Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Cowen and Yglesias (!) Making Sense on Climate Change
Tyler Cowen approvingly quotes Matt Yglesias on the dangers of starting a carbon tariff war:
After quoting Yglesias, Tyler concludes:
Exactly, guys! How would we feel, and how would it influence our domestic politics, if Al Gore demanded we pass Waxman-Markey, while polluting at a high level himself, or otherwise armed men will throw us in jail?
Matt Yglesias is right: We don't need coercion to deal with climate change.
The bottom line about the international aspects of climate change is that the very idea of an effective response assumes the existence of a generally cooperative international environment. It doesn’t assume the non-existence of the odd “rogue” state here or there, but it assumes the absence of any kind of serious great power rivalries. Not just China, but also India and probably Russia, Brazil, and Indonesia as well are going to need to cooperate in a serious way with the OECD nations on this. And I just don’t see how you’re going to get where you need to get through coercion.
After quoting Yglesias, Tyler concludes:
I'll say it again: the current version of Waxman-Markey will make things worse. Keep in mind by the time we are slapping those 2020 tariffs on China, we won't have made much progress on emissions ourselves. How would we feel, and how would it influence our domestic politics, if the Chinese demanded we pass Waxman-Markey, while polluting at a high level themselves, or otherwise they will stop buying our Treasury securities?
Exactly, guys! How would we feel, and how would it influence our domestic politics, if Al Gore demanded we pass Waxman-Markey, while polluting at a high level himself, or otherwise armed men will throw us in jail?
Matt Yglesias is right: We don't need coercion to deal with climate change.
Comments:
Matt Yglesias is right: We don't need coercion to deal with climate change.
Right, we just need to murder people who emit "excessive" CO2 (defined how?) as you advocate in your "free market approach" to climate climate change that I don't have a link to the most current version of.
(Btw, murder is coercion. Please stop redefining terms.)
Right, we just need to murder people who emit "excessive" CO2 (defined how?) as you advocate in your "free market approach" to climate climate change that I don't have a link to the most current version of.
(Btw, murder is coercion. Please stop redefining terms.)
What irks me the most about the debate on climate change is the absence of debate on climate change. Everyone seems to take for granted that emission reduction is the best way to control climate change and nobody questions wether reducing CO2 emissions will do the job at all, let alone do it in a cost effective way.
PS. Loved your PIG to capitalism
PS. Loved your PIG to capitalism
Just for the record, Yglesias is a Global Warming Hysteric.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/aces-passes.php
His comment about coercion is limited to coercing foreign governments (as opposed to coercing us U.S. citizens).
I myself think GW is a hoax. A simple rule of thumb: why else would the media be pushing it 24/7 and be suppressing any and all critical response?
If ACES ultimately becomes law, I believe that it will be the thing that destroys the Democrats. If, as I suspect, a) we are entering a naturally colder weather period; b) the economy is not coming back anytime soon; and c) ACES significantly damages the economy further, the voters might just wake up. Right now, they seem to think prosperity is just around the corner.
Here in Michigan, I better go dig my mittens out of the cedar chest to withstand the icy temps of the next few days:
http://tinyurl.com/297sr2
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/aces-passes.php
His comment about coercion is limited to coercing foreign governments (as opposed to coercing us U.S. citizens).
I myself think GW is a hoax. A simple rule of thumb: why else would the media be pushing it 24/7 and be suppressing any and all critical response?
If ACES ultimately becomes law, I believe that it will be the thing that destroys the Democrats. If, as I suspect, a) we are entering a naturally colder weather period; b) the economy is not coming back anytime soon; and c) ACES significantly damages the economy further, the voters might just wake up. Right now, they seem to think prosperity is just around the corner.
Here in Michigan, I better go dig my mittens out of the cedar chest to withstand the icy temps of the next few days:
http://tinyurl.com/297sr2
# posted by 
: June 30, 2009 at 12:15 PM
: June 30, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Bob,
Coercion: it's only violence when the ego-maniacs say it is.
