I just watched this clip from last night's Daily Show:
Another segment of this show was devoted to poking fun at various pundits' criticism of science and scientists. Putting this interview in the context of that previous segment sheds a little more light on Mr. Stewart's apparent confusion about the "resistance" to science. The reason is apparently that climate change deniers are all crazy, liars, or idiots or possibly all of the above.
Let me suggest another alternative: people don't want more government intervention. Assuming for a second that climate change is real and further that it is man-made (thus implying that it is man-reversible), then the logical next step is government intervention to combat this scourge. This likely entails more regulations on emissions which means increased costs for fuel and cars, government subsidies to "green" businesses which means gambling tax dollars on politically connected businesses, and limitations on production of goods considered to be non-"green" or produced via non-"green" methods which means violation of property rights.
My point is that climate change "deniers" are not necessarily science averse. Their reticence to accept it may be based more on a desire to prevent greater government intervention or simply on the idea that climate change better be really "for-damn-sure" before government guns are used to forcefully reorganize society around its implications.
Sure. Problem is, the science is settled. It's been settled for a decade. The basic mechanism of global climate change was worked out by Svante Arrhenius and published in 1896. Hansen, in 1987, published the basic observations. There's been a lot of work done since, but the issue was pretty much settled by the year 2000. To people who are persuaded--and that includes most scientists--people arguing about the science are looking like the ship captain arguing that the lighthouse should change course.
ReplyDelete2008 article on libertarians and climate change by Australian left political scientist and blogger John Quiggin: http://crookedtimber.org/2008/06/15/libertarians-and-global-warming/ . Quiggin comments, "Global climate change is one of the few instances where lots of environmentalists are supporting a property-rights based solution [...]" and "A successful response to global warming is vitally important, but it doesn’t imply (or, I should note, preclude) radical changes to the existing social order."
Refs:
On Arrhenius, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/
Scan of Arrhenius' 1896 paper, http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Hansen's 1987 paper, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
I didn't and don't intend to debate the merits of climate change science. The point of this post was to suggest that those arguing against the science (or any other aspect) are doing so out of a desire to prevent further government regulation.
ReplyDeleteTo Quiggin's article, "tradeable emissions permits" are hardly a free-market solution or one that respects property rights. That they are considered to be so is a real testament to governments' propaganda efforts. So called cap-and-trade systems are simply market-based regulations. The government artificially creates and centrally plans a market and then forces emitters to participate in this market. There's nothing free about it. On the property rights front, who's protecting your and my property rights? What if I want less pollution than the government allows? What if I'm willing to allow more? The government claims the right to regulate pollution; I have no recourse (through the courts) if I feel that I'm being overly polluted or wish to allow my neighbor to pollute my property more than is allowed by the government.
Ultimately, even cap-and-trade will have the effects I suggested in my original post. Businesses that are already green will see their costs remain relatively constant as they won't need to buy permits, but others will see their costs increase and these increased costs will be passed on to consumers. So, what you'll find is consumers living in already polluted areas will see their costs increase and pollution remain constant, if not increase as well. This is ultimately a system under which government (not consumers and not the market) picks winners and losers based on currently fashionable policy.
"The point of this post was to suggest that those arguing against the science (or any other aspect) are doing so out of a desire to prevent further government regulation."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, at for least some of the critics. The response, though, has gone past reasonable skepticism into denial. Both personal integrity and intellectual honesty, I think, demand accepting the science and fighting the political battle on the political battlefield.
Are there libertarian objections to the system of registration of real property, which underpins the real-estate market? Perhaps a cap-and-trade system might be seen as something similar: a governmental recognition of pre-existing rights. It is hard for me to think of the Holocene climate that fostered human civilization as a kind of property, but it is certain that its loss would come at an enormous cost in both property and lives.
Not being a libertarian myself, it is hard for me to reason in these terms. Still, if libertarian thought is to be relevant in this area, someone is going to have to. And the first step has to be embracing the validity of the science, rather than denying it because its political implications are difficult.
"Are there libertarian objections to the system of registration of real property, which underpins the real-estate market?"
ReplyDeleteNot that I'm aware of. In fact, the idea of private property is the cornerstone of libertarianism.
"Perhaps a cap-and-trade system might be seen as something similar: a governmental recognition of pre-existing rights."
So, long as the government sets the cap, the system remains violative of individual property rights as I suggested/explained in my previous comment. As long as that problem remains, the particulars of the trade portion are irrelevant.
"And the first step has to be embracing the validity of the science, rather than denying it because its political implications are difficult."
Again, it wasn't my intent to argue with the science, but your point is well taken.
I don't want to write a whole 'nother post, but the real problem is that climate change has political implications at all. The reason this is so is because government has been violating property rights all along, arbitrarily allowing pollution regardless of individual property owners' wishes. And now, to correct the problems created by the previous violations, it must institute new ones.