Hermann Goering on Anthropogenic Global Warming

hjmaiere: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

How about thinking about the issue this way:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deist:

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TokyoTom:

hjmaiere: 

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

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

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

 

TokyoTom:

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

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

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

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

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

TokyoTom:

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

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

 

TokyoTom:

hjmaiere:

 

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

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

[...]

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Tom

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

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