Of course, you know you're going off the deep end when you approvingly quote Matt Yglesias. Just like you know you're going off the deep end when you approvingly quote Scott Sumn-, oh, oops, sorry Bob. ;)
Silas,
for a person who screams and shouts about how hard he tries to explain himself and how thoroughly and clearly he's presented his ideas, you sure leave a lot of people absolutely confused as to what the hell you're ever talking about. I guess we're all just crazy, right?
I don't know if this makes me a racist for asking but, is English your first language? I honestly didn't follow your comment so I am trying to figure out if it made sense to you in your head but got all garbled up when you transliterated or something.
Coercion: it's only violence when the ego-maniacs say it is.
Of course, you know you're going off the deep end when you approvingly quote Matt Yglesias. Just like you know you're going off the deep end when you approvingly quote Scott Sumn-, oh, oops, sorry Bob. ;)
Silas,
for a person who screams and shouts about how hard he tries to explain himself and how thoroughly and clearly he's presented his ideas, you sure leave a lot of people absolutely confused as to what the hell you're ever talking about. I guess we're all just crazy, right?
I don't know if this makes me a racist for asking but, is English your first language? I honestly didn't follow your comment so I am trying to figure out if it made sense to you in your head but got all garbled up when you transliterated or something.
Taylor,
Silas is speaking grammatically, it's just that he assumes the reader is familiar with every email Silas and I have exchanged in the last year.
Silas, I don't think that paper is online anywhere. I should post it. As for your point, it's analogous to my position on guns: I'm against gun control (as a pacifist), and I'm against people using guns (as a pacifist). As an economist, I predict that if the government legalizes gun ownership in an area, there might be some lawful (and non-pacifist) uses of those guns.
In my paper, I was tracing out what would happen if a Rothbardian system of private law were operating around the globe, and a huge externality got plopped on the planet. I would not personally condone killing anybody.
Silas is speaking grammatically, it's just that he assumes the reader is familiar with every email Silas and I have exchanged in the last year.
Silas, I don't think that paper is online anywhere. I should post it. As for your point, it's analogous to my position on guns: I'm against gun control (as a pacifist), and I'm against people using guns (as a pacifist). As an economist, I predict that if the government legalizes gun ownership in an area, there might be some lawful (and non-pacifist) uses of those guns.
In my paper, I was tracing out what would happen if a Rothbardian system of private law were operating around the globe, and a huge externality got plopped on the planet. I would not personally condone killing anybody.
Bob and TAYLOR:
People don't know the content of the essay I'm talking about because I don't have the link to the latest essay Bob wrote about the "Free market" approach to climate change.
Once Bob puts it up, people can better understand that. Until then, it will suffice for him to inform his readers about the "murder solution" in his essay.
But I think the occasional F/A reader with a functioning brain will understand my remark quite well: it means that Bob wrote an essay in which murder of those who emit too much CO2 is a free market solution to climate change. If he believes this is an unfair characterization, he's free to post a link to it.
But Bob, since you don't want to let them know about that piece of garbage, I'll explain the content for you:
In the essay, Bob proposes a hypothetical world in which Martians limit the total number of words people can say on pain on earth's destruction. Bob believes that in such a world, the free market means by which restrictions on talking arise, would be when people start murdering those who speak too much, and the judge has to determine if the murder was legal.
He then draws parallels between this and global warming.
***
Anyway, the coercion remark in your post struck me as simply dumb. The question is not whether coercion is justified, but *whose* coercion? Coercion of those who want to emit CO2, or coercion of those who are the victims of its effects?
In order to reframe it so that "no coercion" is an option, you have to misuse words.
You know, TAYLOR, like a non-native speaker might do.
People don't know the content of the essay I'm talking about because I don't have the link to the latest essay Bob wrote about the "Free market" approach to climate change.
