers the very worst midwestern utilities, the oldest 10% of which (41 or so) are estimated to be responsible for 43% of the $62 billion in annual damages (not including damages from harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, or climate change)(according to the latest NAS report on the indirect costs of fossil fuels);

- that our federal government and states own most of the coal deposits and are otherwise addicted to the royalty revenues and complicit in turning a blind eye to damages;

- the future "costs" that the IER analysis refers to (in 2050) are not discounted to present value;

- that alternative policies - such as

a rebated carbon tax,
accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow consumer choice, peak pricing and "smart metering" that will rapidly push efficiency gains),
ending Clean Air Act handouts to the dirtiest utilities (or otherwise unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more common-law dependent approaches),
ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license), and
speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural corporate welfare programs,

are never advanced, much less their costs weighed [that is, no attempt is ever made to engage opponents in good faith or to seek mutual gains by working to resolve underlying problems];

- the costs/consequences/risks and equities of "do-nothing" policies are hardly considered, and when so are heavily discounted;

- that deliberate "geo-engineering" holds no promise as a panacea, and itself is fraught with issues about statism, preferences, risks and liaibility;

- the need for investment in infrastructure and change in laws to adapt (and foster adaptation) to very real ongoing climate changes are never discussed; and

- no one at IER ever seems to question the unstated presumption that utilities and our transportation industries have somehow homesteaded an ownership right over the global atmosphere - or the massive role that our federal government and states play as coal and other energy resource owners), so that it`s perfectly okay to dismiss the preferences of those who have concerns at home [those "religious" nuts like Exxon, and our Academies of Science] and those abroad in the least developed countries that are most vulnerable to damages (much less to suggest how those injured should be aided).

In other words, those defending the status quo seem to have abandoned any Austrian training (or to have no familiarity with its concern for problem-solving and awareness that [as Block points out] common law protection of private property rights was hijacked a century ago, with massive pollution and rent-seeking problems being the result).

Someone ought to post a few of these thoughts over at IER; Rob Bradley somehow finds comments of this type over fundamental principles to be "ad hominem" arguments [of the kind that very quickly tested his patience and got me banned, without any word to his co-bloggers, who found my comments worthy of considered response].

Sure, we should fight over policy, but let`s not ignore principles or put our heads in the sand.

October 28, 2009 10:10 AM

* From the NAS report:

Coal accounts for about half the electricity produced in the U.S. In 2005 the total annual external damages from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter created by burning coal at 406 coal-fired power plants, which produce 95 percent of the nation's coal-generated electricity, were about $62 billion; these nonclimate damages average about 3.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour (kwh) of energy produced. A relatively small number of plants -- 10 percent of the total number -- accounted for 43 percent of the damages. By 2030, nonclimate damages are estimated to fall to 1.7 cents per kwh.

[update:

Supporters of cap and trade always turn to the argument that opponents are burying their heads in the sand. It's not true. This legislation won't do anything to help the environment. It is merely a front so that the administration and the Democrats can say they did "something." We don't need legislation that is going to cost every single American household and won't even be able to achieve its stated goals. Write your Congressmen at http://dontcapandtradeourjobs.net/?tr15.

# posted by : October 28, 2009 10:31 AM

, you`re missing my higher -level poinht, which is that IER is rather apparently UNINTERESTED in engaging productively or on a principled basis on this issue; rather, they are simply sniping (though they make excellent points) at the cap-and-traders).

Though, of course, from the view of those financing them, this form of engagement may very well be "productive", if it delays any action that will lower returns to coal, rail or utility investors.

What`s regrettable is that this obfuscation, which has been going on for decades, is what is likely to saddle us with extremely costly, porky and ineffective "climate change" policies.

# posted by TokyoTom : October 29, 2009 12:08 AM

Ad homs R NOT Us: discussions over rent-seeking necessitate painful wrestling with slippery "cui bono" demons

TokyoTom — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:28:00 GMT

My recent post, "Bob Murphy on climate change at Antiwar Radio; a puppet for the "King Coal" hand that feeds him?", attracted a bit of attention, including some hostile comments from some LvMI community members who thought my comments regarding the motivations of Bob Murphy`s funders were over the line.

Since I consider the issue an important one and welcome the comments, I thought I would raise the comment thread to a post here, in the hopes that I might elicit further thoughtful commentary.

Are cui bono inquiries off-base to Austrians when reviewing policy arguments over government policy? Or, as distasteful as such inquries may be, are they unavoidable?

I note that I have tried to have this discussion with Bob on several occasions over the past four months; for the curious reader, here, in chronological order, are my posts:

Bob Murphy, the Heritage Foundation and "green jobs" - ignore coal! We only pay attention to rent-seeking from greens/the left;

In which I try to help Bob Murphy figure out just what the heck I`m talking about (when I say he`s entangled in a partisan, rent-seeking game); and

Fun with Self-Deception and Rent-Seeking: Bob Murphy`s "Man in the Mirror".

Here is the comment thread (anonymized to avoid distractions; I am happy to add handles back in if the relevant persons prefer):

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 1:10 AM by "A"

Challenge his facts and ideas. Challenging his paycheck is cowardly and dishonest.

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 1:33 AM by "B"

I agree with "A". Only because Bob Murphy gets a part of his income due to "Big Coal" doesn't discredit his ideas.

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 10:34 AM by TokyoTom

"A", if Bob forthrightly informed everyone that he gets paid to talk about climate change by the group of investors who has benefitted the greatest from the non-free market status quo, I wouldn`t feel a need to mention it.

It is absurd to suggest that libertarians - whose biggest peeves center on the entanglement between the state and business - either shouldn`t notice, or shouldn`t comment on, the way some of their erstwhile members make one-sided comments that happen to suit the agenda of statist corporations that are funding them.

