This post from TokyoTom deplores the fact that (TT excepted) supporters of the Austrian School, and for that matter libertarians in general, are almost universally committed to delusional views on climate science. The obvious question is why. As TT points out, there are plenty of political opportunities to use climate change to attack subsidies and other existing interventions. And the fact that the environmental movement has shifted (mostly) from profound suspicion of markets to enthusiastic support for market-based policies such as carbon taxes and cap and trade seems like a big win. Most obviously, emissions trading relies on property rights and Austrians are supposed to like property rights.
On the other hand, given the near-universal rejection of mainstream climate science, we can draw one of only three conclusions
(a) Austrians/libertarians are characterized by delusional belief in their own intellectual superiority, to the point where they think they can produce an analysis of complex scientific problems superior to that of actual scientists, in their spare time and with limited or no scientific training in the relevant disciplines, reaching a startling degree of unanimity for self-described “sceptics”
(b) Austrians/libertarians don’t understand their own theory and falsely believe that, if mainstream climate science is right, their own views must be wrong
(c) Austrians/libertarians do understand their own theory and correctly believe that, if mainstream climate science is right, their own views must be wrong
While (a) clearly has some validity, most of the comments on climate science made here by self-described Austrians and libertarians suggest that either (b) or (c) is true. But which?
The problem is complicated (but also to some extent clarified) by the bewildering variety of Austrian/libertarian sects. Starting as far out on the spectrum as we can go, it seems clear that, if mainstream climate science is correct, neither anarcho-capitalism nor paleolibertarianism can be sustained. The problem with anarcho-capitalism and other views where property rights are supposed to emerge, and be defended, spontaneously, and without a state is obvious. If states do not create systems of rights to carbon emissions, the only alternatives are to do nothing, and let global ecosystems collapse, or to posit that every person on the planet has right to coerce any other person not to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. For paleolibertarians, the fact that property rights must be produced by a new global agreement, rather than being the inherited ‘peculiar institutions’ of particular societies seems equally problematic.
For more moderate libertarians, who accept in principle that property rights are derived from the state, I think the problem is more that the creation of a large new class of property rights brings them face to face with features of their model that are generally buried in a near-mythical past.
To start with, there’s the problem of justice in the original allocation. Until now, people developed countries have been appropriating the assimilative capacity of the atmosphere as if there was always “enough and as good” left over. Now that it’s obvious this isn’t true, we need to go back and start from scratch, and this process may involve offsetting compensation which effectively reassigns some existing property rights.
Then there is the problem that the emissions rights we are talking about are, typically time-limited and conditional. But if rights created now by modern states have this property, it seems reasonable to suppose that this has always been true, and therefore that existing property rights may also be subject to state claims of eminent domain.
Overall, though I, think that acceptance of the reality of climate change would be good for libertarianism as a political movement. It would kill off the most extreme and unappealing kinds of a priori logic-chopping, while promoting an appreciation of Hayekian arguments about the power of market mechanisms. And the very fact of uncertainty about climate change is a reminder of the fatality of conceits of perfect knowledge.
This seems to be the kind of thing Tokyo Tom is talking about. But so far, it seems as if he is in a minority of one. Any others want to join him?
Note While I’d be interested in comments from libertarians on whether they think mainstream climate science is consistent with their views, comments repeating delusionist talking points will be deleted or ruthlessly edited.
John Quiggin 
@rog
And Rog…the CIS’s real message about the environment is counched in terms like this “green fascism” “environmental fundamentalism” “environmental doomsayers” “environmental terrorists'” etc etc and they manage to pepper their environment articles with statements like this “liberals are uncomfortable with bureaucratic solutions” (even market based cap and trade systems).
In other words do nothing except denigrate, harangue and fight people who are trying to get something done…and meantime peddle denial. This is the sort of denial they publish over and over…
“However, contrary to much interest group and media rhetoric, the direct evidence of warming attributable to the accumulation of greenhouse gases is far from conclusive and the soundness of the highly publicised estimates of greenhouse effects which underlie calls to curb emissions is at least questionable.”
per http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/autumn98/aut9805.htm
“if you can locate any article by the CIS on climate change rather than climate change denialism – feel free to post a link here.”
It seems like Humphreys is doing the hard yards by himself. In addition to rog’s link, there are these, among others:
http://www.cis.org.au/executive_highlights/EH2009/eh76209.html
Click to access pm80.pdf
Elsewhere, I’ve seen CIS publications that implicitly accept climate change science because they criticise the economics of abatement. But it took them a long time to get there, and I’m sure they have plenty of members that are still denialists.
