I, like everybody else on this forum, do not believe in Global warming. However, hypthetically, if Global warming was real (which again, it isn't) how should it be treated as to not infringe on property rights?
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
What do you mean by global warming?
there are many things people mean when they say they don't believe in it.
1) they believe that it will/is happening but the effects will be mild
2) they believe that it is not anthropogenic (caused by humans) and simply reflects the natural warming/cooling cycle of the earth
3) they believe it will not happen at all
personally I believe 1 because look at a non-hysterical interpretation of the data:1) Radiation increase corresponds to the logarithm of C02 increase. This means a doubling of C02 levels produces a constant radiation increase.2) An extrapolation of the rise in C02 from 1900 to now indicates that it will double by 2200 if nothing is done to curb use. Let's be pessimistic and say it will double by 2100.3) Doubling C02 increases the radiation absorption of by about 3.8W/m^2 over the present value of 1366 W/m^2, or about 0.3%.how much does that radiation increase correspond to a temperature increase? This is called climate sensitivity and NO ONE KNOWS. We have no control earth to test it on. In order to know this we would need an accurate model of the earth's atmosphere. But if you were declared emperor of the earth tomorrow and someone told you that over the next 100 years average radiation absorption of the earth would increase .3%. Would you care? Humanity has real shit to care about.
I'll brazenly plug the not-as-full-as-I'd-like-to-have-it global warming section of my blog here.
Haha, I like your point. I was just thinking of how it should be dealt with if it was very serious (just a hypothetical to see how it would be treated by 'Miseans') When I say serious, I mean for this example, that it is anthropogenic and would happen fairly quickly, and the effects would be significant.
It is a very important question, since it raises hell politically nowadays. And it deserves a lot more seriousness than most libertarians or austrian economists tend to wanna give it. Especially when considering that we have such a brilliant answer!
The solution is simply that property rights should be respected. With greenhouse gases the situation is very much more simple to solve than for most other kinds of pollutions, thanks to the fact that the (hypothetically damaging) effect of greenhouse gas emissions are GLOBAL! If it is proved that emissions of greenhouse gases are damaging (and we just assume that here, without trying to speculate in science), then itis obvious to me that in principle everyone has the responsibility to clean uphis/her own emissions. That's done by reabsorbing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to the same extent as one has emitted them.
If you emit one ton of CO2, you'd better be able to show that you've also bought reemission services for one ton of CO2! It's the same thing as if you've dumped your garbage in my garden, then you'd better pick it up yourself too. Only with greenhouse gases it is generally much easier, since the effect is global. You don't need to pick up the same molecules you've emitted. You can buy the cheapest reabsorbtion service available on Earth, be it to pump it back down in an oil well or planting trees in Sahara or whatever.
The global warming debate should be a stronghold for liberarianism! It is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate how respect for property rights is superior to government regulations. Today high shot politicians curruptly negotiate with high shot industrials about who will be allowed to pollute how much. By respecting property rights no political process at all needs to be involved. Especially no kinds of taxes or regulations. It is up to the civil courts to be proved that emissions are damaging and hence that non-reabsorbers should be held accountable for those who suffer from the destruction which we here assume will come from greenhouse gas emissions.
It's as simple as that! We can make global warming backfire on the very inventors of the panic.
It's not fascism when the government does it.
“We must spend now as an investment for the future.” - President Obama
ProudCapitalist:It is up to the civil courts to be proved that emissions are damaging and hence that non-reabsorbers should be held accountable for those who suffer from the destruction which we here assume will come from greenhouse gas emissions.
And who will be the plaintiff here?
Donny with an A has plenty of interesting stuff on his blog about this.
Personally, I don't think it's an issue, if global warming really were to exist, which I don't believe it does, it would just be proof that the market is not perfect, but I don't think the state could adequately deal with it either. The problem is that any attempts to radically cut down on global warming would reduce us to poverty and make us far less able to deal with the effects when the came.
Fortunately a free society would be far more prosperous than any statist society and better able to deal with the consequences. There's also some links about this on the reading list, check those out.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Two years ago the Chinese government, after making a quick few calculations, said that even if manmade Global Warming were real it would be much much cheaper to adapt to the situation than completely dismantle and rebuild the economy from scratch. You may not like Chinese government but they displayed more common sense than the EU and some pressure groups in the US. "If it ain't broken, don't fix it".
PS: this morning I was caught in a pretty heavy snowstorm while walking the dogs. Hasn't snowed in March around here for at least twenty years.