Once Bob puts it up, people can better understand that. Until then, it will suffice for him to inform his readers about the "murder solution" in his essay.
But I think the occasional F/A reader with a functioning brain will understand my remark quite well: it means that Bob wrote an essay in which murder of those who emit too much CO2 is a free market solution to climate change. If he believes this is an unfair characterization, he's free to post a link to it.
But Bob, since you don't want to let them know about that piece of garbage, I'll explain the content for you:
In the essay, Bob proposes a hypothetical world in which Martians limit the total number of words people can say on pain on earth's destruction. Bob believes that in such a world, the free market means by which restrictions on talking arise, would be when people start murdering those who speak too much, and the judge has to determine if the murder was legal.
He then draws parallels between this and global warming.
***
Anyway, the coercion remark in your post struck me as simply dumb. The question is not whether coercion is justified, but *whose* coercion? Coercion of those who want to emit CO2, or coercion of those who are the victims of its effects?
In order to reframe it so that "no coercion" is an option, you have to misuse words.
You know, TAYLOR, like a non-native speaker might do.
Silas,
It would seem from your brief retelling of Bob's paper that he is making fun of the global warming position through a ridiculous analogy. IE, Martian destruction of earth is global warming destroying earth, speaking too much is emitting too much CO2 (I don't get why you ask Bob how "excess" is defined... I have asked you that every single time you've posted and all you can do is throw a tizzy that I haven't read every retarded essay you've ever written that EXPLAINS THIS GOD YOU'RE SUCH AN IDIOT TAYLOR... instead of just telling me how you define how much CO2 everyone can emit without having to pay everyone else for it), and murdering people who speak too much is regulating/banning activities that emit too much CO2.
Your entire temper-tantrum on the topic of global warming rests on the premise "CO2 emittance is coercion." I still do not understand what science you're referring to that decisively settles the question of whether or not global warming is catastrophically dangerous to human life (that is, you can establish direct causality between individual human CO2 emission and specific deaths, injury or property damage caused by specific weather patterns or natural disasters). I furthermore don't understand how any govt body would be able to appropriately calculate and then distribute damages based on this premise.
One thing I do know is that history has yet to provide the human race with an individual who has not only successfully convinced themselves that they are the savior of everyone else and have important and special insight on the One True Threat To Mankind that everyone else is ignoring (global warming, in your case), but who also turns out to be that single savior personality in reality, as well. I apply this criticism equally to Bob's favorite savior of mankind, Jesus, so please don't think I am merely picking on you, as crazy as you are.
Yes, I believe that time will pass, weather patterns and heat measurements will change and hopefully we can all get to that point largely uninhibited by tyrants-posing-as-libertarians such as yourself, at which time we can all successfully call the whole thing off without worrying about the impending doom of the planet and everyone on it, and you can go back to being the same lonely, sniveling prick that nobody listens to that you were before you got wind of the global warming scent.
And if that's a harsh mischaracterization of you, your position and everything you stand for, I'm perfectly alright with that. You're a busybody and no better than all the other politicians on the planet trying to solve everyone else's problems. Just mind your own business and ask everyone else to do the same and you'll be fine.
It would seem from your brief retelling of Bob's paper that he is making fun of the global warming position through a ridiculous analogy. IE, Martian destruction of earth is global warming destroying earth, speaking too much is emitting too much CO2 (I don't get why you ask Bob how "excess" is defined... I have asked you that every single time you've posted and all you can do is throw a tizzy that I haven't read every retarded essay you've ever written that EXPLAINS THIS GOD YOU'RE SUCH AN IDIOT TAYLOR... instead of just telling me how you define how much CO2 everyone can emit without having to pay everyone else for it), and murdering people who speak too much is regulating/banning activities that emit too much CO2.