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 10:36 AM by TokyoTom

"B":

I agree that Bob`s funding doesn`t discredit his ideas per se. It`s just that "Bob`s ideas" conspicuously deflect light from the whole picture.

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 11:06 AM by "A"

TT,

Why would Bob admitting he gets paid by so and so change anything? Do you believe Bob's opinion is compromised?

If yes, could you substantiate such a claim?

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 3:03 PM by TokyoTom

"A", I believe that the answer to your question is patently obvious:

If Bob were to forthrightly acknowledge what interests are funding his opinion, readers would be more likely to notice what the real PURPOSES of his remarks might be.

It is precisely to mask such purposes that rent-seeking corporations like to channel their efforts through "think tanks", pundits and the like.

Both Bob Murphy and Scott Horton are well aware of this, which is why

- when Bob identified himself the economist for IER, Horton immediately said, "Ah now, wait a minute. Does that mean that you`re a front man for Exxon or something?", and

- Bob chuckled, hemmed and hawed and replied, "Uhh, well, no, but, you can take it with a grain of salt if you want."

But sadly, Bob did NOT take the opportunity of Horton`s specific question to explain who funds IER - not Exxon or oil, but coal - even though most of his later substantive comments were ABOUT how Waxman-Markey is a fight between interest groups for government favors.

As to whether who funds Bob affects what he says, it think that`s also fairly evident: if it didn`t, his funders wouldn`t bother to pay for his services. Of course this doesn`t at all need to imply that Bob doesn`t mean what he says (he probably does, and I agree with him on many points), but simply that he omits to say other relevant things.

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:57 PM by "C"

I hope Tokyo Tom will tell us who the most noble and self-funded commentator is on the topic, so that we might all swallow his ideas and arguments wholesale.

# Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:34 AM by "A"

TT, that is an evasive way of further undermining Bob's credibility while trying to cover your own ass for taking potshots at him.

"This doesn't need to imply..."

But that is exactly what you are doing. You have inferred numerous times in this post and comments, that Bob is compromised by his employer.

Can you answer, clearly, yes or no that he is compromised?

And if not, don't you find your inferences somewhat irresponsible within the context of sincere and productive debate?

# Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:42 AM by "A"

"C", I don't think TT will be so forthcoming.

TT is fallaciously claiming a sin [sic] of omission, is proof of a sin of commission. It is a non-sequitur.

The fact is, anyone can make any claim that Bob has not provided enough background, about LvMI, about Chaos Theory, about his personal religious beliefs, about what sort of car he drives.

By making an ad hominem (challenging Bob's person and not his ideas) now TT can duck and weave the "we shouldn't draw anything from this thing I have decided to make a big deal about" while avoiding discussing any issues Bob may be incorrect on.

# Sunday, October 04, 2009 3:29 PM by TokyoTom

"C", it`s good that apparently you`re NOT interested in swallowing anyone`s ideas and arguments wholesale.

But if so, why does it bother you that I provide you with additional information about Bob and the interests that are funding him? Are you uninterested in Austrian insights about rent-seeking?

Maybe you should take your complaint to Bob, who himself suggested that listeners might want to take his views with a grain of salt.

# Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:37 PM by TokyoTom

"A", you`re having a tough time reading me.

1. I think I`ve fairly clearly stated that I think that Bob`s expressed opinions on climate change are influenced by the fact that they are supported by a rent-seeking interest. When I said "This doesn't need to imply..." I was referring to whether or not he believes what he SAYS - as opposed to what he omits to say - and expressed the view that he probably does mean what he says (as well as that I agree with much of what he says).

2. I don`t think I`m being evasive at all, but rather straightforward. And I don't consider my fairly open challenges to Bob on this matter to be "somewhat irresponsible" within the "context of sincere and productive debate". Instead, I reluctantly find them to be necessary, given the ubiquity of rent-seeking and the ways that it perverts both legislation and the debate over it.

3. I like Bob and don`t really enjoy making this criticism, but I think he would probably be the last to say that questioning his entanglement with rent-seeking interests is off-limits, particularly when rent-seeking is PRECISELY one of his chief substantive criticisms of cap-and-trade. Bob`s personal familiarity with Austrian criticisms of the influence of business and other interest groups on government policy does not create immunity from criticism on the same grounds.

4. "I don't think TT will be so forthcoming". Care to take back your words? In the future, perhaps you`d be good enough to leave me time to reply before you speculate on whether I will?

5. "a sin [sic] of omission, is proof of a sin of commission. It is a non-sequitur." You`re using a lot of big words, but I`m not sure I follow you. I`ve said Bob failed to disclose something that was relevant to the discussion. Period. (Bob may have some thoughts on if it was a sin and what kind, but if it was deliberate I`m not sure I see a distinction between omission and commission.)

6. "anyone can make any claim that Bob has not provided enough background".

Sure, but there are only certain times when "full disclosure" is relevant; on most things Bob comments on whether someone funds him is irrelevant. But when he is talking about legislation that will have a significant impact on someone who is paying him to speak, that fact that he is acting as a spokesman is VERY relevant. That`s why Scott Horton asked the question, and why Bob dodged it.

7. "by making an ad hominem"

Sorry, but if you want to split hairs, a "cui bono" argument is not ad hominem argument. In any event, Austrian economics tells us that we need to worry about the perversion of government via rent-seeking. If the wheels of our worrying about rent-seeking are ever to hit the road, it means that we have to keep asking "who benefits".

This of course complicates debate and cuts many ways; sorry that I can`t make life simpler for you.

8. "while avoiding discussing any issues Bob may be incorrect on."

Are you serious? I`ve had several years of substantive discussions on climate on the LvMI blog, and argue routinely with Bob on substantive matters, both on my blog and over at his. All you`re showing here is an unadmirable ignorance or shortness of attention.