IPA member addressing the CIS is their “real agenda”, Alice? And Autumn ’98 is the place to look for their current thinking, is it?
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
@Jarrah
Only to indicate that their real message and agenda is to oppose it at every damn turn Jarrah and its been going on for years (so in that sense the 98 article is relevant – very relevant – because of the length of the denials). The CIS sees environmental initiatives as a socialist plot and they are far more interested in pursuing political agendas, shrinking bureacracies, further deregulating and maintaining the cold war 50 years after it was all over, than they have any genuine concern about the environment. They really couldnt give a stuff Jarrah. Its just a useful topic to maintain their political agendas.
If they didnt want Santa Claus, they would say Christmas was a socialist / green / communist plot.
@Jarrah
IPA and CIS are hardly independent in their thinking Jarrah. Two peas in a pod peddling denialism and market fundamentalism and the communist left socialist threat in Australia! Yeah right when we were all, in reality, taken over by JHs phobias (same phobias in words and phraseology as the CIS and IPA)…Then, ordinary Australians had to cop JHs rightwing zealot 18th century workhouse policies…..zzzz.
Im glad someone finally pitched a shoe at JH btw but a doc marten was a waste on him..
Rotten eggs to the the CIS and IPA as well. They are as unfashionable and out of date as their old political master’s voice JH.
@Alan
While I am also not an economist, my understanding of the case put by Garnault, Quiggin, and others who are is that a carbon tax, although making CO2 emissions more expensive, does not set any ceiling on those emissions because it charges a fixed sum per tonne (I suppose it might be possible to have a graduated/progressive carbon tax, but it sounds awfully complicated to implement) and so in theory CO2 emissions could continue to increase without limit. A cap and trade system, by contrast, causes emissions prices to escalate ‘spontaneously’ through the market mechanism as the overall limit of 450 ppm in the atmosphere approaches. It thus sends a more powerful price signal. The problem is that it also involves turning initial permit allocations over to government, and their subsequent reallocation over to Goldman Sachs et al.
No disagreements on the merits of cutting other taxes accordingly. A general shift to pigouvian and rent-based taxes is an outcome devoutly to be wished of the Henry review.
“their real message and agenda is to oppose it at every damn turn”
So you are ignoring evidence to the contrary?
I don’t claim that the CIS will win plaudits from Bob Brown or Clive Hamilton any time soon, but there has been some definite statements by various CIS members that they accept the evidence for climate change. AFAIK, their main criticism is on how to deal with it.
“and its been going on for years”
You are suggesting that they have not changed their view in 11 years. I don’t know for sure, but that sounds unlikely, and what little I’ve read from them on the subject suggests that it isn’t true.
“Its just a useful topic to maintain their political agendas.”
I would agree there is a some truth to that glib analysis. However, you should know that it can go both ways. I read a CIS criticism of car industry assistance that explicitly referenced climate change as a reason not to subsidise big thirsty Aussie cars over cheaper, more efficient foreign ones.
“IPA and CIS are hardly independent in their thinking”
But they’re hardly peas in a pod either. And you can’t take an IPA invitee’s remarks as representative of the CIS, that’s dishonest. After all, the CIS has had Rudd, Downer, Pell, Fukuyama, to name a few, present lectures or papers!
Has anyone realised that the opportunities for corruption in this system are enormous. That this will simply result (has resulted) in massive rent-seeking, political favours and millions spent on bribing officials, scientists and lobbyists?
It’s just a another pointless rent-seeking exercise where the legislation will be selectively enforced and therefore worse than useless. Yet another market-distorting corrupt govt intervention.
Watch this space for censorship by JQ…
Alice, as a sorta lefty I think you’re dead wrong about the IPA and CIS being peas in a pod.
I’ve no time for the IPA – “paid shills” is the phrase that comes to mind. But the CIS is independent and it shows in both the quality of its work and, within the overarching ideological framework, the diversity of its members’ views. I disagree with almost everything it publishes but a lot of it is worth arguing with, whereas the right response to IPA output is to ignore it as being not merely wrong but probably dishonest.
In the long run the CIS is far more effective at getting the right’s agenda up than the IPA will ever be. They, not the IPA, will be the first we liquidate after the revolution :-).
“because it charges a fixed sum per tonne”
You can peg the tax to temperature increases, and it doesn’t have to be linear.
ABOM: whatever you think of JQ’s mod policy on this blog, none of the conventional meanings of ‘censorship’ could possibly cover exclusions of posts here. Forgivable if (as it appears may be the case) you’re not a native English speaker.