Your entire temper-tantrum on the topic of global warming rests on the premise "CO2 emittance is coercion." I still do not understand what science you're referring to that decisively settles the question of whether or not global warming is catastrophically dangerous to human life (that is, you can establish direct causality between individual human CO2 emission and specific deaths, injury or property damage caused by specific weather patterns or natural disasters). I furthermore don't understand how any govt body would be able to appropriately calculate and then distribute damages based on this premise.
One thing I do know is that history has yet to provide the human race with an individual who has not only successfully convinced themselves that they are the savior of everyone else and have important and special insight on the One True Threat To Mankind that everyone else is ignoring (global warming, in your case), but who also turns out to be that single savior personality in reality, as well. I apply this criticism equally to Bob's favorite savior of mankind, Jesus, so please don't think I am merely picking on you, as crazy as you are.
Yes, I believe that time will pass, weather patterns and heat measurements will change and hopefully we can all get to that point largely uninhibited by tyrants-posing-as-libertarians such as yourself, at which time we can all successfully call the whole thing off without worrying about the impending doom of the planet and everyone on it, and you can go back to being the same lonely, sniveling prick that nobody listens to that you were before you got wind of the global warming scent.
And if that's a harsh mischaracterization of you, your position and everything you stand for, I'm perfectly alright with that. You're a busybody and no better than all the other politicians on the planet trying to solve everyone else's problems. Just mind your own business and ask everyone else to do the same and you'll be fine.
Bob,
I read the PDF and for right now I'll say it distrubed me on a number of levels. Hopefully I will find time to respond more fully later.
In the meantime, I'm not sure what Silas's issue is surrounding the nod you gave to murder as a response to over-talkers... obviously in this situation, individual over-talkers result in the collective crime of Martian earth destruction, so those people are coercing everyone else so murder seems to be an act of self-defense. Much like Silas call for coercion to be used in self-defense of his carbon-emission property rights.
What's the problem here, Silas?
Also, Bob, something I find funny about your little analogy vs the global warming scenario is that in your scenario, everyone knows there is a clear and precise limit to how many words can be spoken before the Martians begin to attack. As far as I know, Silas and other Global Warming Heros have yet to explain PRECISELY WHAT AMOUNT of CO2 in the atmosphere the earth can sustain without leading to calamitous global warming.
I was going to share a few other observations and pose some questions to your paper but I realize my understanding of the details is a bit hazy at the moment and I might start confusing things, so I'll wait to do that until I've had time to read, annotate and more thoughtfully respond in that manner. Gotta say though that after my first reading I don't like what you've done and I don't think it demonstrates free market anything but is instead some odd, contorted logic that describes a centralized, govt response couched in terms of free markets, much like the blather Silas continues to sling related to "property rights" and "trespass" combined with his Universal Emissions Regulations Body.
ps. This troll is WINNING when he makes you write a paper to attempt to respond to his inanity!
I read the PDF and for right now I'll say it distrubed me on a number of levels. Hopefully I will find time to respond more fully later.
In the meantime, I'm not sure what Silas's issue is surrounding the nod you gave to murder as a response to over-talkers... obviously in this situation, individual over-talkers result in the collective crime of Martian earth destruction, so those people are coercing everyone else so murder seems to be an act of self-defense. Much like Silas call for coercion to be used in self-defense of his carbon-emission property rights.
What's the problem here, Silas?
Also, Bob, something I find funny about your little analogy vs the global warming scenario is that in your scenario, everyone knows there is a clear and precise limit to how many words can be spoken before the Martians begin to attack. As far as I know, Silas and other Global Warming Heros have yet to explain PRECISELY WHAT AMOUNT of CO2 in the atmosphere the earth can sustain without leading to calamitous global warming.
I was going to share a few other observations and pose some questions to your paper but I realize my understanding of the details is a bit hazy at the moment and I might start confusing things, so I'll wait to do that until I've had time to read, annotate and more thoughtfully respond in that manner. Gotta say though that after my first reading I don't like what you've done and I don't think it demonstrates free market anything but is instead some odd, contorted logic that describes a centralized, govt response couched in terms of free markets, much like the blather Silas continues to sling related to "property rights" and "trespass" combined with his Universal Emissions Regulations Body.
ps. This troll is WINNING when he makes you write a paper to attempt to respond to his inanity!
