Must Free-Marketers Reject Global Warming?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can’t make this stuff up. Someone at the UK Guardian named David Grimes has declared that “economic liberalism,” by which he means the ideology of laissez-faire, “clashes” with “scientific evidence.” Which scientific evidence, you might ask? Well, the unassailable scientific dogma of global warming is one:

Climate change illustrates this well, because despite overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic influence, there is a tendency for those with pronounced free-market views to reject the reality of global warming. The reason underpinning this is transparent – if one accepts human-mediated climate change, then supporting mitigating action should follow. But the demon of regulation is a bridge too far for many libertarians.

If one accepts that global warming is a grave danger, is it nonetheless necessary to support “mitigating action” even if it can’t be shown to actually improve anything at all? Even assuming that global warming were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof of success is still on those who want mitigating action. Specifically, they need to be able to prove that such action has a reasonable chance of achieving the desired ends. They most certainly have not done so. Indeed, many scientists say it’s already too late to stop it. Many argue that even if major global action were taken right now, the expected result over the next century would be too small to make any difference. In other words, it’s futile at this point to enact mitigating actions. (Also here.) Presumably, if it’s too late, then there’s no reason we should still be debating mitigating action. But of course, having realized that the “it’s too late” message is a PR disaster, the message has instead been changed to “it won’t be too late if we act right now!”

By their own admission, if global controls on production and energy use are not imposed by 2020, we’re all doomed. When 2020, rolls around, however, look for the date to be changed to 2025, and so on. Indeed, the global warming gang is like the Seventh Day Adventists who kept predicting the end of the world in the nineteenth century, and then changing the date when it didn’t happen.

So, if global warming is indeed on our horizon, it would appear that perfecting technologies like water desalinization, aqueducts, improved agricultural practices, and lowering the costs of basic staples such as housing and labor-saving appliances would be essential. Much of the world has already been working on these problems, and global warming has had nothing to do with it. The Israelis have been developing better and better water and agriculture systems for decades. Many desert countries (including the western United States) have been working on better water filtration and delivery systems. Many societies, such as The Netherlands and Singapore already deal with various issues related to dense populations.

But can you guess which societies are the best as dealing with these issues? Not surprisingly, the societies that have the wealthiest populations and the most industrialized and capital-intensive economies offer the best solutions for dealing with all the problems that global warming has to offer. In other words, the most free economies offer the best hope for addressing these issues. We don’t hear much from Venezuela, for example, about the latest scientific advances in energy production, water cleanliness, and housing.

Must Free-Marketers Reject Global Warming The Mises Economics Blog The Circle Bastiat

An excellent piece on climate change, and the view from a purely free market. McMaken sums up my views on climate change perfectly when he says:

"I’m agnostic on the matter myself, although I certainly reject the ludicrous assertion that there is such a thing as “settled science” and that the matter is not debatable. And unlike many allegedly great men and women of scientific inquiry, I refuse to agree that global warming “deniers” are heretics who should be burned at the stake (or the modern equivalent of having one’s career ruined)."

The reason I'm agnostic, as McMaken puts it, on climate change is, simply put, because I'm not a scientist who has done any independent study into the matter, and I suspect that many of those with the most vociferous opinions on the matter, if they're honest with themselves, are in exactly the same boat that I am. Regardless, assuming it is true, there's no reason that we can't address the issue from a free market paradigm, as this article makes the case for.

 

[Agit8r]

I don't see any reason why they would.

Hayek

"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity"
-- F.A. Hayek; from Road to Serfdom

___

 

[Darlene]

How about everyone starts referring this to as "global pollution." That's more accurate.

 

[Crick]

Their are many forms of pollution that have no impact on warming. But, certainly, reducing all forms of pollution is in our best interests.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't see any reason why they would.

Hayek

"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity"
-- F.A. Hayek; from Road to Serfdom

___

Of course Hayek was far more willing to compromise the market than were others, though I'm not sure what his views on this particular issue would be. McMaken, however, is making the point that the market can create competition and provide relief to climate change, so it would not be necessary to include the state on this issue.