Yes, it's time for the Dr Goebbels show!
Sphairon, anyone who suffers the damage, of course!
If it was plutonium emitted, then would you have the same problem seeing who would be the plaintiff? I would say: "There's plutonium in the air around me. It is damaging me. That guy is emitting plutonium. He must clean it up!" Plutonium or CO2, what's the difference if CO2 is proven to be damaging (via climate change)? Those who benefit from those climate changes won't sue anyone, only the victims will. And they should be able to sue any net emitter in the world, since the effect is global and a ton is a ton regardless where or how it was emitted. That's what makes it so easy to deal with this "problem" from a property rights point of view. You won't have anyone who can claim that his plutonium emisisons fell out only on his own real estate. All CO2 and methane emissions mix immediately with the global atmosphere. And everyone has ownership to a part of the atmosphere (like the part in his/her lungs at the moment).
Btw, see here, the current chairman of the EU, prime minister of Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk0hl4lffDU
Amazing!
Well, ProudCapitalist, in theory, this would be possible. But in practice, who is going to individually sue millions of net emitters for compensation?If I emit plutonium, the case would be much easier because there's no debate as to who victim and culprit are. But global warming? Are we both global warming culprits because compared to people living in abject poverty, we're emitting a whole lot? Do people in abject poverty who, after all, also emit some CO2 need to buy climate cleaning services as well to be acquitted in an enviro-court?Property theory doesn't get us very far here, I'm afraid, because nobody owns the atmosphere and it's hardly homesteadable.
Sphairon:Well, ProudCapitalist, in theory, this would be possible. But in practice, who is going to individually sue millions of net emitters for compensation?
The one who has his beach house flooded (or whatever disasters the GW-panic guys imagine will happen) could simply sue any coal power plant in the world for raising the sea level with their emissions. Probably the biggest emitters would be sued out of existance first, with the medium and smaller ones to follow.
If I emit plutonium, the case would be much easier because there's no debate as to who victim and culprit are.
There is the problem of showing whose plutonium you suffer from! Since greenhouse gases have ONLY global effects, and no local effects at all, that problem is avoided. That, I claim, makes it EASIER to deal with CO2 emissions through property rights, than it is to deal with plutonium emissions. noone needs to examine where the emissions were made, when and how the winds were blowing and so on. The atmosphere in this respect is everyones garden and anyone who puts garbage on it must clean it up. As simple as that!
And I believe that if you emit plutonium upon others, you should be charged with attempted murder! Only after the culprit hangs or is imprisoned for life for his crime, will civil courts take care of the financial compensations to the victims. Those who deliberately destroy beech houses should be charged for (eh, how do you call it in English?) destroying other peoples properties. It's not a (only) civil court matter like they've broken a contract. They actually destroy other peoples property! That's a crime. (Assuming it is proven that greenhouse gas emissions are causing damages).
But global warming? Are we both global warming culprits because compared to people living in abject poverty, we're emitting a whole lot? Do people in abject poverty who, after all, also emit some CO2 need to buy climate cleaning services as well to be acquitted in an enviro-court?
They're not profitable to sue anyway! Practically, courts could put a maximum level on emissions per person. Just like it isn't actually assault to put ones finger tip on somebody's shoulder when passing on the street, exhaling and farting greenhouse gases may be allowed for practical reasons.
Kakugo: Two years ago the Chinese government, after making a quick few calculations, said that even if manmade Global Warming were real it would be much much cheaper to adapt to the situation than completely dismantle and rebuild the economy from scratch. You may not like Chinese government but they displayed more common sense than the EU and some pressure groups in the US. "If it ain't broken, don't fix it". PS: this morning I was caught in a pretty heavy snowstorm while walking the dogs. Hasn't snowed in March around here for at least twenty years.
what everyone needs to realize is that global warming hysteria has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with power. exactly like redistributionism not being about helping the poor. everyone with sense knows the best way to help the poor is to let the free-market increase their standard of living.
If you think that politicians are unaware of the advantages of the free market then you are simply accusing them of ignorance. but these are all very bright people with a lot of other very bright people working under them. I think they know very well.
nazgulnarsil:what everyone needs to realize is that global warming hysteria has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with power.
Of course! And if it is argued that the respect of property rights takes care of it, then there's no room at all for any regulations, taxes or politicians negotiating quotas with big business. And then suddenly not one single politician will have any interest in the issue whatsoever.
You are quite right that politicians (or at least the special interests running them) aren't stupid. They are EVIL!