@ABOM
I know the government reeks of cosying up to rent seekers at times ABOM (and we get the government we deserve if we are silly enough to swallow the pronouncements of either the CIS or the IPA because it means we are too bone lazy and want someone else to dish up our ideology on a plate because its easier and lazier to be tribal).
Yes there are rent seekers but if we didnt have a government there are worse profit seekers out there who carry a bigger opportunity cost than rent seekers (like Goldman who are both rent seekers and market manipulators and conmen) and wouldnt give a damn about trampling over other people’s rights or assets or money (including and especially labour rights) if they could make a buck out of it and I dont want to have to arm myself to take care of me from that lot.
Picture this scenario. A company leaks oil into the Timor Sea, not for 10 days but 10 weeks before it can manage to fix it. It could practically build a new rig in that time if it wanted to extract oil. But no, this was spending money cleaning up an unholy mess ie an unwanted expense so it was an inconvenient expense.
Rent seeking is the opportunity cost of having to buy and carry a gun Abom or worse. Who do we really need protection from? Rent seekers or profit seekers? Both but more the latter.
Thanks Crispin. The definition of censorship is:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.
JQ is the censor. The blog is a form of media. What’s the problem?
@derrida derider
Derrida…as centrist and concerned mother they both disgust me. I saw and heard what happened to peoples kids out their in the workforce after JHs measly mingy despicable workchoices. I dont want my kid treated like garbage and too many people are. It hasnt been wound back by Julia Gillard near far enough. Anyone who supports JH or thinks like him can go.
I say we liquidate them both (CIS and then IPA).
@ABOM
If it was only spelling mistakes ABOM I would have been censored long ago LOL!
ABOM: well, I don’t think there’s ‘a’ canonical definition, and one could argue with that one (as any other).
But with its usual connotation as understood by me (which is all I’ve got), the word can’t apply to an owner of an entirely private space choosing what to publish. But I admit that there’s room for argument about what’s ‘private’ in our grand new networked age.
The most important connotation of ‘censorship’ in the context of your comment is that it’s meant as a politically-correct trigger-word (like ‘racist’ etc): if we can agree that X comes under its head, then we all agree it’s bad. Which must connote that you think you have a right to publish here, or that JQ has a duty to permit such, or something like that. I find that pretty implausible.
Sorry about the uncalled for ‘native speaker’ snark btw. Too impetuous a post.
@ABOM
Technically this blog is JQ’s property, so he can censor anything he wants, and he explicitly mentioned what he didn’t want people talking about. At the same time, I’m yet to come across a libertarian blog that censored anyone (apart from the usual spam).
Sea-bass,
Catallaxy censored (and has on moderation) a commenter variously known as “our feathered friend”, “GMB” and currently as “Chodorov”. His name is Graeme Bird.
But then, he get censored or banned just about anywhere. Catallaxy is about the only blog in Australia (apart from his own) where he is allowed.
Interestingly, he claims to be a libertarian but he censors his blog like a bandit – often ending up with situations where it looks like he is having a one sided conversation with himself.
When an organisation implicitly or explicitly accepts climate change science but universally opposes genuine measures to reduce emissions – or only proposes measures that have next to zero chance of being ever introduced or result in actual reductions or real change in the fossil fuel powered status quo – I think they are essentially denialist and deserve that label. Besides orgs like CIS I think the ALP and Liberal party fall into this catagory.
I suspect even the explicit acceptance of climate change science from these orgs and their spokespeople is more rhetorical, in order to get the tip of their wedge in than genuine acceptance; genuine acceptance tends to lead people to insist that we act, rather than argue for further delay. In other words they don’t accept the science but won’t say so because that would reduce the takeup and effectiveness of their arguments against serious action.
@Sea-bass
I have the distinction of being deleted from Catallyx Sea Bass!! And as your post at Ozrisk implies…when have you been chided for thread derailment by JQ??? Link please?
Chucked in the clink yes. Chided unfairly (even if you were chided) – nahhh and you know it. Lots of us are guilty of thread derailment but it remains thread derailment. Im pleased to be diverted back to topic. However when you come in here spouting about your Keynesian Koolaid drinkers and whatever other derogatory comments (then there is Terje’s deformed dwarf socialist comment so you are not alone) towards social democrats here….what do you expect??
The royal welcome carpet to be rolled out for you…??
