Surprisingly Wise Words from NASA Administrator
Hat tip to Kevin Vranes of Prometheus for bringing this to my attention, although I strenuously disagree with his leftist-statist reaction to it. (I must say I find it rather ironic that a climate blog in which members advocate statist policies calls itself Prometheus.)
NPR apparently just sent out a press release previewing a Steve Inskeep interview airing on tomorrow's Morning Edition with NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. It is entitled:
From the press release:NASA ADMINISTRATOR MICHAEL GRIFFIN NOT SURE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A PROBLEM
May 30, 2007; Washington, DC – NASA Administrator Michael Griffin tells NPR News that while he has no doubt “a trend of global warming exists, I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”From the full transcript:
In an interview with Steve Inskeep airing tomorrow on NPR News’ Morning Edition, Administrator Griffin says “I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
STEVE INSKEEP: One thing that’s been mentioned that NASA is perhaps not spending as much money as it could on is studying climate change, global warming, from space. Are you concerned about global warming?Seems a surprisingly principled and individualistic position for a NASA bureaucrat to take. I am suitably impressed and appreciative. This is not to say that we shouldn't do anything at all about anthropogenic global warming, if it is true, but rather that if we do anything it should be done on a voluntary and cooperative basis grounded in private property rights, not centrally planned and coerced according to the preferences of a relative few scientists and politicians. This means that both environmental regulations and state privileges for corporations should be eliminated and private property protected (including from clearly identified external polluters doing clearly identified harm to said property) so as to avoid the tragedy of the commons we see around us today.
MICHAEL GRIFFIN: I am aware that global warming -- I’m aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we’ve had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I’m also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down -- pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a long term concern or not, I can’t say.
MR. INSKEEP : And I just wanted to make sure that I’m clear. Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?
MR. GRIFFIN: I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change. First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.
MR. INSKEEP : Is that thinking that informs you as you put together the budget? That something is happening, that it’s worth studying, but you’re not sure that you want to be battling it as an army might battle an enemy.
MR. GRIFFIN: Nowhere in NASA’s authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I’m proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to quote “battle climate change.”
[Update #1 (5/31 3:45pm): Here and here is Roy Cordato pointing out the bankruptcy of the typical leftist environmentalist response to skeptics as he comments on Hansen's hissy fit over Griffin's remarks. Sound familiar?]
[Update #2 (6/01 11am): Why are Griffin's remarks wise and not arrogant? See David Gordon's brief discussion on future generations and the precautionary principle here.]
[Update #3 (5:20pm): This article in today's issue of the New York Times contains another smear without counterargument in addition to Hansen's.
[Update #4 (6/02 1:30am): "Scientists Rally Around NASA Chief After Global Warming Comments," E-Wire (June 1, 2007).]
[Update #5 (6pm): Is the NASA Chief merely some uneducated political appointee? Hardly. Check out his bio. He has five master's degrees and a doctorate as well as a good deal of experience, including at NASA, in academia, and elsewhere.]
[Update #6 (6/04 9:45pm): Griffin vs. Hansen - who is more right? See here.]
[Update #7 (6/12 7:30pm): Griffin has apparently apologized for his controversial statements. Should he have been pressured to do so? I don't think so, and frankly the leftist tendency to demand apologies and recantations of statements they disagree with is abominable and disturbing - shades of communist re-education camps. Note, however, that Griffin didn't recant. He just apologized for stirring up controversy.]
13 comments:
The fact is that global warming is a consensus not just of "a few scientists" and politicians... it is a consensus of all but a handful of the tens of thousands of scientists who study the climate and the biosphere as a whole. And, given that scientists - as opposed to politicians and political philosophers - are motivated to find the truth (because their jobs ultimately depend on it), it is only right that such a consensus among them that warns of catastrophic consequences from our doing nothing should provoke action. What else should we rely on if not this kind of information?
"The fact is that global warming is a consensus not just of "a few scientists" and politicians... it is a consensus of all but a handful of the tens of thousands of scientists who study the climate and the biosphere as a whole."
I think you overestimate the strength of the consensus and underestimate the numbers of those who disagree. For one thing, your "consensus" needs to be disaggregated. Consensus on what, exactly? On AGW, perhaps you are right. On the severity of global warming and its effects there is less agreement. In any case, science is about truth not consensus. Consensus is no guarantee of truth. Moreover, you misunderstood my point above by not understanding the context within which it was made. I was not referring to the number of scientists and politicians who believe in CAGW. The phrase "relatively few scientists and politicians" is properly understood as a comparison with the rest of the vast bulk of humanity. It is part of a critique of statism and rule by a technocratic elite.
"And, given that scientists - as opposed to politicians and political philosophers - are motivated to find the truth (because their jobs ultimately depend on it),"
Nonsense. Scientists are as prone to ideological bias as anyone, especially in such a moralized and politicized field as climate science, and their jobs depend as much on not bucking the consensus. Furthermore, philosophers are motivated to seek the truth as well. Philosopher, from ancient Greek, means lover of wisdom.
"it is only right that such a consensus among them that warns of catastrophic consequences from our doing nothing should provoke action. What else should we rely on if not this kind of information?"
1) I and many other scientists do not agree that catastrophic global warming is likely.
2) I don't accept the validity of the precautionary principle in any case. Read the David Gordon essay above for starters on this.
3) Even if CAGW is true, it does not follow from this that we should adopt statist means of dealing with it. When climate scientists make policy recommendations they are not speaking as climate scientists but as activists.
>>Seems a surprisingly principled and individualistic position for a NASA bureaucrat to take.<<
How is it principled for a NASA administrator to personally endorse allocating money away from research into a potential near term national security threat within his agency's purview, and towards a ridiculously large multi-generational excursion to the moon, which appears to be grounded more in the President's personal whims than on any scientific necessity?
I suppose it is individualistic; he's certainly pretty alone at NASA in thinking the moonbase is good policy.
>>I and many other scientists do not agree that catastrophic global warming is likely.<<
Do you have training in disaster mitigation, climatology, or anything that would even remotely qualify you to make a claim like this on your own scientific authority? No offense--I like political scientists--but it's pretty clear from your CV that you're overreaching here.
Perhaps you're overestimating your ability to gauge the scientific consensus on this issue, eh?
>>When climate scientists make policy recommendations they are not speaking as climate scientists but as activists.<<
The purpose of science is to explain, predict AND control phenomena. It is absolutely the job of a scientist to address policy considerations, provided the assumptions are made explicit. Without scientists' recommendations, policy would be left to people who don't understand it.
I'm also not sure how you're impressed by a scientist who claims claims that humans are largely responsible for ongoing climate change trends, but then bemoans the futility of suggesting the trend can be slowed ("I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change" is his exact non sequitur).
Even worse he calls others "arrogant" for even questioning whether that change is harmful.
I won't try to convince you that the precautionary principle matters, but I find it interesting that you believe the tragedy of the commons can be avoided through property rights and the removal of environmental regulations. You do realize that climate change involves the aggregate effect in the high atmosphere of minute actions taken on the ground, right?
So, by definition, it would be very difficult to prove that any given person's private property was damaged (since the damages begin in an area of the atmosphere where traditional property rights don't really make sense, and the effects extend worldwide) by any other given person.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if we assume global warming is a bad thing, it would seem like the only way to protect property rights in your scheme is to allow the trespass to occur for several decades, then wait for catastrophe to befall the planet, and then sue everyone on earth for your share of that catastrophe.
It's a difficult problem, which the government addressed by creating those regulations you dislike so much.
PS. Good to see an IHS alum.
"How is it principled for a NASA administrator to personally endorse allocating money away from research into a potential near term national security threat within his agency's purview, and towards a ridiculously large multi-generational excursion to the moon, which appears to be grounded more in the President's personal whims than on any scientific necessity?"
Don't put words in my mouth. I specifically quoted what I think was principled in what he said. Excursions to the moon and moonbases were not part of it. Actually, I think NASA shouldn't even exist, at least not as a government entity. It's not the business of government.
