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 
@TokyoTom
This fits my perception, and may be a source of some of my dispute with John Quiggin. It is certainly the case that up until quite recently, one found many more libertarians and Austrians either questioning or rejecting mainstream climate science in a more or less knee jerk fashion. This has changed, with as you say, TT, the trend towards accepting it, but questioning doing anything substantive regarding policy due to not liking big government.
A blank comment, just to get us over 150
A huge number of comments because it is a bit of a nasty type of attack-dog blog post. Being delusional is a very strong claim. Do you equally claim that Dr Plimer is delusional?
On a slightly different topic: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/rowenamason/100001719/spectre-of-greenism-in-the-uk-workplace-is-a-backward-step-for-climate-change/
It seems that being a climate change advocate is a religion. An religion is about a leap of faith. I wonder what will happen in ten years time when we look back at this period and asked ourselves why it is that the entire environmental policy was about an ETS and why a quasi-religion was being founded in university departments across the country devoted to green issues.
John Humphgreys, donating to a good cause is fine but if you have attended the big end of town gatherings you will notice it is just an excuse to get pissed. There is very little corporate responsibility when it comes to cleaning up their own back yards. And don’t delude yourself, for it is the ‘State’ which can only bring change and force the worst greenhouse gas emitters to clean up their act. Gotta go.
@John Humphreys
Re your comment “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.”
A “voluntary” donation scheme would prove just as inadequate as private charity donations do in generating sufficient resources for charity. Nice idea in theory but would be grossly inadequate in practice.
Alice, do you think people kind of view tax as a form of compulsory charity, so they are less generous than they would normally be?
@Sea-bass
Interesting. A lot of talk about government even though the post you refer to did not mention government. It did, however, refer to collective action. Extreme libertarians deny anthropogenic climate change, it seems because the solution requires collective action. The solution does not just happen magically through the market. Emission trading schemes or emission taxation requires collective action as an essential component, even though they also make use of markets. It is the collective action that is required that extreme libertarians hate so much. Other than that they tend to be a perverse lot who like to think they are so much cleverer than everyone else. This means that they prefer to be, where possible, in the oh so much cleverer minority.
Since his errors have been pointed out to him dozens of time to no effect, I certainly claim he is a delusionist. Whether he is delusional himself, or peddling delusions to those willing to accept them, I’m not able to judge. But certainly, anyone who thinks accepting the findings of mainstream science constitutes a “religion” is
(a)deeply deluded
(b) engaged in the kind of ad hominem attack you claim to deplore
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with certain kinds of ad hominem criticism, such as pointing out lack of expertise or conflicts of interest – if you can’t trust someone to present the whole truth, you can’t treat them as an authority. But the “religion” criticism is a perfect example of the fallacious kind of “ad hominem” argument.
@SeanG
Sean – if you lowered taxes for people you would need even more private donations to charity (or environmental funds and road funds and rail funds). You may get some more “voluntary” donations but you still would never get enough. Some people prefer to go to church and talk about kindly acts rather than do them. I knew somewhere, somehow Sean – you would turn the “voluntary donations for an environment fund” suggestion into an argument for lower taxes. That is always on the agenda of libertarians, which is one major problem I have with ALS. The rich need to be taxed at a higher rate now.
@jquiggin
Lack of expertise or conflicts of interest could easily be applied to many environmentalists. If I were to invest in a green technology company that is reliant on government intervention and then I were to parade to magazines and newspapers about saving the environment, then I would be no better than the oil industry secretly funding think tanks. However, this happens far more often than is being reported and skewers debate.
@jquiggin
Lack of expertise or conflicts of interest could easily be applied to many environmentalists. If I were to invest in a green technology company that is reliant on government intervention and then I were to parade to magazines and newspapers about saving the environment, then I would be no better than the oil industry secretly funding think tanks. However, this happens far more often than is being reported and skewers debate.
@jquiggin
The proposal by the delusionists that we who accept the mainstreram science and its policy implicatuions are adherents of a new religion (in the strong form “whacky religious cult”) is simply a cynical attempt at a wedge, but which touches bases with similar efforts to brand Hitler as a leftwinger or to deny that libertarians are rightwingers.
The word religion means something quite specific. You can’t have a religion without a belief in metaphysics, without definite practices of ritual and obligation that set you apart from non-adherents and without firm reference to ideas that are not part of measurable reality and which cannot be falsified. This does not describe those of us who support the scientific consensus, ergo … we aren’t a religion.
As to whether Plimer is deluded or simply unscrupulous in making claims about reality, I suspect it is the latter, although I don’t rule out the possibility that he now believes his own echo chamber.
Of course Plimer is delusional, which is not the worst that can be said of him.
