So said Jeff Tucker when I told him about my decision to take a job where I would pimp the interests of rent-seeking polluters in the coal industry.

There. Fixed that for you.

What Jeff meant, of course, was that global warming (aka climate change) provided a justification not just for specific tax and spending measures, but could be applied for virtually any new government intervention one wanted.

Nope. If you recognize the environmentalist argument as being one about the existence of scarcity in a resource currently treated as a commons, then all it justifies is property rights in that resource, which provide no more excuse for government to intrude on our lives than my ownership of a (scarce) grand piano.

(Note that in your infamous "Cap and Trade is not a Market Solution" op-ed, you not only disagreed with enviros, you assumed away the very basis for why they would disagree with you -- the scarcity of environmental resources. Go fig.)

And how can the standard (neo)conservative object to the claimed necessity for urgent action?

1) "Okay, you're right -- a scarce resource has for too long been haphazardly managed by government. How can we fairly shift these onto the market by assignment of property rights?"

2) "Your cause may be urgent, but may also be groundless. Immediate action is justified, so long as there is a consequence for being wrong. The greenhouse gas externality may be priced in via a tax, but it must be indexed to global temperatures, allowing the fund to be payed back out as a subsidy to fossil fuels if temperatures don't actually go up.

"If you can't accept those terms, your cause doesn't sound that urgent."

I don't know what the analog would be for liberals opposing the war, but, in my defense, I haven't devoted the long hours of serious thought to these issues that you so clearly have.
 

Silas, what happened? It seemed as if you gave me a few days' break when Climategate broke. Were you just doublechecking to make sure I was still on the wrong side of things?
 

BTW Silas, I know you have always been arguing, "If the alarming scenarios are true, then you libertarian naysayers are making dumb arguments."

I'm saying, I can't believe there wasn't something for you to criticize in all of my Climategate posts. Surely I contradicted my prior work in at least 3 spots, yet it seemed you were letting it go...
 

on a similar point, check out McCrhystals interview with Charlie Rose. though expected or predictable, i still find the rhetoric and counterinsurgency strategies the General speaks of to be eerily reminiscent of Obama's domestic policy. a very good interview.
 

correction: ".. the counterinsurgency strategies the General speaks of to be eerily reminiscent of Obama's domestic policy rhetoric."
 

Funny, I was just thinking this yesterday when reading Greenwald's post regarding the Iraq War. Consider this snippet:

The people who mindlessly passed on claims like Tony Blair's "45-minute" hysteria did it without regard to whether it was true. At best, they didn't care. They wanted the invasion and were willing to say anything to justify it. The ones who were most unquestioning were "journalists" whose only ostensible function is to question -- see but a small sampling of examples above. What's most remarkable about all of it is that virutally none has even acknowledged wrongdoing and none has suffered any consequences of any kind.

The same thing applies to the War on CO2, doesn't it??? Lots of parallels. Even after the Downing Street Memo / ClimateGate emails, the faithful refuse acknowledge any flaw in their beliefs.
 

BTW Silas, I know you have always been arguing, "If the alarming scenarios are true, then you libertarian naysayers are making dumb arguments."

Then act like you know it.

I'm saying, I can't believe there wasn't something for you to criticize in all of my Climategate posts. Surely I contradicted my prior work in at least 3 spots, yet it seemed you were letting it go...

No contradictions of prior work, but some minor errors not worth correcting. I finally put up another blog post of my own addressing the issue.
 

I agree that there is little difference in the rhetoric, but there is a big difference in the message.

We KNOW that certain terrorists group want to kill as many Americans as they can.

We DO NOT KNOW that man has any effect on global temperatures.
 

The Blackadder Says:

If you recognize the environmentalist argument as being one about the existence of scarcity in a resource currently treated as a commons, then all it justifies is property rights in that resource

This would not seem to be an accurate description of the typical environmentalist argument w/r/t climate change.
 

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

Someone should tell Friedman to read Bastiat's What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.
 

This would not seem to be an accurate description of the typical environmentalist argument w/r/t climate change.

How so? It doesn't matter if they don't use those specific terms. That's the substance of the claim: that for some people to use the atmosphere one way comes at the cost of other people using it a different way.

No one has to use magic keywords for you to dignify their arguments.
 

"Global warming is the Left's war on terror" - a very clever observation. But a truly old concept. The bully-boys of Might Makes Right, Inc. have long used scare tactics to animate their protection racket.

Cheney's "low-probability, high- impact event" describes perfectly the "marketing" tactic used by the gangsters of prohibition-era Chicago. And so it shouldn't surprise anyone that it describes the behavior of left and right, conservative and liberal. Politicians are simply high-powered gangsters.

The economics seems pretty straightforward. The use of government force to benefit those in power works. And as long as the looters don't get too greedy, this can go on forever. So how does economic analysis help us?
 