In any case, your attention is welcome, but we can have a more intelligent and productive discussion if you`d check your inclination to reflexive negativity.

Now Apple Computer leaves! One-track "King Coal" interests insist on steering the US Chamber of Commerce`s climate bus

TokyoTom — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:54:00 GMT

The intransigence of a core of coal interests, in the face of a rebellion by firms that support legislative action on climate change, is threatening the status of the US Chamber of Commerce as the premier business council in the US, as now Apple Computer has quit the US Chamber of Commerce.

Apple`s departure, announced on October 5 and effective immediately, came on the heels of departures in the past two weeks by the utility companies Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon. In addition, Nike has quit the Chamber's Board, and other members such as Johnson & Johnson have voiced strong opposition to the climate stance of the Chamber and asked that it not take public positions on this issue.

It`s not clear how closely the Chamber has polled all of its wide membership on climate issue, but it`s apparent that the Chamber`s rather hard-line stance is out of step with its Board members. According to research by the NRDC (a mainline environmentalist group) in May:

the staff of the U.S. Chamber appears to be projecting the views held by a tiny sliver of its board of directors - just four out of 122 members on the board.

The Chamber's oft-stated views, which question the scientific consensus on climate change and reject the need for federal regulation to reduce global warming pollution, stand in sharp contrast to the views expressed by 19 members of the Chamber's board that support federal regulations with goals to reduce total US global warming pollution.

You read that right: only 23 members of the U.S. Chamber's board have a publicly stated position on climate change and more than 80 percent are not on board with the U.S. Chamber's "Dr. No" position on climate policy action.

So who is in the minority that has shanghaied the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on climate policy? Be prepared to be shocked! Three of the four climate are coal companies: Peabody Energy, Massey Energy Corp., and CONSOL Energy. (The fourth - Con-Way Inc. - is "a freight company and logistical services company.")

As the WaPo noted, in response to prior defections,

Last week, the group's president, Thomas J. Donohue, said in a statement that his group supports "strong federal legislation" to protect the climate. But he said legislation passed by the House of Representatives -- which would use a "cap and trade" system to lower the cost of reducing emissions -- was flawed because it does not require other polluting countries to act and does too little to spur U.S. investment in green technologies.

In response to Apple`s departure, a spokesman for the Chamber dissed the motives of the firms quitting the Chamber:

"While we'll continue to represent the broad majority of our membership on this goal, we recognize that there are some companies who stand to gain more than others with the current options on the table."

While this may be true for the utility companies, which are members of the USCAP organization and stand to gain free allocations of carbon allowances under the cap and trade bills under consideration, it is hardly so for Apple, Nike or Johnson & Johnson. And of course it distracts from the fact that the coal firms and their shippers - including Union Pacific, which richly compensates Union Pacific board member Tom Donohue, the President of the Chamber - benefit greatly from the status quo, to an extent and in a manner quite different from other Chamber members.

It will be interesting to see what will happen next at the Chamber of Commerce, and who will be next to leave.

Steve Milloy criticizes GE’s "smart-meter profiteering" via green mandates, but ignores state grants of "public utility" monopolies

TokyoTom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:54:00 GMT

Anti-enviro gadfly Steven Milloy has a new blog post up that rightly skewers the green mandates that are providing a taxpayer-funded stream of business and profits to GE. Notes Milloy:

GE announced today that utility giant American Electric Power (AEP) will purchase 110,000 smart meters from GE. And just how is AEP managing to buy all these smart meters? President Obama and Congress are making us pay for them.

On Sep. 1, AEP applied to the Department of Energy for $75 million in federal stimulus money for the smart meter purchase.

It’s a good thing that GE’s Immelt sits on Barack Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board — how else would the Department of Energy know to direct smart meter purchases to GE?

Of course, AEP isn’t the only conduit for sending federal stimulus money to GE. So far about 50 utilities have applied to DOE for a piece of the almost $4 billion in stimulus money earmarked for smart meter projects.

From an Austrian perspective, what`s wrong with this post? The simple fact that Milloy isn`t interested in problem-solving, but in bashing greens, Dems and GE. If he were a problem-solver, he would be a little less partisan and would devote a little more effort to throw light on some of the underlying factors that fuel green concerns and utility mandates, such a the little problem that states have prevented the development of free power markets by granting "public utility" monopoly status to local power providers, as I have noted in a number of posts.

A problem-solver might also devote some time to examining the entanglement of the state with other rent-seeking corporations, such as the coal producers; but those trapped in partisan, rent-seeking games are often good only at seeing the flaws of those whom they criticize, while ignoring the way that they themselves are co-opted by other rent-seekers.

I left Steven the following comment:

Steven I think your criticism of GE is fair, but it`s clearly lacking in context.

Where`s your post criticizing the states for their continuing grant of monopoly status to “public utilities”, which is the chief reason why there is no free market in providing power to consumers? With a free markets, we`d have seen smart meters like GE`s years ago, and there would be no basis for all of these “green power” mandates.

Rot at the Core: Michael Moore says "Capitalism is evil", but rightly points to statist corporations and institutionalized theft via government

TokyoTom — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:21:00 GMT

I haven`t seen Michael Moore`s latest film, "Capitalism: A Love Story" - it premiered in New York last week, but who knows when it will make it to Tokyo? - but I`ve been reading some of his interviews and reviews of his film.

While Moore is confused in identifying the existing U.S. statist corporate system that he criticizes with "capitalism", it seems to me that much of his criticisms of the U.S. political-economic system are consistent with libertarian views (even if Moore doesn`t understand the libertarian criticisms).