Has the word religion now become a pejorative?
The charge that climate change is a religion was tested before the courts and found to be true
Of course libertarian free market true believers are the ones engulfed by a religious belief.
The rejection of collective action or even acknowledgement that such beast has ever existed at all in all of human history, that even community exists, are also hallmark beliefs of these very frightened, very strange creatures.
@rog
Rog, you might want to read a bit more carefully. The finding was that the complainant held a philosophical, not a religious belief. Of course, there is nothing invalid or unreasonable in drawing ethical implications from the factual conclusions of climate science.
The fallacy, committed by nearly all the opponents of climate science is to go the other way. I can’t count the number of comments I’ve seen from you and others that come down to “Since the factual conclusions of climate science have policy/ethical implications that support environmentalism/socialism/world government, I will reject the facts”.
@jquiggin
Just so.
The sacking was not the result of the plaintiff accepting the science. It was a result of the ethical inferences for the client, and thus for his work pattern and capacity to participate in the work culture.
I agree, since I have never made such comments you cant count them.
My apologies, Rog. I thought I remembered you making comments along these lines, but I was wrong. However, plenty of others have made such comments
Returning to the court case, apparently Grainger’s lawyer argued that climate change opinions was “a scientific view rather than a philosophical one.”
It would be interesting to read the judgement.
@Jennifer
It is interesting. The market in the treatment of the rightwing ideologues, is reified and is commonly spoken of has having “wisdom” and invoking “laws” that we are powerless to evade. That’s close to metaphysics.
They don’t do ritual observance however and some of the description of the behaviour of markets is measurable by non-initiates. So strictly speaking, it’s not a religion. It’s better categorsied as a secular and misanthropic dogma featuring a reified entity in which the adherents make a fundamentalist and solipsistic fetish out of concepts such as “individual” and “freedom”.
@Fran Barlow
I think there is an element of ritual observance Fran. How else do you explain CEOs or other notables making pronouncements to assembled media throngs on the great benefits of free markets, when in fact they happen to be wearing the thickest sheepskins of all that insulate them very well from market forces.
I rather think there is an element of ritual observance.
@Alice
No, that’s just ex-cathedra posturing.
@Alice I disagree alice, generally CEOs are not in favour of free markets. Thats why Exxon, Goldman Sachs, BHP etc have done so well; they cosy up to big government. The CEO of GE let the cat out of the bag by saying “It’s never been a free market; it’s never gonna be a free market.”
If executive pay was determined by free market mechanisms a more appropriate level might be reached
@rog
This is precisely what is claimed …
That’s all interesting, but let’s get back to climate change now.
@Fran Barlow
Agree Fran – same on the environment. As if, in our wildest nightmares, leaving it to free markets would correct our problems with environmental degradation. Its so utterly absurd to even imagine that some people think that is the solution (I start to suspect some hideous toxin or accummulation of toxins in the food chain is at fault for gross diminution of cognitive abilities. That or people are lying through their back teeth by pushing the very idea. I suspect the latter. There is a need to ask why.).
Grrrrrr…. Allce……grrrrrrrr. I will grit my teeth until I come off the sin bin.
Grr back to you ABOM….!!. You are banned for a week! LOL! (I shouldnt laugh. Ill be next for derailment (thats mild genetic ADHD). But it wont be because Im lying!)
Anyway back to the environment and delusionism. I know that ALS right types have used the expression “watermelons” for people they claim are “green on the outide and …inference is…communist inside”. I dont like to sink as low (but I cant help myself) Ive got a new name for the ALS AGW denialists.
Macadamias!
Hard on the outside and nutty inside.
Stay away from macadamias — I like them. Very tasty.
I actually don’t mind the term watermelon as an epithet. The tasty bit of the watermelon is the red part, so in effect, if you can get past the natural green exterior, communism appears as a reward, metaphorically speaking. It’s really a compliment.
“Other than that they tend to be a perverse lot who like to think they are so much cleverer than everyone else.”
Well, all proper (i.e. not the Faux News Glenn Beck “libertarians”) libertarians are complete nerds, and nerds are smarter than everyone else, so therefore all libertarians are smarter than everyone else. I’ve certainly never met a stupid libertarian. As for being perverse, well, if you consider a distaste of being ordered around by less intelligent people who think they know better what’s best for you than you do, well I guess it’s guilty as charged.
They are also much more immune to the mass hysteria that tends to come along every now and then, such as that of swine flu, boat people or any number of the spurious claims of health hazards one hears every evening on “A Current Affair” and “Today Tonight”.
Perhaps there a bit of “boy-cried-wolf” factor in all of this? People are coming up with new excuses to cause mass hysteria all the time. Environmentalists in particular are constantly bombarding us with predictions of death, doom and destruction. Libertarians manage to see through most of them, but like anyone they don’t have 100% success rate.