Taylor,
I look forward to your specific criticisms of my arguments. But since you also say that you were unimpressed with Jesus (earlier in the thread), I guess I won't take your disappointment too much to heart.
I look forward to your specific criticisms of my arguments. But since you also say that you were unimpressed with Jesus (earlier in the thread), I guess I won't take your disappointment too much to heart.
Bob,
If you want to judge my rational critical thoughts based upon my perspective on the supernatural and matters concerning faith, not reason, that's certainly your option.
Jesus was certainly impressive for a number of reasons, but in my mind, being the savior of all of humanity was not one of them. This may seem shallow and strawmanish to you at the moment but, I do not put my hope for salvation in other people but instead I believe only in personal responsibility and self-salvation.
Like some of the other commenters on this blog, I have been greatly confused (and often times bemused) by your Sunday night "sermons" and displays of faith, not just because you have them, but because I honestly have trouble some times deciding if you're being serious or if it's all one big, elaborate ruse. Your sense of understated humor on so many other topics and in so many other examples of your writing standing as evidence, the similarities between them and your religious writings are often too close to be sure. And some of it, despite apparent tempts at rationalization and maturity of reasonable thought, are so outlandishly childish and obviously irrational in nature (the type of stuff where, if you substituted almost anything else for God/Jesus/faith, you yourself would tsk-tsk), it is truly baffling at times.
But I've tried to be open-minded to the fact that everyone seems to have some odd irrationality that they cling to and for many, including you and Gary North, it seems to be religion (though I think Gary North is even more believable and "academic" about his faith than you), and I've tried to separate my opinion of that from my estimation of your ability to conduct other reasonable thought on other topics like econ. Of course, some would call me a hypocrite for giving you a pass on this, as, if I figure out someone believes in socialism, I typically write-off everything else they say about anything else, no matter how logical or sensible it seems, much as some people I know would do the exact same thing as soon as they discover someone to be "faithful."
So, point is, it's your blog and your opinion and if you want to discount my criticisms on econ because I don't share your belief in someone long since deceased to be the eternal savior of all mankind (much as Silas, TokyoTom and others would pretend to on the topic of global warming, which is similarly being maligned and ignored by the world as the notion of sin and damnation once were by heretics)... I understand.
Further thoughts on the PDF coming soon!
If you want to judge my rational critical thoughts based upon my perspective on the supernatural and matters concerning faith, not reason, that's certainly your option.
Jesus was certainly impressive for a number of reasons, but in my mind, being the savior of all of humanity was not one of them. This may seem shallow and strawmanish to you at the moment but, I do not put my hope for salvation in other people but instead I believe only in personal responsibility and self-salvation.
Like some of the other commenters on this blog, I have been greatly confused (and often times bemused) by your Sunday night "sermons" and displays of faith, not just because you have them, but because I honestly have trouble some times deciding if you're being serious or if it's all one big, elaborate ruse. Your sense of understated humor on so many other topics and in so many other examples of your writing standing as evidence, the similarities between them and your religious writings are often too close to be sure. And some of it, despite apparent tempts at rationalization and maturity of reasonable thought, are so outlandishly childish and obviously irrational in nature (the type of stuff where, if you substituted almost anything else for God/Jesus/faith, you yourself would tsk-tsk), it is truly baffling at times.
But I've tried to be open-minded to the fact that everyone seems to have some odd irrationality that they cling to and for many, including you and Gary North, it seems to be religion (though I think Gary North is even more believable and "academic" about his faith than you), and I've tried to separate my opinion of that from my estimation of your ability to conduct other reasonable thought on other topics like econ. Of course, some would call me a hypocrite for giving you a pass on this, as, if I figure out someone believes in socialism, I typically write-off everything else they say about anything else, no matter how logical or sensible it seems, much as some people I know would do the exact same thing as soon as they discover someone to be "faithful."