Accordingly, while Moore may be off on both his diagnosis of what`s wrong with America and his proposed prescriptions, his film - which appears to be resonating across the political spectrum - presents not merely a challenge to libertarians, but an teaching opportunity. I hope that libertarians will take advantage of the opportunity to engage Moore`s concerns constructively.

I note below excerpts from media coverage (in no particular order), with a few comments of my own:

Fortune interview, September 22:

- The film covers .... "a privately run juvenile prison that paid off judges to give convicts longer sentences, and last year's $700 billion bailout of the banking system."

-　”I started out wanting to explore the premise of capitalism being anti-American, and anti-Jesus, meaning it's not a Democratic economy. And it's not run with a moral or ethical code. But when the crash happened, it added a third plot line: not only is capitalism anti-American and anti-Jesus, it doesn't work.”

[The weakened moral code Moore complains of is clearly visible in political corruption (the sale of government favors to businesses and investors), which is tied to the regulatory spiral fueled by the state grant of corporate status, shifting or risks to the public and eliciting efforts from citizens groups to rein in increasingly powerful corporations. I have explored this on many posts, some directly relating to the state grant of limited liability to shareholders. I note that it is apparent from Jon Stewart`s recent interview of Ron Paul regarding Paul`s new "End the Fed" book that both Stewart and Paul share Moore`s concern about the entwining of the corporation and government (h/t Bob Murphy).]

- ”this crash exposed our economic system as a corrupt scam".

- "instead of initially giving bailout money to a General Motors that was never going to change or to banks so they can cover losses from crazy betting schemes, this money should be going to helping to create jobs in places like Detroit. People need to work."

[Okay, but the best way to "create" jobs is for government to leave tax dollars with taxpayers, and to undo counterproductive government regulation (such as grants of monopoly powers to utilities, and the "war on drugs" and on inner cities) that benefit insiders at the collective expense of the common weal.]

- "You tried to get Hank Paulson on the phone in the film, but weren't successful. If you got him on the phone today, what would you ask?"

"If I had a chance to talk to him, I'd want him to come clean and tell me the truth about how he rigged this whole thing. Tell us what happened because we don't know the details. How did so many Goldman people end up in the administration? How is it that Goldman- 's chief competitors are left to die -- not bailing out Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns falls apart, Merrill Lynch is absorbed into Bank of America -- and look who's left standing: the company that's got all their boys inside the administration."

- "Capitalism is not only an economic system that legalizes greed, it also has at its foundation a political system of capitalism that is, "We have to buy the political system because we don't have enough votes."

Fortune article, September 4 (Richard Corliss, a senior writer for TIME):

- "To Moore, it's the bureaucratic-industrial complex -- the combined might of the West Wing, Wall street and Wal-Mart -- that's evil. That view was never clearer than in his broadly entertaining, ceaselessly provocative, wildly ambitious new film. Not satisfied with outlining and condemning the housing and banking crises of the past year, it expands the story of the financial collapse into an epic of malfeasance: capital crimes on a national scale."

- "The movie seems to be setting up the disappointment many on the Left have felt over the awarding of more billions to giant banks and corporations, among other things, since Jan. 20. And Moore does note that Goldman Sachs gave more than $1 million to Obama's campaign."

- "But he doesn't go after this Democratic President as he surely would have if John McCain had been elected. Instead, he argues for participatory democracy: do-it-yourself do-gooding, through community activism and union organizing. That's an optimistic and evasive answer to the financial problem.

"Surely what spun out of control because of government indulgence and indolence needs to be repaired by government regulation and ingenuity.... In "Capitalism: A Love Story," Moore has cogently and passionately diagnosed the disease. But for a cure, instead of emergency surgery, he prescribes Happy Meals."

The Nation, describing Moore`s appearance on "The Jay Leno Show”, September 16 (John Nichols):

- "Americans who didn't witness filmmaker Michael Moore's appearance Tuesday night on NBC's "The Jay Leno Show" missed one of those rare moments when the vast wasteland gives way to an oasis of realism.

Rarely since the days when author Gore Vidal regularly appeared on the "Tonight" show with Johnny Carson has a popular television program on a commercial broadcast channel provided such extended and respectful treatment to a scathing critique of the corrupt status quo.

Leno hailed Moore's new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," as "the best film he's done."

The talk-show host described "Capitalism: A Love Story" as "completely nonpartisan" -- and he's right: Moore goes after sold-out Democrats and sold-out Republicans -- before declaring: "I was stunned by it, and I think it is the most fair film."

- "Even more meaningful than Leno's review of a movie he had obviously watched and considered seriously was this exchange:

LENO: Now it's one year since Lehman Brothers collapsed. We've had all, OK, we've handed out... Is Wall Street any better? Have they learned anything?
MOORE: No, not at all. It's, it's probably worse. They're still doing these exotic derivatives. They're now trying to do it with life insurance. They've got all these crazy schemes. I mean, that's what I'm saying about capitalism, it's like a beast. And no matter how many strings or ropes you try and tie it down with that beast just wants more and more money. And it will go anywhere. It will try to gobble up as much as it can. The word 'enough' is the dirtiest word in capitalism, 'cuz there's no such thing as enough with these guys. And we haven't stopped them. We haven't passed the regulations that President Obama has suggested. I mean, I think he's really on top of this. And he said yesterday, he told Wall Street, 'That's it, boys. No more free ATM machine at the U.S. Department of Treasury.' And I think that's something we all support, right?

"The audience responded with enthusiastic and sustained applause."

[When Moore criticizes "capitalism" he seems to be focussing on the political influence by which taxpayers end up holding the bag for irresponsible risk-taking in the private sector. But his suggestion that Obama`s "really on top of this" is wishful thinking that ignores both the influence of money on Obama and misses Austrian/public choice understandings of how rent-seeking, bureaucratic incentives and the information problem continue to contribute to a cycle of regulation and manipulation.]