"Do you have training in disaster mitigation, climatology, or anything that would even remotely qualify you to make a claim like this on your own scientific authority? No offense--I like political scientists--but it's pretty clear from your CV that you're overreaching here.
Perhaps you're overestimating your ability to gauge the scientific consensus on this issue, eh?"
It never takes environmentalists long to bring up official qualifications, does it?
Let's put it this way: would you prefer that I simply take the word of some activist-scientists that they and some unquantified consensus is absolutely certain that global warming is primarily man-made and will be catastrophic? Argument from authority is okay now? I think the fact that I have several advanced degrees and am close to completing my doctorate shows that I am intelligent enough to at least become an educated layman on the issue. And I'm doing that by reading the various experts, who disagree by the way, and making up my own mind about the quality of the evidence and arguments provided by each side. I do have some training in statistics and I have enough of an idea of what goes into computer modeling that I tend to agree that they are problematic at best. Quite simply, I am not convinced by the CAGW crowd, especially about the C part, and it seems the A part rests heavily on an assumption for lack of a better alternative (which many of them are not interested in examining) and those computer models.
As an aside, it is awfully curious that the CAGW crowd tend to be leftist-environmentalists and awfully coincidental that leftists are (yet again) proclaiming a catastrophic event that just happens to require statist-socialist public policies that they've preferred for a long time anyway. That's reason enough to be skeptical, but delving into the actual climate science gives one an even more sound reason to be skeptical. Have a look at some of my other posts and all of the environmental links I've provided on this blog and you'll see why.
"The purpose of science is to explain, predict AND control phenomena. It is absolutely the job of a scientist to address policy considerations, provided the assumptions are made explicit. Without scientists' recommendations, policy would be left to people who don't understand it."
If you want to play the official qualifications game, it isn't in the training or job description for a climate scientist to be getting involved in policy proposals and debates qua climate scientist. That's the province of political scientists and economists. However, public policy affects everyone so everyone has a valid reason for getting involved in these debates. They have a responsibility to educate themselves on both climate science and economics though, of course. But it is important to point out that it will not be as climate scientists that the climate scientists will be involved in such a debate, it will be as concerned citizens (who probably don't have a sound grasp of economics).
"I'm also not sure how you're impressed by a scientist who claims claims that humans are largely responsible for ongoing climate change trends, but then bemoans the futility of suggesting the trend can be slowed ("I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change" is his exact non sequitur)."
There are good economic reasons for why he is right to do so, namely that simply cutting emissions sharply will not have a measurable effect on global warming while it will have a significantly negative effect on individual lives and our economy.
"Even worse he calls others "arrogant" for even questioning whether that change is harmful."
Not worse. The CAGW advocates are far from establishing the C part of their claims. In fact, there are many studies that indicate that global warming will not be so severe as they claim and will even be beneficial in many ways. Most, if not all, of their doomsday scenarios are pure opinion or, at best, based on controversial computer models rather than direct observations.
"Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if we assume global warming is a bad thing, it would seem like the only way to protect property rights in your scheme is to allow the trespass to occur for several decades, then wait for catastrophe to befall the planet, and then sue everyone on earth for your share of that catastrophe."
Why should we assume any such thing? There is no sound reason to do so at present. Meanwhile, the effects of statist environmental regulations is certain (not in its particular detail, mind, but in its general effects).
"It's a difficult problem, which the government addressed by creating those regulations you dislike so much."
A difficult problem perhaps, but not yet clearly a problem needing immediate statist action. Given what we actually have solid scientific evidence for, it is far more likely that the "solution" will yet again be worse than the disease.
I never said a free market solution would be perfect, but it is better than the alternative. For one thing, an unhampered free market will make environmentally friendly practices and technology economically attractive faster.
I disagree, as you'll see, but I really appreciate your response.
>>Don't put words in my mouth. I specifically quoted what I think was principled in what he said.<<
I'm not so sure that you did. But in any case, I think you're the one who put words into Dr. Griffin's mouth, trying to make him a posterboy for a principled laissez faire stand.