So, point is, it's your blog and your opinion and if you want to discount my criticisms on econ because I don't share your belief in someone long since deceased to be the eternal savior of all mankind (much as Silas, TokyoTom and others would pretend to on the topic of global warming, which is similarly being maligned and ignored by the world as the notion of sin and damnation once were by heretics)... I understand.
Further thoughts on the PDF coming soon!
Bob: You also forgot to update the Lex Luthor footnote that incorrectly characterizes my point.
But that's okay, it's just misrepresenting Silas's views, not anyone actually important or anything.
But that's okay, it's just misrepresenting Silas's views, not anyone actually important or anything.
Silas,
Can you please chill out? I will fix that before I send it out to a journal. It's a pain for me to re-pdf a file; I have to upload it to a website etc.
Can you please chill out? I will fix that before I send it out to a journal. It's a pain for me to re-pdf a file; I have to upload it to a website etc.
What's the matter, you don't have OpenOffice.org? That converts to pdf very easily.
In any case, I alerted you about that almost a year ago. I had no idea that accurately representing my views was that low a priority for you.
(And of course I only told you a tiny sliver of the things I didn't like about it. There's also the issue of your naive believe that everyone in the world can be paid to only use "efficient" technologies, the casual assumption of a mechanism by which an entrepreneur can profit by brokering a multi-party deal with unanimous consent of all property rights holders ...)
In any case, I alerted you about that almost a year ago. I had no idea that accurately representing my views was that low a priority for you.
(And of course I only told you a tiny sliver of the things I didn't like about it. There's also the issue of your naive believe that everyone in the world can be paid to only use "efficient" technologies, the casual assumption of a mechanism by which an entrepreneur can profit by brokering a multi-party deal with unanimous consent of all property rights holders ...)
For what it's worth Silas, I'm pretty sure I did change that on a more recent version, but that pdf is already uploaded to my blog host (or whatever the terminology is).
And you're exactly right, correcting my acknowledgment of a point I thought you were making, in a footnote, is not nearly worth the 10 minutes it would take me. Give me a break.
And you're exactly right, correcting my acknowledgment of a point I thought you were making, in a footnote, is not nearly worth the 10 minutes it would take me. Give me a break.
To clarify: It's not worth the 10 minutes to fix, when I'm just posting here so Taylor can see what a government sellout I am. I will obviously fix it before sending it out to another journal. (It's in between right now. The foolish editors thus far have failed to appreciate its brilliance.)
In case you're still reading:
What bothers me the most is that you misinterpreted me at all, when I presented the exact mirror of your view. Review what happened:
Bob: Global warming isn't a problem because entrepreneurs can bet on high real estate prices and then take action to ensure that real estate doesn't get flooded.
Me: Sure, but they could, just the same, bet against high real estate prices and ensure that it gets flooded [via global warming].
Bob: Okay, obviously a free market can stop people from nuking real estate.
How can you so completely change the topic to avoid seeing the flaw in your point?
Btw, why is it taking so long for these journals to rubber-stamp a "rah rah, I have the right to cheap oil" polemic?
Post a Comment
What bothers me the most is that you misinterpreted me at all, when I presented the exact mirror of your view. Review what happened:
Bob: Global warming isn't a problem because entrepreneurs can bet on high real estate prices and then take action to ensure that real estate doesn't get flooded.
Me: Sure, but they could, just the same, bet against high real estate prices and ensure that it gets flooded [via global warming].
Bob: Okay, obviously a free market can stop people from nuking real estate.
How can you so completely change the topic to avoid seeing the flaw in your point?
Btw, why is it taking so long for these journals to rubber-stamp a "rah rah, I have the right to cheap oil" polemic?
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]