- "The applause rose again when Moore explained that: "I'm actually suggesting go back to our roots of this country, democracy. What if we had an economy that you and I had a say in? Right now, we all don't have much of a say in this economy. What if we applied our democratic principles and said, 'We, the people, have a right to determine how this economy is run.' I think we'd be in much better shape than what we're going through right now."

Bloomberg interview, September 15 (Rick Warner):

- "Warner: Several clergymen in the film say capitalism is anti-Christian and that Jesus would have deplored such a dog- eat-dog system. Yet you hear from the right that capitalism and Christianity go hand in hand. Are they reading different Bibles?"

"Moore: The number one thing in the Bible is redemption. The number two thing is how we treat the poor. All the great religions talk about this. The right wing hijacked Jesus 30 years ago. It was all a big ruse, but people fell for it. I don’t think people are falling for it so easily now."

- "Warner: You’re not the most beloved person on Wall Street. When you went down there with your Brink’s truck and empty bag to collect money for the American taxpayer, were you concerned about your safety?"

"Moore: Yes. When I started wrapping the New York Stock Exchange with crime-scene tape, I thought for sure this was when the police were going to jump me and haul me off to the Tombs (prison). And it didn’t happen. One cop says to me, “Don’t worry Mike, we’ve lost a billion dollars in our pension fund.” They were like, “Go get ‘em.”

USA Today, September 23 (Claudia Puig):

- "No matter what side of the political fence you're on or what you think of Moore as an activist and provocateur, a film that explores the economic meltdown and its historical roots is something most of us can get our heads around."

- "Capitalism is as entertaining as Roger & Me, and its critique skewers both major political parties, calling into question the economic policies of Bill Clinton as well as Ronald Reagan. This is quintessential Moore, with a clear-cut agenda: Capitalism has superseded democracy, encouraged corruption and greed, and failed our nation. Political bigwigs and wealthy executives may love it, but it's not working for the majority of Americans."

- "His rallying cry is simple: The country needs to return to its democratic roots."

- "The recurring theme: The rich have gotten richer, and everyone else has suffered."

- "Moore has the rare ability to present economics and history in an engaging and comprehensive fashion. Consequently, his movies draw large audiences and spur debate. And films that inspire contemplation and elicit discussion are welcome relief in a medium increasingly dominated by formulaic and mindless diversion."

Variety, September 16 (Ted Johnson, managing editor):

- "His latest movie tries to tap into populist outrage from the left, at a time when that anger has been channeled much more visibly by the right. The outrage that we have seen, the town halls and the tea parties and the birthers, have been over the fear of big government, not that there won't be a safety net. "They are very good at it," he told me, adding that conservatives' ability to "own the bailout" is for "entirely different reasons from me." It is also one of the reasons he was so anxious to get his movie out."

- "this movie has a much larger scope, taking on the notion that capitalism was never enshrined in the Constitution, but was sold to us as the best possible system. In making his point he turns not just to workers who've been left behind, but to Catholic priests and bishops, who preach of capitalism as no less than evil.

"There's ample fodder: ... Citigroup draws up a memo for select investors, proclaiming a world "plutonomy" that can be foiled by that pesky thing called the right to vote.

"Republicans, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush all take their lumps, which is to be expected, but so do House and Senate Democrats and even President Obama, as Moore treats his election as a turning point yet notes Goldman Sachs and Wall Street showered him with contributions, resulting in Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner. Special mention is reserved for Chris Dodd, who is hammered for accepting VIP treatment from Countrywide in the form of better terms on home interest rates, reaping $1,175,133.

"On the other hand, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) is treated as a hero for speaking out against the bailout bill, and footage is shown of her impassioned plea, before it passed Congress. "This was almost like an intelligence operation," she says of the timing of the bailout so close to the 2008 election."

BBC Interview, September 7 (Kelly Oakes); "Michael Moore takes aim at money men":

- "I had been wanting to do a movie about capitalism and about a year and a half ago, I finally started," he says. "I saw a lot of things happening in terms of people losing their jobs and foreclosures.

"So I decided to get going on this film because I thought we had an economy built on sand, a house of cards."

- "I think that we must change the fundamental things about how our economy is run and how it works or we are going to continue to have problems and it is going to get worse."

- Capitalism: A Love Story takes a look at the government's multi-billion dollar bank bail-out, and compares it with how workers in small companies found themselves out of jobs without severance pay.

- "Moore is adamant that capitalism is not the way forward, but struggles to offer a real alternative for how the economy could be run, or a way to convince people they do not need so much money to buy "stuff".

He does advocate shared ownership of companies in the form of co-operatives, showing a handful of businesses where this has been a success.

So with so much information thrown at the audience in the film, and giving only his side of the argument, what does Moore hope people will take away from the movie?

"I hope the people will start to wake up a bit and see that they are participating in something that is causing them a lot of harm."

Politico, September 28 (Michael Calderone):

- "While Michael Moore remains a scourge of the right, the filmmaker says he's gaining some conservative fans.

“Our own testing has shown that Republicans are interested in coming to this film more than my other films,” Moore told POLITICO by phone this afternoon. In Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore said, “you see for the first time Republicans inviting me into their homes asking for help.”

It's actually not too surprising, given that the government's taxpayer funded bailout of the banks has attracted critics on the left and right. And along with Washington and Wall Street, Moore also targets the media, which he describes as “major enablers” of the financial crisis and part of the “ruling elite.”

“They have celebrated this culture of making money off money, as opposed to making money by making things,” Moore said. “That has been detrimental for everyone, for society, bad for the economic system.”

- "The difference is that the other side of the political fence is trying to take advantage of people hurting now,” Moore said. “They work to manipulate them and get them afraid. And they’re blaming all the wrong people.”

For instance, Moore considers Fox's Glenn Beck -- who once said on the air he'd like to kill the filmmaker -- to be "a sick puppy." ...

Still, Moore said he doesn’t disparage the right for flocking to town halls this summer, and thinks liberals should be getting out there more.

“I admire those Republicans who even though they’re in a small minority now, they do not give up,” Moore said. “They have the courage of their convictions."

TIME interview, September 26 (Bill Saporito)

- "You've called the TARP program part of a financial coup d'etat. But if we get our money back, with interest, and the banking system reverts to doing what it should do, haven't the citizens won?"

"If you give me $700 billion per year, hey I have some good ideas. I can make some money with that, for me and for you. I'm going to have my best quarter if you gave me that money. I wonder how many people in the inner cities would love a little bailout money to get out the hole they are in and have one of their best years ever. This wasn't a gift; it was a theft. They stole the people's money by gambling with it. They took the pension funds of working people and gambled away their money, and went back to the same working people and asked for $700 billion more of their money."

- "But aren't you really a model capitalist? You raise money. You hire people. You create a product and sell it to the public, bearing the risk and gaining the rewards that goes along with it."

"Capitalism would have never let me be a filmmaker, living in Flint, Michigan with a high school education. I was going to have to make that happen myself. My last movie, I gave it away for free on the Internet: Slacker Uprising. If I were a capitalist I would not give my employees health insurance with no deductible, which I do, including dental, and paid pregnancy leave. That's not called capitalism, that's called being a Christian and someone who believes in democracy, so that everyone should get a fair slice of the pie."

[Moore doesn`t understand what "capitalism" really is.]

The Nation, September 23 (Naomi Klein):

CNN interview, September 21

New York Times interview, September 23 (Cyrus Sanati, DealBook)

- "In “Capitalism: A Love Story,” which had its New York premiere this week, Mr. Moore contends that capitalism has failed to create the kind of just society the country’s founders envisioned, and that the big banks have essentially co-opted the government."

- "In your film you point out the deficiencies of capitalism. What economic system do you think is best and why?

"Well, we haven’t invented it yet. Here’s what I don’t think works: An economic system that was founded in the 16th century and another that was founded in the 19th century. I’m tired of this discussion of capitalism and socialism; we live in the 21st century, we need an economic system that has democracy as its underpinnings and an ethical code."

[Sounds like he could be talking about a more libertarian society - somebody get ahold of Moore and start talking with him!]

-"There is a scene in the film where you mention that Goldman Sachs employees were a big source of President Obama’s contributions during the last election cycle. Do you believe the President was wrong to take that money?"

I really see an audience of one for that scene (President Obama). I want him to know that we know that Goldman was his single-largest contributor and what he does with that is his choice – he can choose to side with them or with us.

- "It seems that a lot of the anger over the bailout and the crisis has eased as the markets have recovered. Are you concerned that the government will not step up and reform the financial system?

First, the market recovery is a bit of an illusion because the other shoes haven’t dropped yet like the massive credit card debt that can never be repaid and the commercial real-estate bubble.

Of course they are not going to revamp the system. The banking industry and these financial institutions have been lobbying and spending millions of dollars in the last year to guarantee that no new regulations have been put in place.

Real change will only happen when the people demand it and the people are going to have to demand more than a few new rules at this point.

- "So how can the people ‘rise up’ in your view?"

By electing representatives that have this one piece in their platform: The removal of money from our political system. You literally have to take money out and publicly finance elections like other western democracies. When we remove money, our political leaders will listen to us and not Wall Street.

- "You mention in the film that the United States may have experienced a financial coup d’etat. What did you mean?"

Wall Street, the banks, and corporate America, has been able to call the shots here. They control our members of Congress and they get what they want. I mean, 75 percent of this country wants universal health care, but it looks like we aren’t going to get it again — how does that happen? Well it happens when the health care industry spends a million dollars a day on lobbyists. That’s how it happens.

So until we get the money out of politics, the coup d’etat that has taken place by those with the money are really running the democracy.

New York Times, September 23 (Manohla Dargis, movie review):

- "America, in other words, is headed straight down the historical toilet, along with Nero and his fiddle (or rather Dick Cheney, who’s anointed with a throwaway reference to the “emperor”), a thesis that Mr. Moore continues to advance if not refine with another hour and a half or so"

- "In the end, what is to be done? After watching “Capitalism,” it beats me. Mr. Moore doesn’t have any real answers, either, which tends to be true of most socially minded directors in the commercial mainstream and speaks more to the limits of such filmmaking than to anything else. Like most of his movies, “Capitalism” is a tragedy disguised as a comedy; it’s also an entertainment. This isn’t the story of capitalism as conceived by Karl Marx or Naomi Klein, and it certainly isn’t the story of contemporary American capitalism, which extends across the globe and far beyond Mr. Moore’s sightlines.

"Neither is it an effective call to action: Mr. Moore would like us to vote, which suggests a startling faith in the possibilities of social change in the current political system. That faith appears to be due in some part to the election of President Obama.

"As it happens, the most galvanizing words in the movie come not from the current president but from Roosevelt, who in 1944 called for a “second bill of rights,” asserting that “true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.” The image of this visibly frail president, who died the next year, appealing to our collective conscience — and mapping out an American future that remains elusive — is moving beyond words. And chilling: “People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

Does responding to climate change risks REQUIRE government?

TokyoTom — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:45:00 GMT

A reader of Bob Murphy`s recent post on climate science - "TokyoTom Moving the Goalposts?" - queried my views on whether perceptions of climate change problems themselves justified a need to establish government. I copy below my response (with a few typo and editorial changes):

"Do you believe that averting climate catastrophe is, by itself, justification for establishing a government?"

No, Taylor, I don`t see that a looming climate catastrophe (or other apparent catastrophe) by itself would justify the formation of a state. Absent governments, other voluntary responses would no doubt arise, and more quickly than when hampered by governments and rent-seeking.

"I am curious if you seek to use the government to solve this problem because it already exists and thus you see it as expedient and practical to do so"

My view is quite a bit more subtle. First, the fact of the matter is that we HAVE a government; even if we didn`t, we`d have to deal with the governments of other peoples on an issue such as this. Theoretically, in negotiations with others around the world regarding the atmosphere and climate, we might very well end up creating forms of government. Be that as it may, we cannot ignore that states exist; the question is in part whether we can put them to any good use, and in part how do we avoid making them worse.

Then again, our government has already helped screw up the issue in any number of ways. In my view, the focus should be as much on UNDOING what has been counterproductive and what libertarians have never supported. Those who don`t want to see MORE government should not be closing their minds to the fact of the status quo, and ought to see in concerns about climate change and resources issues (irrespective if the concerns are justified or not) an OPPORTUNITY to undo existing and damaging state actions.

See my point?

But in all this, libertarians rarely strive to be positive change agents, but instead have been almost wholly co-opted by rent-seekers who benefit from rights to pollute for free and barriers to entry under the status quo.

[A few lists of my many posts related to this subject can be found here, here and here.]

The extra richness of Robert Bradley/MasterResource: diehard libertarian making a living at pure rent-seeking ("political capitalism")

TokyoTom — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:58:00 GMT

Lord knows I`ve got better things to do, but I can`t resist.

Rob Bradley has written extensively on energy regulation from a libertarian viewpoint and spent a number of years as an adviser to Ken Lay inside Enron - apparently seeing up-close (while conscientiously fighting a losing battle to steer Enron away from) the now well-known efforts of Enron to use the power of government to create profitable markets for it. Bradley`s energy commentary came to my attention a few years ago (on the Mises pages), and I have been observing him fairly closely over the past year, particularly after the launch of MasterResource, his "free-market energy blog".

Unfortunately, even while Bradley has been making some very thoughtful comments on energy policy, he is now rather nakedly involved in precisely the game of rent-seeking (Rob`s preferred term is "political capitalism") that he so loudly decries in practically every blog post or other piece of "free-market" commentary that he spins out.

Bradley`s activities now include:

his commentary and support for Institute for Energy Resources - a "free market" "think tank" that he founded and remains CEO of but which is now staffed by former Republican K Street apparatchiks Essentially the same staff as AEA, noted next), and which has moved froｍ Houston to DC, the better to engage in influence peddling, but whose cover was blown wide open last year when ExxonMobil (a firm that Bradley has made clear, in post after post, that he adores), announced that it would no longer fund IER and others whose activities were tied too closely to anti-climate change science and policies that Exxon has decided are counterproductive);

support for the public lobbying arm of IER, the American Energy Alliance, staffed by former Republican K Street apparatchiks, which has been coordinating "grassroots" events to put political pressure on Congresscritters from coal-producing and -consuming states; and

his relentless blogging on climate police at MasterResource - his chief soapbox - with co-bloggers who are generally well-regarded but nevertheless professionals at the climate policy influence game (such as Chip Knappenberger, who works at a self-proclaimed "advocacy science consulting firm").

This is clearly a rent-seeker`s game, and Rob is in the thick of it, producing a steady stream of one-sided political, economic and scientific argument after another.

Bradley valiantly pretends simply to be an opponent of some possibly counterproductive government policies (of which there are plenty, to be sure) that various nefarious and/or corrupt interest groups are advancing, but in reality serves as a paid spokesman for that group of interests that have benefitted most from the status quo, and have the most to lose from any form of carbon pricing - including "King Coal", as Bradley so aptly names them. Coal merits unfailingly positive references - it`s clean, it`s cheap, it`s the FUTURE - but never any observations of the pollution resulting from coal (significant annual deaths, breaches of fly ash dams, court cases regarding cross-border pollution) or of the negative role of government ownership of coal reserves or of misguided federal regulations (Clean Air Act grandfathering of the oldest, dirtiest plants, and right to pollute; and the federal supplanting of private tort protections regarding air pollution and mountaintop removal practices).

It looks like a pretty good brew that Bradley serves up - he serves his clients well - but it`s always been a bit too strong for me. As a result, Rob has booted me from his bar, and I`ve been left to occasionally grumble outside. I haven`t particularly lost interest so much as run out of time and an ability to keep up, particularly as the flow of rhetoric and partial "analysis" has increased (in step with the legislative agenda).

But in a couple of recent posts by Bradley, the brew of self-righteous, self-serving and self-deceptive rhetoric has proved too rich for me to ignore.

1. The first is a naked appeal to influence the policy leanings of the natural gas industry, in Bradley`s September 8 post, the title of which lays bare Bradley`s clients: "Why Natural Gas Should Not Play the Cap-and-Trade Game (the real enemy is mandated renewables/conservation, not coal)" (geez, has he beat my record for long titles?). Why is this rich? First, because coal is the heaviest producer of GHGs per BTU, so coal is obviously most threatened by climate bills (that`s why Bradley and a legion of others can make a living at this, after all). Next, some of the reasons he trots out, such as his reference to "grassroot" citizens in Houston that Bradley and the American Petroleum Institute organized, and the more straightforward argument that, to be blunt, "Big Coal is too powerful for a Kill Coal bill on the Senate side". But despite all of coal`s bluster, Bradley knows that it is THEY that are on the table, not natural gas, and so he argues that it`s really natural gas "as the swing fuel in electricity generation" that loses mostly from a climate bill. Which is why Bradley closes with an appeal to natural gas to help not coal, but "capitalism in its desperate hour".