In the full context of the interview, it's clear that he was actually advocating statist excursions to the moon, in place of a stronger climate change research program.
>>[W]ould you prefer that I simply take the word of some [mainstream climatologists]? Argument from authority is okay now?<<
More so, yes. Argument from authority is more legitimate when the authority has some legitimacy. When my foot hurts, I listen to my podiatrist and doubt my climatologist. Likewise when my climate is changing and a political theoretician tells me it isn't.
>>I think the fact that I have several advanced degrees and am close to completing my doctorate shows that I am intelligent enough to at least become an educated layman on the issue.<<
Exactly my point, my lay friend. You've been in academia long enough to know not to claim authority outside of your training. From what I've seen, the most vocal climate change skeptics would do well to keep this in mind.
>>[I]t isn't in the training or job description for a climate scientist to be getting involved in policy proposals and debates qua climate scientist. That's the province of political scientists and economists.<<
If that were true, it would be the saddest and most ineffectual province on earth. What world are you in where political scientists and economists can argue policy based on their titles, but everyone else is just a "concerned citizen"?
Good scientists are all trained to debate because science is about both facts and theories. A policy, like everything else we believe, is just another theory. If a climatologist is told that policy dictates that ballet dance will stop climate change, she would certainly be entitled to object to that policy qua climate scientist.
Not only is providing expert opinions, on policy and other matters, within the job description of a scientist, it's often an ethical and professional requirement.
>>Why should we assume any such thing? There is no sound reason to do so at present.<<
I think you're ducking the question, which is about how deregulation and privatization would result in environmental protection, if the environment in question could not be privatized according to any known scheme, and the effects were multi-generational and planetary. I understand that a response here might be more effort to you than it's worth, but thought I'd point it out.
(By the way, I did read your link by David Gordon. If future generations have no rights, there's no need to protect the commons for them in the first place? Fascinating. )
Sorry for the delay in publishing your comment. I have the moderation function on and forgot to let it through.
"But in any case, I think you're the one who put words into Dr. Griffin's mouth, trying to make him a posterboy for a principled laissez faire stand.
In the full context of the interview, it's clear that he was actually advocating statist excursions to the moon, in place of a stronger climate change research program."
I didn't quote the whole interview and I think I was pretty clear what I was approving. I don't think it was necessary for me to lengthen the post by critiquing his other views which are unrelated to the subject of the post, i.e., global warming. Surely at least, a libertarian reading the post would not construe from it that I'm praising his statist views as well. Also, I think the context of my post makes this clear: I evince surprise at some wise words from a government bureaucrat. That's all.
"More so, yes. Argument from authority is more legitimate when the authority has some legitimacy. When my foot hurts, I listen to my podiatrist and doubt my climatologist. Likewise when my climate is changing and a political theoretician tells me it isn't."
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, when you have a serious health problem you should seek a second opinion. Regarding climatology I do. There actually are climate scientists and others with sufficient expertise who disagree not only with the alarmists but even with the IPCC consensus.
"Exactly my point, my lay friend. You've been in academia long enough to know not to claim authority outside of your training. From what I've seen, the most vocal climate change skeptics would do well to keep this in mind."
I don't claim to be an authority. I never have. And I certainly did not in this post. As I said, I've been reading up on the issue by examining the evidence and arguments presented by experts on various sides of the issue. My considered opinion (which is still evolving) is informed by the experts. Just because I am not myself a climate scientist does not bar me from having an opinion of my own on the subject. Nor does it bar me from deciding for myself which experts I think are more likely to be more right. Just because one side currently has an unquantified and loudly proclaimed consensus backing it does not mean it is right.
Finally, while we're on the subject of expertise and authority, are you a climate scientist? If I'm not qualified to dissent, what credentials do you have for advocating the CAGW view?
"If that were true, it would be the saddest and most ineffectual province on earth. What world are you in where political scientists and economists can argue policy based on their titles, but everyone else is just a "concerned citizen"?"