I must say Im inclined to be heading back towards selecting JQs option (a)
“(a) Austrians/libertarians are characterized by delusional belief in their own intellectual superiority, to the point where they think they can produce an analysis of complex scientific problems superior to that of actual scientists, in their spare time and with limited or no scientific training in the relevant disciplines, reaching a startling degree of unanimity for self-described “sceptics”
Not only that, they seem to think that they can use the worst sneers and insults and get clean away with it (likely due to their delusional sense of superiority).
Anthropogenic climate change poses a problem for the most extreme version of their beliefs because it suggest a defect in this reality. In this reality the unfettered market can create a problem that can only be solved by collective action. The choice for a true believer (extreme libertarian) is reject the facts and the science of anthropogenic climate change or modify their commitment to their extreme beliefs. It is clear which of these two they tend to choose.
A great denier for whom the choice has always been clear is Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic: http://www.klaus.cz/Klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=KaTffYUet0Rm
@derrida derider
The only thing the CIS is ‘independent’ of, is reality.
Sea-bass, I was intending to mention that as well. There is an obvious contradiction between economic arguments for stimulating demand and concerns about the environment and resource scarcity.
If you believe that excessive consumption is wrecking the planet, it is hard to simultaneously justify increasing consumption through government stimulus measures and deficit financing. (The only exception might be if all the money went on purchasing green technology and the like). Or at the very least, one would have to oppose implementing fiscal stimulus until after the introduction of a carbon tax or emission cap.
I guess the only people who take climate change seriously are those who oppose government stimulus measures and support nuclear energy. That would largely be groups like IPA, CIS and assorted villains.
@Freelander
They don’t oppose collective solutions to collective problems per se, they simply deny that government is somehow a necessary part of the equation.
There should be a name for this particular brand of fallacious reasoning which goes something like:
Market failure => more government
Anticipating your response, I hasten to add that they (these “X-treme libertarians”) would be wrong to automatically assume that government intervention is not necessary or could not be beneficial. If, however, interventions have led to bad outcomes in the past, they are acting perfectly rationally when they assume intervention will continue to have bad outcomes.
Strange. Some of Alice’s (and my) comments have been deleted without warning or justification. Strange.
I’d call it random censorship but don’t know whether this is a technical blip or deliberate.
I left this for a day and came back to chaos. I’ve deleted a vast number of thread-derailing comments and more will go as soon as I get time. Anything not on the topic of attitudes to climate science will be cut.
ABOM is banned for a week. For everyone else, nothing further on anything other than the original topic of the post, please.
Chaos? Or anarchy?
@jquiggin
When it comes to the denialist (and deliberately fact obscuring) publications by politically motivated groups like the IPA and CIS its hard not to derail. Its not just the environment topic it happens in. Sorry JQ. Ill stick to the thread.
The topic is “why are libertarians always wrong?”. Please stick to the topic. And if you’re a libertarian stop being in denial about the fact that libertarians are always wrong. And don’t talk about climate science. Just confess to being wrong and things will go a lot more smoothly for you. Your banned.
Terje is now banning himself for 24 hours because his attitude to the framing of this whole discussion is misaligned.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
I like it how the standard of proof keeps rising. First it is doubtful that there are any libertarians that believe in mainstream science, then they show up and we have to find a libertarian organisation or think tank whose members support mainstream climate science. And then we have to find a libertarian think tank which actively endorses the mainstream science on climate change, and requires all affiliates to swear an oath saying they will hold no other opinion but that which is dictated by the think tank.
@Sea-bass
You wont find one Sea Bass – because there isnt one. They specialise in obscuring the facts. They want to obscure them and they have dovoted enough money to the cause of denialism to sink us all. All they hope to do is swing a few voters to the right and nothing more. They intend when they get in to do jack about climate change just like John Howard did. They dont give a damn. They only give a damn about big business who may be affected by higher costs in the short term. They dont give a damn about the majority, future generations, the environment or seeing some decent regulation put in place. And its called stink tanks not think tanks, that the right specialise in. They pollute as much as the big emitters they look after.
Thanks for the laugh Terje 🙂
If it’s of any consolation to affronted libertarians and fellow travellers reading here, assuming my recollection is sound, I believe JQ put himself on the record perhaps a couple of years back (can’t remember sorry – was it in a post to do with a charitable cause?) with something along the lines of believing that after his preferred “social democracy” he had more sympathy and time for libertarianism than for the other contemporary “isms”s. Sometimes we’re harder on the ones closest to us. Tough love. Please correct me JQ!
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
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Is that a promise or a threat Terje? You still gave me no proof at all the seven dwarfs were libertarians.