2. The second post is a re-post of interesting earlier commentary by Bradley concerning Enron. This is rich because Bradley continually tries to draw important lessons about what went wrong at Enron (while thumping his chest about his own efforts to correct "philosophical errors" at the firm), while blindly ignoring his own present involvement in the self-same "political capitalism" that he decries. Bradley just conveniently overlooks that "political capitalism" lies not solely in seeking CURRENT political favor, but also in PAST efforts to secure such favor, and in ongoing efforts to preserve it. One wonders whether for Bradley, reciting the lessons he learned from Enron might be serving as a salve for a guilty conscience for actually forgetting the inconvenient part of such lessons (and deeper Austrian lessons about problem solving and the frustration of preferences when government is acting heavy-handedly).

Okay, I`m all out of rants for now.

Block/Huebert/Kinsella revisit corporations, beg Qs of grant of limited liaibility towards persons involuntarily injured and resulting fight to influence state action

TokyoTom — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:48:00 GMT

I left the following comment at a recent Mises Blog post by Stephan Kinsella, but the number of links included apparently triggered the spam filter and held up the comment. According, I post it here, so I can re-comment with a cross-link here.

Stephan, we have extensively discussed this matter previously, focussing mainly on the point that Vincent Cook raises, namely, the consistency with libertarian principles of the state grant of limited liability as against parties who become unwilling "creditors" of the firm as a result of being injured by the actions of the firm.

You continue to dodge this point just as Block and Huebert have explicitly begged the question in their latest effort (emphasis added):

"As long as there is no fraud, as long as all those who deal with corporations know full well that in case of any dispute, they will only be able to sue for an amount up to the full capitalization of the corporation and not have access to the shareholders’ personal assets, there can be no problem with the libertarian legal code."

It goes without saying that injured persons don`t choose ahead of time who will injure them, much less the whether the liability of their tortfeasors will be limited to corporate assets.

Our previous discussions on the Mises Blog took place here and here:

And an earlier related discussion on the Mises Blog was here:

I have commented extensively myself on the consequences of this grant - which I see as fuelling risky corporate behavior and a cycle of "rent-seeking" fights with private interests seeking to use the state as a check against corporations - in a number of blog posts, such as the following:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/11/26/corporations-amp-the-state-some-criticisms-of-huebert-and-block-s-criticisms-of-long.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/03/03/when-will-tom-woods-and-other-quot-free-market-quot-intellectuals-have-second-thoughts-about-limited-liability.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/02/26/the-curse-of-limited-liability-wsj-com-executives-traders-of-big-financial-corporations-generate-risky-businesss-while-smaller-partnerships-are-much-more-risk-averse.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/16/fighting-over-the-wheel-of-government.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=limited

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/pages/legal-resources-on-the-state-creation-of-limited-liability-for-shareholders.aspx

"TokyoTom Moving the Goalposts?" Bob Murphy dislikes my criticism of the rush by "skeptics" to print climate science news

TokyoTom — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:20:00 GMT

Further to my preceding post, on "Confirmation bias, rent-seeking and the rush to print the latest science "scoop (Linzen-Choi)", I note that Bob Murphy has kindly put up a new blog post that notes and responds to my comments to him.

Since it`s late here, interested readers might want to check out Bob`s post, including and the comments that I and others have left.

On a meta-level, yes, I`m aware that on this and similar public policy issues involving science, each group of protagonists seems eager to rush into battle with the latest science that they view as favorable to their cause. My point is NOT that the latest news may not be important, but that we should be careful that we are actually seeking to understand it, instead of blindly looking for confirmation of our pre-existing notions. We should also be careful of the motivations (rent-seeking; self-justification, etc.) of those who are quick to bandy news about.

Yes, this cuts more than one way; we are all human, after all.

More on self-deception, mirror positions and libertarian reticence on climate policy

TokyoTom — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:46:00 GMT

I copy below (with minor changes for clarity) a further comment I made on the piece by Bob Murphy ("I'm Starting With the Man in the Mirror") to which I referred in my prior post. The comment on which I remarking is addressed by one commenter to Silas Barta:

cotterdan: I think the error in his view is that he will simply dismiss everyone on the other side of the issue as some shill for the oil companies. He doesn't see the fact that it is the political elite pushing for his ideas.

Can you see that you and your friends have mirror positions and each think the other is wrong, when in fact it is pretty clear that you are BOTH right - and that there are rent-seekers behind each position?

Of course the firms and investors that have been able to use the atmosphere as a free GHG dump don`t want to start paying for the privilege (to the extent that they have invested very heavily in protecting their current position), and of course there are others who think that this poses risks to them and what they value (and some who want government to make markets for them).

... I don't mind what ideas you have on saving the planet. I just don't want to pay for them.

I think we all share your reluctance to see government do anything coercive, and we share your reasons. Most commons problems are actually much more susceptible to local solutions that would occur if governments got out of the way and just let resource users come to terms on them, but given that that the atmosphere is shared globally AND there are countless other state actors that we just can`t force from the table, there is simply no possibility of entirely voluntary approaches arising (even though one could imagine them). Further, even while each government will act by force of law at home, make no doubt that any global agreements on climate change policy are in effect large-scale Coasean bargains.

While libertarians may be entirely unwilling to accept any state action, unfortunately the rest of the country (and the world) does not share their compunctions. As a result, it seems to me that the effect of a libertarian NO! is not simply to defend the status quo ante (which in my view wrongly allows once group of powerful rent-seekers to shift costs to the rest of society; YMMV), but to enable the adoption of overly-costly (and heavy-handed) approaches; viz., cap-and-trade w/ vast pork, versus rebated carbon taxes w/immediate capital write-offs, etc.

August 27, 2009 11:42 PM