Um...I think you need to reread my reply more closely. I think it is pretty clear in the context that I am simply applying your own position on official credentials more consistently that you yourself did. A climate scientist who advocates public policies, to the extent that he goes beyond simply advising on possible effects on climate, does not do so as a climate scientist but as a concerned citizen. A climate scientist is not trained in political science or economics. Most of them probably have little understanding of economic theory and history. As I make quite clear, however, advocacy of public policies is not limited to political scientists and economists due to their expertise. See, I put less stock in official credentials that you apparently do. Many many times in the past, the great innovators in science have been those without any official credentials who bucked the consensus.
So, to reiterate my point, climate scientists step outside of their official credentials when they advocate public policies; but advocacy of public policies is not limited to those with official credentials; however, to quote Murray Rothbard: "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
">>Why should we assume any such thing? There is no sound reason to do so at present.<<
I think you're ducking the question, which is about how deregulation and privatization would result in environmental protection, if the environment in question could not be privatized according to any known scheme, and the effects were multi-generational and planetary. I understand that a response here might be more effort to you than it's worth, but thought I'd point it out."
I wasn't dodging the question. I was making a point that the question attempts to shift the debate away from the dubiousness of the CAGW thesis by luring the person to whom the question is asked to assume the thesis is correct in order for him to answer it. There is no good evidence to support the thesis, however. GCMs don't count as evidence. They are merely computer simulations that can't model very important aspects of the global climate, that make predictions that won't be tested against reality for years or decades at best (if ever), that incorporate faulty and unrealistic assumptions, and so forth. Very shaky "evidence" to base the bulk of one's "scientific" claims on. That these models are so widely accepted as solid science is scandalous. There is certainly a place for them and scientists should work to improve them, but they are still a long way from being good enough to buttress the claims being made and especially the policies being proposed.
Now, one reason for my making these points is that you seem to assume that free market solutions wouldn't be able to cope with catastrophic global warming caused primarily by human beings. First, why assume the catastrophic part? On balance, I have yet to see any solid support for it. I have even seen some good scientific evidence that global warming probably won't be extreme and, while it will have negative effects on some, it will also be beneficial to others. Second, why assume the 'primarily anthropogenic part' and, in particular, why assume this anthropogenic cause is primarily CO2? I think human beings probably are at least a partial cause of recent global warming, but I think it is yet to be settled just how much of the cause we are. I'm also not convinced that CO2 is the only, or the hugely dominant, anthropogenic forcing. There are climate scientists who are investigating other anthropogenic forcings such as changes in land-use. Finally, even if the CAGW thesis is true, I've claimed that statist means will be ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst, in stopping or alleviating it. So CAGW without statist policies vs. zero or less CAGW with statist policies seems to me a false alternative.
Incidentally, I did offer one way that free market environmentalism can deal with anthropogenic global warming. See the last sentence of my previous comment. In addition to that, I would point out that a free market would best enable people to adapt to climate change.
Now, as I admitted, the free market environmentalist solution is not perfect. But I do think it is better than the alternative, both morally and practically.
"(By the way, I did read your link by David Gordon. If future generations have no rights, there's no need to protect the commons for them in the first place? Fascinating. )"
I'm puzzled by your question. You appear to assume that the obligation to respect rights exhausts the realm of ethical obligation. Perhaps some libertarians believe this (more often their critics mistakenly think they do), but I do not. Nor does David Gordon, as I think he makes clear in that essay. The obligation to respect rights is just one type of ethical obligation. It's the only one that demands legal enforcement, true, but ethics is not limited to considerations of political justice and law. Our obligations to future generations must be weighed by each of us individually and we ought not violate the rights of other living human beings by imposing our perceived obligations on others.
I've already mentioned that I have some training in statistics (at both the undergraduate and graduate level). While I'm no expert, I do have some knowledge of how statistical methodology is used in science. My specialization is philosophy and political philosophy, but my Ph.D. is/will be in political science and it has involved studying and doing qualitative and quantitative research. Perhaps I should also point out that I have some academic training in philosophy of science (both in general and social science in particular).