I must say I’m surprised. The tenor of nearly all the pro-libertarian comments here is to deny that libertarians/Austrians dispute mainstream climate science. If so, I guess there isn’t a problem. But I’d like to try some kind of empirical test of this. Here’s a brief and reasonably moderate statement of my (non-expert) view of mainstream climate science, on which I based my own professional work and my comments on this blog
I’d suggest posting this statement on a number of Austrian/libertarian blogs and checking out the reaction from “home team” commenters. From the comments here, it ought to be uncontroversial, and, indeed to attract little response of any kind. My prediction on the contrary is that it would attract a vitriolic delusionist response.
@TokyoTom
That was after you had a snark at JQ via your own website Tom (using ABOMs comments as evidence). Pardon me..but JQ making his own decisions about his own website…is making a private property decision and he has individual rights does he not?? So – if you dont like someone being rude at the front door – you shut the door and dont let them in.
Dont try, using ABOMs words (without his actual permission I would bet) to twist it into a minor point over regulation vs individual freedoms.
Regulation wins as it should and it doesnt take much intelligence to figure out that we, as humans, cant really exist side by side harmoniously without it. Common sense – teh regulation we have to tolerate these days is pretty damn mild compared to the punishments of old….
or would you prefer the rack back?
@jquiggin I’ll give my version.
Mainstream climate science has shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that global temperatures have become warmer by about 0.6 degrees over the last 100 years. This includes a warming period (1910-1940), followed by a plateau and slight decline (1940-1970) followed by another warming period (1970-2000).
Further, climate science strongly suggests that humans have contributed to this warming. As Pat Michaels (Cato) well shows, sun-based warming should increase hot & cold temperatures together, while AGW should increase cold temps by more than hot temps. The profile of the 1910-1940 warming indicates it was sun-based, while the 1970-2000 warming indicates AGW.
Further, climate science suggests that this warming should continue in the future. While there has been no significant temperature change in recent years, this is too short a period to make definitive judgments and the best evidence available suggests that warming should continue at some point.
All these positions are endorsed by the vast majority of scientists working on climate-related issues (including many who call themselves “skeptic”).
However, there are many continuing areas of disagreement, most specifically regarding the feedback mechanisms and the size of expected future warming, and the consequences of that warming. The IPCC includes a likely range from 2-4 degrees, which probably represents the view of a majority of climate scientists (and me)… but there is a minority who think it may be more, and a smaller minority who think it may be less.
Unfortunately, the outliers (on both sides) get a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Some on the “alarmist” side make absurd claims about death, destruction, catastrophe and disaster caused by AGW… and are unfortunately being successful in perpetuating an exaggerated fear among the public. Some on the “denialist” side make absurd claims about economic collapse and disaster caused by AGW policy, and have also had some (though not as much) success in sparking exaggerated fears. These views probably get more attention because fear sells newspapers, and humans seem to have a predisposition towards horror-stories.
While there is a reasonable consensus on the basics of the science, there is less agreement on the economics. The majority of economists agree that a carbon tax is preferable to a carbon trading scheme, and that both are preferable to direct government subsidies and regulations. Unfortunately, it looks like we’re going to have a mix of the three worst options.
There is also considerable uncertainty surrounding the likely impacts of AGW. Estimates for the United States (based on 2.5 degree warming) range from a benefit of 0.1% of GDP to a cost of 1.5% of GDP or higher. Though even the most scary of scenarios still has the world with a higher standard of living in the future.
There is also considerable uncertainty about whether likely government policy would pass a robust benefit-cost analysis. There is some evidence that a perfect carbon tax should provide a net benefit, but there is continued skepticism about whether the implemented policy will be perfect.
Analysis that suggests there is no AGW, or that suggests that AGW is a serious threat to maintaining the current (or better) level of human welfare should be regarded as unsound. Claims that suggest the policy debate is over should be regarded as wrong, and probably politically motivated.
TT, comments seem to be broken at your site.
Responding on a minor point, claiming Iain Murray of Planet Gore as a positive contributor is a huge stretch. He’s long been notable as an exemplar of the view that facts are a matter of political convenience. He now ealises that anti-science delusionism won’t cut it in serious policy circles, and is therefore putting forward spoiler policies in the hope of stopping action, while CEI goes on spouting anti-science nonsense. The case is even clearer with the Cato guy you quote. He welcomes environmental purists who oppose buying off big polluters, but only because he thinks they will be easier to beat.