 

[Old Rocks]

The market is doing that at present. The Tesla cars, the distributed solar utilities like Solar City. The fact that the windmills are providing money for farmers while at the same time significant amounts of electricity for the grid.

What is a problem is that many are rejecting the idea that these technologies should get the same subsidies as the carbon based energies. Not only that, but if there were a fair market base, the carbon based technologies would be paying a tax for the environmental and health of the citizens damaged by the pollution from these companies.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't see any reason why they would.

Hayek

"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity"
-- F.A. Hayek; from Road to Serfdom

___

Of course Hayek was far more willing to compromise the market than were others, though I'm not sure what his views on this particular issue would be. McMaken, however, is making the point that the market can create competition and provide relief to climate change, so it would not be necessary to include the state on this issue.

I'll accept Hayek's premise.. But I don't accept the "science consensus" or even the notion of a "consensus". And what free marketeers needs to worry about is when Warmers like GoldiRocks go off praising "the market" for bringing to us "market solutions" like Tesla and Solyndra and massive subsidies for wind and solar. That is NOT market -- That is unskilled intervention that can STIFLE market solutions.

Providing "public sanitation and similar infrastructure for disaster avoidance --- doesn't actually rely much on nouveau scientific theories.
It's just common sense..

 

[Agit8r]

I don't see any reason why they would.


"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity"
-- F.A. Hayek; from Road to Serfdom

___

Of course Hayek was far more willing to compromise the market than were others, though I'm not sure what his views on this particular issue would be. McMaken, however, is making the point that the market can create competition and provide relief to climate change, so it would not be necessary to include the state on this issue.

I'll accept Hayek's premise.. But I don't accept the "science consensus" or even the notion of a "consensus"

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't see any reason why they would.


"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity"
-- F.A. Hayek; from Road to Serfdom

___

Of course Hayek was far more willing to compromise the market than were others, though I'm not sure what his views on this particular issue would be. McMaken, however, is making the point that the market can create competition and provide relief to climate change, so it would not be necessary to include the state on this issue.

I'll accept Hayek's premise.. But I don't accept the "science consensus" or even the notion of a "consensus"

Really?? Great then.. Tell me the temperature anomaly in 2060 according to the 80 statements. You might toss in their projections for sea level rise while you are at it. The membership of those orgs were never polled or asked to approve ANY statement on Global Warming. And I will conceed the climate is warming. So they better be more specific than that.

Unless you can answer my questions above --- there is NO scientific consensus on the theory of Runaway Global Warming or it's impacts in even the NEAR future..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The market is doing that at present. The Tesla cars, the distributed solar utilities like Solar City. The fact that the windmills are providing money for farmers while at the same time significant amounts of electricity for the grid.

What is a problem is that many are rejecting the idea that these technologies should get the same subsidies as the carbon based energies. Not only that, but if there were a fair market base, the carbon based technologies would be paying a tax for the environmental and health of the citizens damaged by the pollution from these companies.

They should get the same subsidies as carbon based energies-none.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't see any reason why they would.

Hayek

"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity"
-- F.A. Hayek; from Road to Serfdom

___

Of course Hayek was far more willing to compromise the market than were others, though I'm not sure what his views on this particular issue would be. McMaken, however, is making the point that the market can create competition and provide relief to climate change, so it would not be necessary to include the state on this issue.

I'll accept Hayek's premise.. But I don't accept the "science consensus" or even the notion of a "consensus". And what free marketeers needs to worry about is when Warmers like GoldiRocks go off praising "the market" for bringing to us "market solutions" like Tesla and Solyndra and massive subsidies for wind and solar. That is NOT market -- That is unskilled intervention that can STIFLE market solutions.

Providing "public sanitation and similar infrastructure for disaster avoidance --- doesn't actually rely much on nouveau scientific theories.
It's just common sense..

Correct. Government subsidies means that it's not a market solution.

 

[Kosh]

Pollution does not equal "Global Warming".

That false AGW cult scripture has been shot down already by real science.

 

[Crick]

No one suggested that it was. I believe the suggestion was that global warming is a product of pollution.

 

[Agit8r]

I don't see any reason why they would.