My education is, of course, not limited to what I have been taught in a formal university setting - i.e., to what I have been formally taught and remembered long and well enough to pass some exams. Similarly with others, which is why I don't think a doctorate in climate science or a closely related field is a necessary prerequisite for having one's opinions on climate change be taken seriously rather than dismissed out of hand.
Geoffrey,
No sweat on comment moderation. It would be crazy not to, nowadays.
>>Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.<<
Never said it wasn't. But it's a useful heuristic that can be exploited unfairly during a debate.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I would never dismiss it out of hand. My objection was to your original comment, "I and many other scientists do not agree that catastrophic global warming is likely." The fact that you're a scientist is so tangentially related to the issue at hand as to be misleading, since none of your formal training is in environmental science.
No, I'm not a climatologist either. My training is in cognitive science, which is why I tried to make it clear that I am assuming that the mainstream opinion in climatology is worth heeding. I have training in research methods, statistics, and computational modeling in my own field, but this does not qualify me to express an opinion as a scientist about climate trends.
>> Furthermore, when you have a serious health problem you should seek a second opinion.<<
How many second opinions would one have to go through to find the one that agrees with a market-based philosophy? I'm mostly kidding. Sure, you should always look at findings critically.
>>For one thing, an unhampered free market will make environmentally friendly practices and technology economically attractive faster. <<
Really? It seems like CAFE standards, European subsidies, Kyoto, and "activist" climatologists qua climatologists have created a market for green technology a lot faster than the market alone (and even if it were free).
This is a new approach for me. Libertarians usually don't argue that specific market segments mature faster without subsidies for themselves and levies against their competitors. Usually, the argument is that such regulation unfairly supports some markets and hurts others, sometimes unintentionally.
This statement also seems to contradict your earlier comment about regulation "certainly" having a bad general effect and a difficult to determine specific effect.
Are you sure you're arguing that regulation would be ineffective at promoting green tech?
"You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I would never dismiss it out of hand. My objection was to your original comment, "I and many other scientists do not agree that catastrophic global warming is likely." The fact that you're a scientist is so tangentially related to the issue at hand as to be misleading, since none of your formal training is in environmental science."
Ah. That's a poorly worded sentence on my part. I did not mean to imply I was a scientist. In hindsight it would have been clearer to write "Neither I nor a number of climate scientists..."
"Really? It seems like CAFE standards, European subsidies, Kyoto, and "activist" climatologists qua climatologists have created a market for green technology a lot faster than the market alone (and even if it were free).
This is a new approach for me. Libertarians usually don't argue that specific market segments mature faster without subsidies for themselves and levies against their competitors. Usually, the argument is that such regulation unfairly supports some markets and hurts others, sometimes unintentionally.
This statement also seems to contradict your earlier comment about regulation "certainly" having a bad general effect and a difficult to determine specific effect.
Are you sure you're arguing that regulation would be ineffective at promoting green tech?"
Regarding the "ineffective" remark, you've misinterpreted to what it was meant to apply. I thought it was pretty clear in my comment that I was saying that statist means will be ineffective at best at significantly reducing global warming. I'm puzzled as to how you thought it referred specifically only to green technologies.
As for the rest, I should have been more clear and I will attempt to clarify somewhat. I don't have time for a lengthy and detailed debate, however, so beyond this I will have to refer you to the various economics resources and free market environmentalist resources linked to on my website and blog for more detailed arguments and information.
While attempting to encourage more eco-friendly practices and technologies in a market-based but essentially statist manner is better than simply moving directly to cut carbon emissions drastically, which would be disastrous for our economy and wouldn't have a measurable effect on global warming, this too is not truly economically attractive.
Certainly government intervention can make green technologies appear to be more economically attractive than alternatives. However, this is done by subsidizing and disguising their real costs. The real costs to consumers is disguised in artificially higher prices for the alternatives and diffused in taxation, as well as in resulting in less economic progress and prosperity than otherwise. Meanwhile, we know from theory and history that subsidizing or otherwise promoting or protecting a business is not likely to lead to longterm improvements in efficiency (higher quality and lower cost of production). Government intervention into the economy serves to distort the market, impose burdens on consumers, hinder competition and innovation, and so forth.