The Blackadder Says:

@Silas, it's not just a matter of using certain magic keywords. If you went to the average environmentalist and asked whether what they were really saying was that we needn't to have private property in the global climate, they would say no. Maybe that's the argument they should be making, but it's not the one they actually do make (at least for the most part, there are some free market environmentalists who make the sort of argument you ascribe to environmentalists generally, but they are in the minority).
 

Blackadder, please read my posts before you comment. My claim was that environmentalists have identified a scarcity, not that they advocate private property as a solution to that scarcity.

Environmentalists (in general) believe that this scarcity justifies different measures, but in the context of what Bob was saying it justifies, all it justifies is private property in the scarce resource.

He really does seem to believe that you can't argue "yeah, AGW science is valid" *and* "no, government can't tell me to change lightbulbs". He believes that AGW opens to the door to all kinds of things. But it doesn't. And if he thought about the issue more clearly from the beginning, he would have seen this.

And not assumed away every argument against his position.
 

Btw, note my last comment before you responded:

"How so? It doesn't matter if they don't use those specific terms. That's the substance of the claim: that for some people to use the atmosphere one way comes at the cost of other people using it a different way."

I clearly wasn't saying environmentalists all want atmospheric property rights.

Come on Blackadder, try to put a *little* effort into your posts. Let's not make it so lop-sided, alright?
 

The Blackadder Says:

I did read you comment Silas. If you asked a typical environmentalist whether their point was that there was "scarcity in a resource currently treated as a commons" I don't think they'd say yes (even if you patiently explained what you meant by the terms). Likewise, for the typical environmentalist the problem isn't that "for some people to use the atmosphere one way comes at the cost of other people using it a different way." That would equally be true if the government prohibited people from using coal, etc. For the typical environmentalist pumping coal into the atmosphere is like eating kittens. It's not the sort of thing that can be properly subject to ordinary economic bargaining.

Incidentally, I don't know if you are aware of this, but you tend to come across as kind of a jerk in your comments (and I'm not just talking about in this thread); if your goal is to be a jerk, then whatever; but if the goal is at least in part for people to listen thoughtfully to what you have to say and perhaps to be persuaded of the merits of your point of view, coming across as a jerk isn't helpful).
 

I did read your comment Silas.

Don't tell me; show me.

If you asked a typical environmentalist whether their point was that there was "scarcity in a resource currently treated as a commons" I don't think they'd say yes (even if you patiently explained what you meant by the terms).

Are you kidding? The very basis of their claims is that we're depleting the earth, and current consumption/pollution levels are "unsustainable". That's a scarcity claim! Apparently, for you, it's not enough for someone's claim to have the substance of a scarcity argument; they actually have a slap a label on it and say, "Oh, in case you're too incompetent to notice this, my complaint is about a concept isomorphic to what you call 'scarcity'."

Likewise, for the typical environmentalist the problem isn't that "for some people to use the atmosphere one way comes at the cost of other people using it a different way." That would equally be true if the government prohibited people from using coal, etc.

So? That just means you don't understand how scarcity works either. You can accept there is scarcity while not accepting a *specific* proffered rights allocation in that resource. This is, incidentally, a distinction I have explained at least 100 times on the IP issue, and no one seems to get it. For a humorous handling of the scarcity issue as it pertains to my disputes with Bob, see my post here.

For the typical environmentalist pumping coal into the atmosphere is like eating kittens. It's not the sort of thing that can be properly subject to ordinary economic bargaining.

What's actually happening is that they assume that if costs were properly internalized (and I'm talking about informed enviros, not the strawmen), coal couldn't be profitable. This is no different than Austrians who assume detailed knowledge of what would and wouldn't still exist in a free market. Recall the video of Barack Obama talking about coal (I don't know if that's what you just linked -- I can't access it here). He didn't say, "Let's ban coal". He said, there should be a system where by you have to buy your portion of the right to pollute (pollution being acceptable as long as the total across everyone is low enough) and, "You could build a coal plant, but it would bankrupt you."

That's remarkably market-oriented than you seem to give enviros credit for: they don't say something should be banned, they expect that it wouldn't be profitable if it had to meet more general standards.

Incidentally, I don't know if you are aware of this, but you tend to come across as kind of a jerk in your comments -- and I'm not just talking about this thread. Numerous times you respond without the simplest courtesy of making sure you understand what you're responding to, and this says to the person, "Hey, you're not important. I'm assuming whatever you say is stupid." I don't know what your goal is here, but you might want to work on this. Peace out.
 

The Blackadder Says:

By the way, Bob, have you given any thought to the idea of temperature futures markets? Seems like it would be a good way a) to forecast the likely effects of global warming, and b) for people to hedge against the negative consequences of warming. If it were big enough, it might even create incentives for geoengineering (I'm just thinking out loud here).
 

Yes, Blackadder, he has.

Bob, go ahead and link that paper again -- the one where you "accidentally" misrepresent my position, casually assume entrepreneurs will solve any problem where lots of money is involved, and suggest that a good market solution to a genuine AGW problem would be for people to start murdering those who don't belong to carbon-limiting societies.

More people need to see what a serious, *principled* libertarian thinks about how a free market would handle AGW.