The PERC guys do seem serious, but they seem to be ignored by the libertarian/Austrian side of the policy debate and to be treated seriously, if critically, by the environmentalist side.
Tokyo Tom, I am a bit thick and slow these days but could you please tell me how a voluntary organisation could possibly replace a government agency and reason with the most inefficient big polluters in reducing their carbon footprint for my understanding is that only stringent regulations will force the big polluters into action and make them clean up their act.
@Michael of Summer Hill
Perhaps you’re right, but, last I heard, all the big polluters were down in Canberra lobbying the government for exemptions and free carbon credits, so maybe you’d like to enlighten us on why you think the political process is perfect and always produces optimal and morally just outcomes.
And I know you’re a bit thick and slow these days, but that presumably wouldn’t stop you from actually reading Tokyo Tom’s article(s) and analysing his suggestions instead of just going for the fallacious “market failure therefore more government” argument that is so popular among people seeking any excuse to expand the scope of their Beloved and Omnipotent Government.
Sea-bass, I have never believed in handing out free permits to the big polluters but I am interested in knowing how Libertarians will make the big polluters pay to clean up their mess.
@Michael of Summer Hill
One voluntary solution is to get people to donate money to a fund that subsidises non-emitting energy sources. I think you’d be surprised at how innovative, generous and effective a free people can be when they put their mind to it. Unfortunately, the same works in reverse. When solutions only come at the end of a political process, you’d be surprised how unimaginative, selfish and ineffective people can be. Humans aren’t perfect… but I’m not convinced that we get better just because we invented politics & coercion.
No John Humphreys, Australians are not that stupid.
@Michael of Summer Hill
Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean it isn’t happening (I thought that was the point JQ tried was trying to make apropos libertarians and their alleged denialism).
Besides, these polluters are just providing people with the consumer goods that they are demanding (and I thought Keynesians were all about consuming and demanding). You (and many others) seem to think politics is just like waving a magic wand, and that parliament will devise the perfect legislation that will make all the polluters stop polluting and everyone will magically change their behaviour.
Whilst you might believe that Australians are not stupid enough to stoop to the level of donating money to a cause in which they believe, I have more “faith” in general good will and voluntary cooperation than I do in a political solution.
Sea-bass, you are wright about the magic wand for past governments (& current) have legislated to bring into line many of the big polluters. And anyone who voluntary donates to keep the big end of town happy must be off your rocker. Have a good night’s sleep.
@Michael of Summer Hill
I don’t think donating to the current emitters would be a good voluntary strategy. It would create an incentive to emit greenhouse gases in the hope of being paid to stop. That is why I suggesting putting money towards convincing consumers to switch to non-emitting energy production.
You wouldn’t need to eliminate the cost-difference, because many consumers would be willing to take on some cost for themselves. And more to the point, once the alternative energy sources became more competitive that would drive more private investment in those alternative energies and speed up their technological development.
I’m not sure what you mean by “Australians aren’t that stupid”. I’m not sure exactly how stupid most Australians are, though I hear about half of them have below average intelligence. But donating to a cause you believe in isn’t a matter of intelligence. Free people constantly show their willingness to give significant amounts of money to causes they think are important… far more than is expected by standard economic assumptions of “free-riding”. It seems that we have a built in philanthropic instinct that somewhat offsets the free-riding instinct.
To put this in perspective, if less than 1% of our annual charitable donations went on climate change, then we could send $1000 to a million families in exchange for them going on renewable energies.
With a bit more imagination and effort I’m sure lots more innovative and interesting solutions could be found. Of course, these are all currently crowded out by government programs & political risk. My point is just that voluntary community is often able to come together to address communal problems. Not perfectly of course. Perhaps government can do it better. But people shouldn’t assume the community option is worthless. It is often valuable and fairly effective.
My maths was wrong… it would require about 7% of current charitable giving to send $1000/year to a million families.
@jquiggin
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
@jquiggin
John, thanks for visiting. LvMI had spam problems and decided that the best way was to shut off comments on user blogs except to users. Anyone can register though, the link is here: http://mises.org/Community/
I`ve given Iain Murray plenty of grief myself, but his list of proposals is hardly a spoiler plan; it contains suggestions for federal spending, it`s not advertised and I just happened to find it.
I think you misread Jerry Taylor of Cato; while he`s not in favor of cap & trade or carbon taxes, he`s strongly in favor of what I see as a spot-on deregulatory agenda. On the point to which you refer, his intention to support environmentalists to they don`t cave like they did for the Clean Air Act, and agree to grandfather older, dirtier facilities.