Moreover, statist public policies like the environmental regulations already on the books and currently being proposed are ripe for rent-seeking. For example, ethanol subsidies are very lucrative for already inefficient farmers. They are also resulting in higher food prices. Many foods are made with corn byproducts, and even meat and milk prices are going up because of ethanol subsidies. This is harmful to the poor. Energy companies in the US are already maneuvering to profit from proposed cap-and-trade policies, just as politically well-connected energy companies are already profiting from similar policies in Europe. Meanwhile, the more-environmentally-concerned EU hasn't met its Kyoto targets and has even performed more poorly than the US by this standard.
All this because of fears that are merely plausible and, indeed, highly dubious.
Free markets on the other hand result in greater overall economic progress and prosperity, including the all-important flexibility in adapting to change, capital accumulation needed to deal with climate change, and technological innovation. Combine this with a libertarian environmentalist PR campaign and you have a recipe for advancing swiftly toward more environmentally friendly practices and technologies without violating anyone's rights and making some people better off at the expense of many more.
>>I'm puzzled as to how you thought it referred specifically only to green technologies.<<
Actually, I wasn't talking about your overall view of markets. I was specifically referring to your comment that "an unhampered free market will make environmentally friendly practices and technology economically attractive faster."
For many key environmentally friendly practices and technologies, the opposite has been true. Advances in the science and availability of solar technology, for example, are directly tied to government interventions.
Yes, other industries might be hurt by these interventions and waste may occur, but that's a tradeoff that those of us who doubt the strength of the link between property and liberty might just be willing to take if we consider the stakes to be high enough. Why? Because government has the power to disrupt markets, and markets are controlled by people who often need disrupting.
I also seriously question the wisdom of promoting relaxed pollution controls in an market where dirty industries have been given nearly complete monopoly power through decades of government infrastructure subsidies. There are lots of stops on the road to freedom, and I don't think many libertarians do a good job of prioritizing them.
I certainly agree that government regulation is a dangerous tool, and that free markets solve lots of problems. Someday, I hope to see one.
Pleasure chatting with you.
To avoid confusion, my rewording of the sentence above should be "Neither I nor a number of climate scientists agree..."
To address your recent remarks:
"Actually, I wasn't talking about your overall view of markets. I was specifically referring to your comment that "an unhampered free market will make environmentally friendly practices and technology economically attractive faster.""
Ah, well I partially answered this in my previous reply. To reiterate it and to qualify the above quoted statement, government intervention makes certain alternatives appear to be economically attractive. However, it subsidizes and disguises their real costs. Ethanol is not economically viable on the free market. It requires government intervention to make it an attractive alternative.
"For many key environmentally friendly practices and technologies, the opposite has been true. Advances in the science and availability of solar technology, for example, are directly tied to government interventions."
Well, we'll never know when scientists and entrepreneurs would have discovered them and made them economically viable on a free market. Note, however, that "discovered" and "made economically viable" are two separate stages. The government hasn't accomplished the latter yet in most cases. Government intervention may well lead to some scientific discoveries before they would otherwise be made, but it is a separate question whether such interventions will get them to the point at which they can be economically viable without continued government intervention. And it is yet another question whether government intervention would do so before a totally free market would.
"Yes, other industries might be hurt by these interventions and waste may occur, but that's a tradeoff that those of us who doubt the strength of the link between property and liberty might just be willing to take if we consider the stakes to be high enough."
Not just other industries, US consumers and the rest of the world too. It is not just competitors that are hurt by such favoritist policies. Other results are: government-corporate corruption, more bureaucratic wasting of taxpayer money to carry out such policies, higher prices for consumers, other costs from forced transition for consumers and industries, less incentive among subsidized industries to improve product/service quality and reduce costs, less competition, bureaucratic inertia that cannot make the free market in flexibility and adaptability, and so on. These are far more certain than the CAGW thesis and far more immediate (with long term consequences for present and future generations). The poor will be the hardest hit by statist policies, and they are the one's most vulnerable to AGW and climate change.