@Sea-bass
I’ve certainly never met a stupid libertarian.
Ive met a lot of them Sea Bass!
Let me ask you this (and I know the oil leak has trickled on you Sea Bass)…how come the right and ALS dont think the tamils should have any freedoms to come here? Why are the libs playing the hard line?? You know – JH did it better and we had hard policies and the boats stopped coming bla bla bla. What about Tamil individual freedoms and the freedoms of open borders and the freedom of movements of people huh??? huh???b huh?? How do you explain right rigidities on this? Doesnt it fly in the face on your individual freedom “front”. (plastic front that is…)
hypocritical – most of them.
@Sea-bass
ALS – guilty of hypocrisy. Free markets when it suits them…close the borders when it doesnt.
Trying to get back on-topic….
One of the questions that libertarians who are sceptical of AGW should perhaps address (if they have not already) is: what evidence would convince you that:
a) Global warming is real?
b) If so, that it is caused by human activity?
@Alice
Did I say I opposed immigration? Where? I don’t hang out on ALS, so I don’t know what’s going on, and the Liberals – well, the less said the better. I really wish you’d stop bringing up the Liberals around me, it’s a sad thing to say but the Labor party is actually more in line with libertarian beliefs.
I say let the Tamils in, they would appreciate the freedoms and opportunities this country offers much more than you lot, who spend countless hours moaning about how government isn’t doing enough and how you have to deal with the utter indignity of thinking and acting for yourselves (oh, the horror!).
Some say that we can’t have a generous welfare state and free immigration at the same time – I agree to an extent, but think that this is an argument for dismantling the welfare state, not stopping immigration.
@Freelander
“It is the collective action that is required that extreme libertarians hate so much. ”
Libertarians don`t oppose collective action per se, but are opposed to “collective” actions that are dictated by the state -because it hampers the ability of communities to respond to problems on their own, weakens links between resource users and the relevant resource, frequently locks in benefits for powerful insiders (viz., the big firms that profess to love markets but really love their deals from government that lock in their advantageous position) – thereby setting up enduring fights over the wheel of government -and because the “knowledge problem” generally ensures that solutions will be ham-handed and generate a need for further interventions.
You, John and others might not have noticed, but these are some of the chief conclusions of the empirical research by “tragedy of the commons” expert Elinor Ostrom, and her writings about how counter-productive stated-led “development” and commons-management efforts have been is precisely the reason why the Swedes awarded her the Nobel Prize in economics.
@Alice
Alice, on the topic of “watermelons”, surely the libertarians have a point that many environmentalists really do not understand how markets or free societies function, but typically this term is used not to explain, but as an ad hom, both to dismiss concerns over climate science and to avoid the heavy work of arguing over policy, as I`ve noted here:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/05/the-road-not-taken-v-libertarian-hatred-of-misanthropic-quot-watermelons-quot-and-the-productive-love-of-aloof-ad-homs.aspx
@Cynic
It’s not really a question of evidence per se. A lot of denialist libertarians refuse to accept the findings of the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change, since as is the case with most of these organisations (the World Bank, IMF etc) it is viewed to be a servant of its political overlords. I am not actually saying that the IPCC is wrong, but its opponents can find reason to ignore its findings on this basis.
Perhaps the more moderate members of the population could do a better job at distancing themselves from the more radical, cultish aspects of climate change hysteria, such as those people and groups calling for the nationalisation of the energy industry and war crimes tribunals against climate criminals etc.
It would also be helpful to consider solutions that don’t involve massive tax hikes, wealth redistribution and a whole heap of garbage about “green jobs”, which is just the classic broken window fallacy updated for the 21st century. Even libertarians who accept the reality of AGW believe this is a waste of time and money.
And as much as it may pain you to do so, you might want to, as a gesture of good faith, make a serious promise to cut the size of government and explore some libertarian solutions, which some might interpret as a sign that this is a serious problem and not just another excuse for the state to expand and trample individual freedoms. From the sound of some people on this blog, if there was some hypothetical way to cut emissions that involved a cut in government spending, most of them would look for any excuse not to accept it as valid.
Whether or not you think he’s correct, Bjorn Lomborg has much greater success than, say, Al Gore in winning the support of free market types in this matter, which might give you some indication of how you could go about winning over these pesky libertarians.
Then again, libertarians have always had sweet FA in the way of political influence, constituting about 0.01% of the population, so I can’t see what the fuss is about.
John, to sum up, while clearly many libertarians are guilty of wishful thinking as to the climate science, by the same token many environmentalists and leftists seem to blithely ignore all of the problems that are associated with state/bureaucratic responses.
Yes, there are self-deluded on both sides, but to seek to explain away (or dispense with considering) the opposition of others is itself a flight from reason and responsibility.
That this is understandable , human and a common phenomenon in the case of tribal or partisan conflict – as Nick Kristof points out: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/04/17/nick-kristof-on-politics-why-we-conclude-that-i-m-right-and-you-re-evil.aspx – makes it something that we should all the more try to avoid, rather than indulge in, which seems to be the drift of this post and many of your commenters.
On this point, I would recommend that you and others take a look at some of the opposition to cap-and-trade now springing up on the left in the US; see the comments of two EPA lawyers and of Dr. Janese Hansen here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/epa-lawyers-challenge-cap-and-trade-for-climate/
Says Hansen: “I hope that Williams and Zabel give decision makers pause. This is no time to be rushing into costly ineffectual legislation. It is time to call a halt on any legislation this year, and take time to understand the matter. It would take 20 years to fix the mess that Congress, with the help of special interests, seems intent on creating.”
Regards,
Tom
Alice – libertarians typically support open borders. However they are also interested in immigration reform that is politically sellable to the masses. I don’t think the ALS has every hosted an anti-immigration article.
My own views on where we should go with immigration policy are summed up pretty well in the LDP policy on the topic. We should work towards FIAs (Free Immigration Agreements) with as many other nations as possible. We should shift away from immigration quotas towards immigration tariffs for the rest.
http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1156:immigration&catid=101:policies&Itemid=290
Happy to debate this with you.
I could quibble on details but this is reasonably close to my position.
[…] to my preceding posts regarding John Quiggin`s post on "Libertarians and delusionism", I copy below a few of the comments that I left there: TokyoTom November 4th, […]
Alice;
Below is a full search of the ALS site using the word immigration.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=immigration+site%3Ablog.libertarian.org.au&meta=&aq=f&oq=
I thought it might help.
@Sea-bass
With all due respect, you did not answer my question. But I do understand your concerns about govt interventions.
As for only representing 0.01% of the population, I think there are more libertarians than that. A recent survey in the USA suggests, based on answers to the following question: is government “trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses
?” that disenchantment with govt is growing.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123101/americans-likely-say-government-doing-too-much.aspx
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Terje
Ill have a look. Hopefully the website will display the page. Tokyo Tom is busy relying to posts here….in his own website…with links to mises.org…but alas none of his links will let you view
The message comes up “the website has declined to show the page”. Does mises.org engage in regulation over its website by any chance?
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Terje
from one of your links I get this “Australia already has an “open-door” policy with New Zealand and people move relatively freely between Australia and New Zealand to the benefit of both countries. Good candidate countries for an FIA include Singapore, Canada, Hong Kong, the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands among others”
Now – these are mostly (mostly) nice white countries arent they?? I dont see any open door policy to Tamils there (nor any FIAs planned to relatively poor countries). Its not a white Australia FIAs is it??? Or is it planned FIAs for economically relatively advanced countries – ??? Not exactly an open door full freedom of “individuals” policy Terje, you would have to admit. ALS still pretty selective about who gets the freedoms.
@Sea-bass
Says “Then again, libertarians have always had sweet FA in the way of political influence, constituting about 0.01% of the population, so I can’t see what the fuss is about.”
About as much influence as moderates and Keynesians have had over the past 30 years…so could someone tell me exactly who is running the show? Is it John Gotti or Carl Williams?? Or heaven help us all…its Harry Triguboff and Frank Lowy.
@Cynic
I tried to answer your question – my point being, that if the IPCC findings were endorsed by Ron Paul as opposed to, say, Al Gore, the evidence might suddenly become more convincing without the facts changing in any way. The issue is not with the evidence, but with the person who’s presenting it (as TT pointed out).
Strangely enough, Ron Paul was on Alex Jones “Infowars” radio show, and stated that he believed there was “a lot of truth” in the theory (or words to that effect) although he still doubted the efficacy of government “solutions”. This was unusual, considering that Jones is an avid conspiracy theorist and global warming denier who produces such anti-Bildenburg “documentaries” as “Terror Storm” and “The Obama Deception”.
With that in mind, I actually am surprised that the Austrians/libertarians haven’t all rallied behind Ron Paul on that point. At the same time, the Austrian viewpoint on global warming doesn’t really interest me, since I am more interested in their economic analyses and business cycle theory.
The basis that the IPCC was established by governments? And you just said you never met a stupid libertarian? That sounds like a pretty stupid way to evaluate scientific evidence.
Even if the hysteria was a hundred times more intense, that wouldn’t change the science. You said that libertarians are all nerds but they’re not science nerds that’s for sure.