"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity"
-- F.A. Hayek; from Road to Serfdom

___

Of course Hayek was far more willing to compromise the market than were others, though I'm not sure what his views on this particular issue would be. McMaken, however, is making the point that the market can create competition and provide relief to climate change, so it would not be necessary to include the state on this issue.

I'll accept Hayek's premise.. But I don't accept the "science consensus" or even the notion of a "consensus"

Really?? Great then.. Tell me the temperature anomaly in 2060 according to the 80 statements. You might toss in their projections for sea level rise while you are at it. The membership of those orgs were never polled or asked to approve ANY statement on Global Warming. And I will conceed the climate is warming. So they better be more specific than that.

Unless you can answer my questions above --- there is NO scientific consensus on the theory of Runaway Global Warming or it's impacts in even the NEAR future..

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That many people, even scientists, believe something is true doesn't make it so, or vice versa, obviously. Having people on both sides of the argument and trying to prove themselves right will only get us that much closer to the truth. Regardless, it doesn't mean that the state is the only solution to the problem, whether or not there is a problem.

 

[Crick]

Having a very large majority of the experts in a field believing the same thing makes that thing very LIKELY to be true - much more LIKELY than what they do NOT believe.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Must Free-Marketers Reject Global Warming?

This doesn't make any sense, we're all free-marketers.


There are fiscal extremists on the far right, however, reactionaries hostile to necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause who incorrectly conflate 'free markets' with GCC issues, where one has nothing to do with the other.


And that there are fiscal extremists on the far right who would blindly reject facts concerning GCC just as they blindly reject the fact that regulatory policies in general are Constitutional comes as no surprise.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't see any reason why they would.


"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity"
-- F.A. Hayek; from Road to Serfdom

___

Of course Hayek was far more willing to compromise the market than were others, though I'm not sure what his views on this particular issue would be. McMaken, however, is making the point that the market can create competition and provide relief to climate change, so it would not be necessary to include the state on this issue.

I'll accept Hayek's premise.. But I don't accept the "science consensus" or even the notion of a "consensus"

Really?? Great then.. Tell me the temperature anomaly in 2060 according to the 80 statements. You might toss in their projections for sea level rise while you are at it. The membership of those orgs were never polled or asked to approve ANY statement on Global Warming. And I will conceed the climate is warming. So they better be more specific than that.

Unless you can answer my questions above --- there is NO scientific consensus on the theory of Runaway Global Warming or it's impacts in even the NEAR future..

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

That is a large waste of time.. Obviously, it is very old, since they are quoting IPCC FROM OVER A DECADE AGO.
Furthermore, as I warned you, there is NO consensus there since they use the 1.5 to 5.2degC fudged prediction range. A change of 1.5 by 2100 wouldnt even be a news item and even 2.0degC wouldnt get much attention as a premiere Global Crisis.. You got ANY of those 80 statements written AFTER the email scandals and the current halt in the warming for 15 years?? Nope. You dont.. But I can produce the feuding that went on in Australia when one of their prestigious Science institutions recently ATTEMPTED to revise their PR statement, and push back from the membership stopped that effort dead in its tracks.

 

[flacaltenn]

Must Free-Marketers Reject Global Warming?

This doesn't make any sense, we're all free-marketers.


There are fiscal extremists on the far right, however, reactionaries hostile to necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause who incorrectly conflate 'free markets' with GCC issues, where one has nothing to do with the other.


And that there are fiscal extremists on the far right who would blindly reject facts concerning GCC just as they blindly reject the fact that regulatory policies in general are Constitutional comes as no surprise.

SURE...... We are all free marketeers.. Like we are ALL also defenders of ALL Civil Liberties also.
Choosing winners and losers in a marketplace is gambling. And when done for political reasons, its generally a sucker bet as well. It puts BETTER IDEAS AND EXECUTIONS at a disadvantage, just because some Party has a grudge match with reality going on...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Having a very large majority of the experts in a field believing the same thing makes that thing very LIKELY to be true - much more LIKELY than what they do NOT believe.

How many experts believed the world was flat?