So, while government may beat the free market to a particular practice or technology, it will not necessarily do so effectively and it certainly won't do so without severe costs. Moreover, that government may beat the free market to a particular practice or technology does not mean it will beat the free market to all of the relevant ones in time. Given all of the negative effects of each government intervention on individuals and on general economic progress and prosperity I don't see how you can be optimistic that the state can solve the alleged CAGW problem, especially without sacrificing millions in the process. Overall, I think the free market is a much more attractive means of dealing with AGW and climate change.
Finally, I think rather than "the strength of the link between property and liberty" you probably meant something like "the strength of the link between property/liberty and eco-friendliness."
"Why? Because government has the power to disrupt markets, and markets are controlled by people who often need disrupting."
So you think there generally are people who need disrupting? Even in a libertarian society? Aside from rights-violators, of course. And that it is the business of government to do the disrupting? If so, I would have to firmly disagree. By what objective criteria would you determine who needs disrupting? And who would be doing the judging? You're courting dangerous concessions of power to the state here if you go beyond protecting individual rights.
Beyond questions of which alternative - the state or the free market - is the best option practically-speaking for reducing AGW, there is the more important question of which means is moral and I think the free market is the clear choice here.
"I also seriously question the wisdom of promoting relaxed pollution controls in an market where dirty industries have been given nearly complete monopoly power through decades of government infrastructure subsidies. There are lots of stops on the road to freedom, and I don't think many libertarians do a good job of prioritizing them."
I never said we should relax pollution controls without ending state-corporate capitalism and clearly defining and enforcing property rights. See the free market environmentalism literature I have links to. Incidentally, I think free market environmentalism is clearly superior practically-speaking on most environmental questions. Global warming though is a harder case, but not an intractable one.
By the way, increasing statism is not one of those steps on the road to freedom. That way leads back in the opposite direction.
It's been nice chatting with an environmentalist who didn't descend to personal attacks and rudeness (so many I've encountered do all too quickly) as well as one who puts humans first. I'm off to Nebraska for a few days.
One last point before I leave for the airport:
This is already implied in my previous remarks, but it bears making more explicit. Given the nature of the political process and the fact that government bureaucracies are not responsive to market incentives, it is very likely that governments will latch onto just a few practices and technologies that are politically popular or more tractable to central planning rather than effective (ethanol being a case in point) and then stick with them far longer than a free market would at the expense of alternatives. The lively competition and trial and error of a free market is far more likely to avoid such dead-ends resulting from the exigencies of the political process and political-bureaucratic inertia. In a free market, all alternatives can be pitted against each other in competition (on a playing field that isn't politically rigged) and the best will win out while the others will fall away.
>>So you think there generally are people who need disrupting?<<
Yes. Namely, us.
>>Even in a libertarian society? Aside from rights-violators, of course.<<
Maybe. It all depends on whose concept of rights we follow. All rights are descended from the right to be alive, which requires access to clean air, food, and water. A libertarian society with a better mechanism for protecting land rights than air is half-baked.
>>And that it is the business of government to do the disrupting<<
Sometimes, yes. I put more faith in democracy than in markets, sad as that may be. I'd rather see everyone born into the same amount of power.
>>In a free market, all alternatives can be pitted against each other in competition (on a playing field that isn't politically rigged) and the best will win out while the others will fall away.<<
Even if a free market existed tomorrow, how long would it take to correct itself of centuries of intervention?
Also, your statement is too idealistic. There are many reasons the best alternatives will not thrive on the open market. Among these is that the market will only support some limited number of actors, who may refuse to produce the best products.
>>Finally, I think rather than "the strength of the link between property and liberty" you probably meant something like "the strength of the link between property/liberty and eco-friendliness."<<
Nah, I said what I meant. You're the one who conflates property and liberty, as seen in your correction. I have never seen property whose acquisition did not require, at some point in history, a grave violation of liberty. Even the land this website resides on was only made available as the intentional result of genocide.
So I doubt the assertion that regulating misbegotten property is necessarily an immoral violation of liberty. Foolish, maybe. But sometimes necessary and moral.
Enjoy your trip.
Post a Comment