ProudCapitalist: It is a very important question, since it raises hell politically nowadays. And it deserves a lot more seriousness than most libertarians or austrian economists tend to wanna give it. Especially when considering that we have such a brilliant answer!
I totally agree. We undervalue how important it is to provide reasonable and understandable answers. But, in some sense, we tend to feel that our answers are some obviously superior that there is no point to make any further effort.
Environmental issues are harder to defend against people not exposed to our ideas. I find it much easier to debate on topics perhaps technically more complex such as central banking, fractional reserve banking, or emotional areas such as unemployment. It is frequent to get at least some thinking in those topics. But there is something different in environmental issues. I guess that it is related to the non-reversible nature of many environmental problems, at least in the short term -short term meaning as much as a lifetime.
Where I live there is probably the most important national park in Europe. Well, it is important because is in Europe, in Africa it will be just one more, not that outstanding, but in Europe is key to wildlife, especially birds and one particular mammal. This mammal is critically endagered. There is little doubt that the main cause is humans. Government is making a big effort in using our money in the most stupid way available, pouring a lot of money in conservation and at the same time spending a lot of money in making better roads that act as natural barriers causing accidents and killing those animals.
40 years ago, in a great example of the kind of solutions we propose, a private entity bought some land to protect nature. It worked. But external pressure continues. There are a few obvious solutions from a free market point of view. This mammal is potentially profitable -mainly through tourism-, but real estate would be much more profitable, destroying the last chances for this animal to survive. The point is not which solution is better, or even discussiong whether there should be a solution. The point is that most of people think that once this animal is gone, it is gone forever. People are scared when they face this kind of situations and immediately call for action, namely government action. Socialist propaganda makes the rest of the work.
So, the question is important. What if that is real?? I don't think it is, but what if?? But more important, how are we going to deliver the question and the answers in an understandable way?
Ex-keynesian. http://keynesisdead.blogspot.com
I forgot what they are called. But there is this technology, where these large arial things comb the atmosphere, and theoretically can clean 'greenhouse gasses' from the sky. If we assume Global Warming does become a reality and it is real, then there is no reason why private enterprise cannot procure these technologies to the benefit of mankind.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Thanks for the plug, Giles! I'll have an essay coming out in the Fall issue of The Independent Review called "Justice and Climate Change: Towards a Libertarian Analysis," so you guys might be interested in that (PM me if you'd like to talk about it before then). Before doing the research for that paper, I wrote two articles on the subject for Strike the Root -- The Skeptic's Wager and The Bjorn Ultimatum -- both of which are still interesting, I think, but neither of which represent my current position on the issue (as is discussed in my more recent paper). And of course, there's all the stuff on my blog at the link Giles provided. I haven't read through this thread, so I'm not really going to comment much here, but if anyone is interested in talking about this stuff I'd be more than happy to do so over PM or e-mail.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Well, no question, global warming exists and has always existed. It is the reason we and most of the other mamals managed to live on this planet.
With respect of the "property rights" issue, let me ask you a question :
"What if preferences where cardinal, I know they are not but, what if, would Keynes be right?"
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
I see most have beaten me to the punch. I tend to agree more with the Keynes Retard avitar guy, and that GW is a problem we should be worried about, since patterns of behavior tend to assume a very constant climate (which we have been fortunate to have since civilization started). But I also feel, like Bjorn Lomberg the economist, that GW's costs are overstated. But to answer the OP question: externalities are bargained away by economic actors--this was the famous "Coase" theory that R. Coase won the Nobel Prize in economics for.
What it means in practice: the polluter is paid off by the rich neighbors not to pollute--the same way the rich countries of the world pay off North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il. Is this extortion? Yes, but it's better than the alternative. Happens all the time in the free market too.
I am no way an "expert" in climatology, few are anyway, and I know that we had plenty of climate changes since civilization started, unless you term civilization only the democratic states of the last century.
There was the little ice age in the medieval starting around 1250 A.D. and before there must have been a period of much warmer temperatures, as there was a lot of settlements in greenland (which ended around 1400 because nothing could be grown anymore) and we know that vinyards where planted and provided good harvests in Great Britain - try that today
A good place to get some background information about global warming can be found here
cheers
If there is real risk that the sea will rise drastically, it will become profitable for people to avoid that risk and live in-land. Coastal areas, including cities, could become depopulated in favor of safer living areas. This, however, is ruined by governments when they impose movement restrictions (borders and immigration rules) and bail out the people who live along high-risk coastal areas (happens all the time with emergency "relief").
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap