Comments TokyoTom has made

Cyberare:

"For me, it is a matter of removing the concept of private property, replacing competition with co-operation, and developing a human society where human development and sustainability, as opposed to personal greed and destruction, sits at the centre of our social and economic systems.

Am I a dreamer? Perhaps. But my dream is far more alluring than your commitment to nightmares."

"If your dream is so alluring , so practical, and the need so dire, why not put your money where you mouth is and start implementing your own advice it yourself, with some like-minded friends?

Quit your job, pool your resources and all property with others who agree with you, and form a communal enterprise.  Seriously.

(But do not by any means trade with other like-minded groups except by barter - that would be the sin of free-market trade - and do not invest in any other enterprises - that, obviously, would be capitalism. And ignore all of the existing evil infrastructure for forming corporations, reporting and minimizing taxes and the like.  Actually, ignore this part of your own advice, and just do whatever works.)

I`ll be cheering you on - seriously.

Evil Tom

<!--Session data-->

cyberfarer, I`m sorry, but this couldn`t be more wrong in its understanding of WHY messes happen (and they undeniably do); the result is that you (and Sacks) have no clue where to start in trying to solve problems:

The free market economy generates wealth by converting a living planet to a dead planet; that is, by converting living ecosystems into commodities for trade and profit.

The free market system is really simply people trading what they have to others for what they want, and it works quite well where resources are owned (either privately or by communities).  It can, however, be a powerful engine of destruction for resources that are not owned - such as for resources sourced where property rights are not protected or the government (elites) "own" them.  Thus our continued political struggles over giveaways of public resources, the destruction of the Amazon/Indonesian forests (and Philippine under Marcos), and the collapse of fisheries that fishermen - often just guys trying to make a living - have no rights to actually protect the resource.

To the free market and its economists, a forest which provides erosion control, flood control, climate and water conditioning, habitat, sustenance, and any number of other services not only to humans but all other species is only valuable in our free market system when it has been converted to lumber or pulverized for paper or some other use. That is the true tragedy of the commons.

You are only right in part, as all of these things have obvious value, and people protect them privately or band together as groups to manage them wherever they desire and can (and are not prevented by the government). There is an awful lot of private and community conservation going on around the world.  The absolute worst cases are where the resources are owned by governments, with rights to exploit being leased to companies that have no properyt and thus no longer rights or obligations. 

Not ownership, but the short-sighted stupidity of people and especially of those worship wealth without understanding its source.

No, absolutely ownership; people and groups compete for resources, and can preserve valuable ones only when they can PROTECT them by excluding others (i.e., owning) them

You, like Sacks, think that the only way to solve problems is to radically change either capitalism (while ignoring worse destruction takes place outside of free market regimes) or human nature.  Sorry, but this is blind and stupid, and ignores the fact that local traction is available for most problems.

See the case of the Amazon, for example; like Indonesia, the problem is that the government owns the resources (and may still in the process of taking land away from natives, whose property rights it seldom protects):

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/05/24/capitalism-the-destructive-exploitation-of-the-amazon-and-the-tragedy-of-the-government-owned-commons.aspx

I highly recommend you start studying (not simply free thinking), which will make your very legitimate concerns much more effective.  I mean, even the environmental groups are calling for better property rights/protection for fisheries, species, forests and water.  Are they stupid and evil too?

Let me add some further nuance to Mr. Worstall`s comment by saying that Hardin`s fertile observations have fuelled extensive further research on common property problems, with Elinor Ostrom being recognized as a leading light.

Here is one general bibliography on commons research: http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/wsl/tragedy.htm

Ostrom has refined Hardin`s work in the following way (quoting from a review of Ostrom`s 1990 ground-breaking and extensively researched boo, GOVERNING THE COMMONS, The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action):

Ostrom uses the term "common pool resources" to denote natural resources used by many individuals in common, such as fisheries, groundwater basins, and irrigation systems. Such resources have long been subject to overexploitation and misuse by individuals acting in their own best interests. Conventional solutions typically involve either centralized governmental regulation or privatization of the resource. But, according to Ostrom, there is a third approach to resolving the problem of the commons: the design of durable cooperative institutions that are organized and governed by the resource users themselves.

"The central question in this study," she writes, "is how a group of principals who are in an interdependent situation can organize and govern themselves to obtain continuing joint benefits when all face temptations to free-ride, shirk, or otherwise act opportunistically."

The heart of this study is an in-depth analysis of several long-standing and viable common property regimes, including Swiss grazing pastures, Japanese forests, and irrigation systems in Spain and the Philippines. Although Ostrom insists that each of these situations must be evaluated on its own terms, she delineates a set of eight "design principles" common to each of the cases. These include clearly defined boundaries, monitors who are either resource users or accountable to them, graduated sanctions, and mechanisms dominated by the users themselves to resolve conflicts and to alter the rules. The challenge, she observes, is to foster contingent self-commitment among the members ....

Throughout the book, she stresses the dangers of overly generalized theories of collective action, particularly when used "metaphorically" as the foundation for public policy. The three dominant models — the tragedy of the commons, the prisoners's dilemma, and the logic of collective action — are all inadequate, she says, for they are based on the free-rider problem where individual, rational, resource users act against the best interest of the users collectively. These models are not necessarily wrong, Ostrom states, rather the conditions under which they hold are very particular. They apply only when the many, independently acting individuals involved have high discount rates and little mutual trust, no capacity to communicate or to enter into binding agreements, and when they do not arrange for monitoring and enforcing mechanisms to avoid overinvestment and overuse.

Ostrom concludes that "if this study does nothing more than shatter the convictions of many policy analysts that the only way to solve common pool resource problems is for external authorities to impose full private property rights or centralized regulation, it will have accomplished one major purpose."

http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/ostrom.html

A profile of Ostrom, who is a member of the National Academies of Science and and Editor of its Proceedings, is here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1748208

Her work can be found here: http://scholar.google.co.jp/scholar?q=Ostrom,+Elinor&hl=en&btnG=Search and

here: http://de.scientificcommons.org/elinor_ostrom

One thing worth noting is that the historical and ongoing records are rife with examples - such as our crashing local fisheries - where government intervention has done more harm than good.  In these cases and in others, Ostrom introduces an analytical approach that is acceptable widely acros the political spectrum, even if differences in opinion will remain.  See, for example, this discussion at libertarian-leaning George Mason U:  http://www.theihs.org/bunnygame/

I`m with Dave, and more so.  There are no useful takeaways from thise piece, because the author, while showing an understanding of climate science, evinces no understanding of the institutional factors that are driving climate change and other resource problems.

Garrett Hardin largely nailed the problem decades ago - the "Tragedy of the Commmons" that results when there are no clear or enforceable property rights (private or communmity) that enable users to protect resources from destructive exploitation.

(Examining the environmental nightmare of the formerly communist countries, the resource abuse in kleptocratic developing countries, and incompetent bureaucracies, sweet insider deals and poorly managed "public" lands and fisheries have subsequently informed us of the corollary problem - the tragedy of the government commons.)

We understand both the nature of our problems, and the directions in which solutions lie.  Let`s have at at `em.

Government mismanagement is the underlying problem

As Tyler Cowen points out in this op-ed at the NYT:  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/business/worldbusiness/ ...On What's causing the sudden run-up in food prices? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 39 Responses

Yes, but global warming didn't make them poor

The third world is the third world because it is corruptly mismanaged by kleptocrats and because people don't have clear and enbforceable property rights (whether private or tribal/communal).  Mitigation is of course important, but with the climate change that is already built in it will be a long time indeed before climates are back to "normal", if indeed that is even possible.  

In the meanwhile, the third world will need a focus on adaptation that they are too poor to afford.  If we really care about the poor, we should be using that concern to push for measures (like those in the Millenium Goals) that will actually make a difference in their lives - adaptation and governance reform.  This is obviously as important an issue as mitigation, and probably more difficult.On Kristof speaks posted 2 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses

Political feeding

Nothing's going to happen under the Bush administration, because we won't commit to anything domestically without international linkage that also brings about a better emissions path in China, and Bush doesn't care to negotiate such a deal.

Policy at home will be as much about politicians doling out pork as about effective policy - and until now, the policy delay has all been about pork - by allowing the fossil fuel producers and major users to graze for free on the global commons, while passing the costs off to the future.

A tax approach would be most effcient, as cap and trade leave continuing incentives for cheating and for new allocations, and with Congresscritters eager to assist.  But no one has the courage to push taxes, as Americans prefer a more costly free lunch approach.  Cap and trade approaches also involve Government unilaterally holding that it has the right to create and allocate property rights in the atmosphere, which some might find a bit troubling.  I would prefer to see these rights distributed by a trust fund that would distribute the proceeds annually to citizens on a per capita basis.

But if want to have something, cap and trade is probably the best we can get, and although I favor auctions, I realize that a free allocation might be the best way to reduce political opposition by powerful industries - even as it is clearly a windfall.  

But the emissions reductions and market impact of creating carbon pricing signals are the same whether the permits are dirstibuted free or auctioned.  What really matters are the emissions levels at which permits are set, and whether offsets are permitted and how they are verified.

I would prefer to rely solely on the pricing effects of the permits to call forth investment in varius technologies, and to avoid politcial pork barrel that will only waste money and slow the development of the best meaningful mitigation technologies.

In any case implementing a cap and trade system at the upstream levels seems far more easily administeres than doling them out at the level of individuals, such as Milliband suggests.On I'm sure whoever has the best argument will win, right? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 8 Responses

Too facile

Andrew, this fails to explain why Clinton allowed Gore to sign the Kyoto Protocol as it was, without insisting on the further legwork necessary to accommodate the requirements of involving China/India, as spelled out in the Senate resolution.  Given the Senate's position, signing Kyoto and leaving things at that looks to have been rather empty indeed.

I'd like to see a further explanation of what Clinton and Gore were thinking and doing at that time.On Bush is working with a much stronger consensus posted 2 years, 7 months ago 10 Responses

What, Bush invading Iran?

On Friggin' Nader posted 2 years, 9 months ago 26 Responses

Fair enough, patrick

On Peter Schweitzer, Al Gore, and hypocrisy posted 2 years, 10 months ago 12 Responses

Same article disccused at RP Jr's

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/cli...On Depressing posted 2 years, 10 months ago 28 Responses

Nuclear is better than coal

The reality is that China will be building dirty coal plants until the rest of the world (US included, of course) figures out how to price GHG releases so that conservation and other alternatives appear much cheaper than coal, and even when that occurs alternatives will be implemented slowly.  For the time being, fission reactors are the best alternative to coal, and they are MUCH more environmentally friendly.  

We should of course be trying to help China with alternatives, but meanwhile expect them to build many more nukes.On China got troubles posted 2 years, 10 months ago 11 Responses

Whales and Individual Transferrable Quotas

I have earlier commented that much of the hardline positions on whaling can be resolved by the introduction of transferrable property rights schemes that would give whale conservationists direct rights to protect whales, and would make conservationists out of the whalers as well.

In that connetion, readers of this thread might note that Congress has agreed to final language in the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens act that mandates the greater use of ITQs, based on mutual support by environmentalists and fishermen.

http://www.env-econ.net/2006/12/welcome_itqs.html

...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34998.html

We should be pushing for similar solutions on global fisheries that are under severe pressure, and consider why similar programs cannot be introduced for whales.

(David, the Mr. M was a reference to CanisinCanada's labelling you as "Mr. Monotony".)On Humpback whales have 'human-like' brain cells posted 2 years, 11 months ago 26 Responses

A big possible downside to this case

Justin, thanks for this.  Hopefully with Democratic control in Congress the case is no longer important substantively, but it remains to be seen whether it may bite the environmental movement generally by further restricting access to the courts.On Do federal courts have jurisdiction in Massachusetts v. EPA? posted 2 years, 11 months ago 4 Responses

Done! The GoodSearch setting, I mean.

On Two great tastes that taste great together! posted 2 years, 11 months ago 1 Response

Jones, and what "particular approach"

to the environment does "Inconvenient Truth" advocate?

Or are you concerned that it presents only a particular slice of the science?

If the latter, how are students to get a handle on the science, other than through various slices of them?

We cannot avoid disputes, but education should help students to understand their dynamics and institutional frameworks, including fights over resources, rent-seeking and tragedy of the commons type problems.

Teachers showing Gore's film should also make an effort to explain the interests of those who fund its free distribution.On Al Gore out, Big Oil in for public schools posted 2 years, 12 months ago 11 Responses

Climate change is a tragedy of the commons issue,

not a "moral" one per se.

Revkin, Gore and others (you?) are misunderstanding the big picture, and focussing on morals then can be spun as just enviros trying to force their values on everyone else.

That's not the aim.  The aim is to create rules about open-access property, so we don't mutually destroy it.  These resources are different from other resources ion that they are not owned, so people can't express their preferences through market transactions, and what transaction do occur don't reflect social costs.

I suggest these articles to bone up on this:

The Commons: Tragedy or Triumph?
Bruce Yandle
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/envi...

EXPANDING THE CHOICES FOR THE GLOBAL COMMONS: COMPARING NEWFANGLED TRADABLE ALLOWANCE SCHEMES TO OLD-FASHIONED COMMON PROPERTY REGIMES
CAROL M. ROSE
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/delpf/articles/delpf10p4...

PROPERTY RIGHTS SOLUTIONS FOR THE GLOBAL COMMONS: BOTTOM-UP OR TOP-DOWN?
TERRY L. ANDERSON AND J. BISHOP GREWELL
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?10+Duke+Envtl.+L.+&...

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/delpf/articles/DELPF10P0...

The "moral" aspect legitimately comes in only when one understands that collective managment of common resources comes about not only through direct regulation, but also through informal rules within a community of users.  It's not illegal for lobstermen to put their pots where they wish, but there's a strong local moral code against it.  That's why we instinctively have moral posturing over common resources.On A good interview posted 2 years, 12 months ago 5 Responses

Sensitivity and practicalities

CC:  "Animals deserve to be treated well, not because their brains resemble ours, but because they have interests and sensibilities that we, when we are being appropriately, humanly sensitive, ought to recognize."  I agree with the sentiment, but would say we care because our NATURE compels many of us to care.  Our capacity for sympathey is what drives this, and it is shared to varying degree with our mammalian cousins in particular.

You might notice that Mr. M has expressed very much the same sentiment as you regarding suffering in whales.

I agree that accusations of anti-Japanese racism have no place in this discussion.  It's just that it seems you introduced them on this thread.

Mr. M points to many areas on common concern that greatly affect whale populations, and much more so than does whaling itself - such as ship strike and fishing - yet you fail to take up the change to explore common interests and concerns.  Why?  Is making common cause with an enemy less effective than defeating him?  Careful lest you fall into the mindless tribal antagonism that the Bush administration has tried so hard to foster and exploit.

Mr. M, er, David:  "Since whales are supposed to be smart and intelligent, hopefully one day humans can devise a device to omit "hey, coming through!" signals to the whales that they understand, but I guess we are still quite a way off from that yet."

You have your thinking cap on, but I suspect that making ships noisier in some ways will simply do further damage to the cetacean environment.  Perhap some type of rumble that doesn't carry more than a couple of kilometers, but that hardly seems feasible given how sound carries.  For the few hundred right whales, maybe a better approach is to attach radio devices to them that can be heard by any ship with existing technology, and to fine all who end up striking whales anyway.  That would create incentives for everyone to listen and avoid.On Humpback whales have 'human-like' brain cells posted 3 years ago 26 Responses

Nice to see you guys focussing on common concerns

On Humpback whales have 'human-like' brain cells posted 3 years ago 26 Responses

Oops; last reference is to Bailey, not Jason

On No new subsidies needed posted 3 years ago 17 Responses

Duke, go read some libertarian skeptics

like Ron Bailey at Reason, who has changed his mind.  Ron has taken very public positions that climate change was not happening, including editing a book for Cato (or CEI?), but now has recanted on the fact of global warming.  Michael Schermer, head of the Skeptics blog, is another.  

But please understand that acknowledging that climate change is occurring does not dictate any particular policies.  Even if you change your mind, you`re still free to pick and choose what policy alternatives make the most sense, if any.

Understand any environmental economics by the way?  Particularly the concept of the "tragedy of the commons", when no one owns or controls the resources they are using?On An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot posted 3 years ago 36 Responses

Alternate energy = pork

Dave, don't think that ethanol subsidies are the road to serious energy policy, but we will definitely see significant rent-seeking behavior as climate/energy policy starts to move.On Can Thompson become president? posted 3 years ago 5 Responses

Open harrassment is not terrorism, DIT

You might not like what Sea Shepherd does, but it is an open confrontation and those the SS dogs and confronts can get ready for it, respond to it and seek redress if SS violates rules of the road.

Let us not collapse all meaningful distinctions between such intimidation, or attempts at inimidation or interference by known and openly acting animals rights activists, with mass and anonymous, mass and indiscrimminate terrorist activities by groups not subject to police jurisdiction.On Hope you weren't planning a protest posted 3 years ago 14 Responses

Will only be targeted to China etc.

The EU doesn`t want a trade war with the US.  The purpose is to send a signal to China and India.  Open access to markets in the West could be a big carrot/stick to accept GHG caps.On France to slap tariff on U.S. over Kyoto non-compliance posted 3 years ago 1 Response

Important post!

biodiversivist, this is a crucial topic, and climate change may be one of the best approaches to tackling the issue.  

The rape of tropical forests happens because no one effectively owns them, so despite their importance globally - climatologically, for ecosystem services and the great genetic wealth they harbor - they are essentially an unowned, open-access resource that indigenous peoples find impossible to protect from a wave of market-linked exploitation.

We should absolutely be insisting that all nations of the world accept obligations to limit GHG emissions, and create systems that reward developing nations from protecting resources that we value as well.  That's what's frustrating when there are no effective property rights - no one has an effective conservationist voice.

We should also be identifying domestic groups that already have right in tropical forests and help to defend them, and to fund other groups that are willing to purchase and protect tropical forests.

One huge piece of the climate change puzzle is the need to help the third world develop and in a responsible manner.  The IPCC, Stern report and Business Rountable have all focussed on the need to establish infrastructure that protects property rights and maintains law and order, as an essential condition to economic growth.  That focus requires the flow of resources and expertise from the West, and is one way in which can influence Indonesia, Brazil and the like.  Trade policy is another.On Public should think twice about biofuels posted 3 years ago 7 Responses

Human nature will not change,

so we need to change both incentives and our technology.

Humans are funadamentally irresponsible, in the sense that it is in our nature to discard things no longer of use to us, and move on if need be.  What has changed is the nature of what we throw away - which is increasingly more harmful to the enviroment and less biodegradable.

Incentives not to pollute are important, as are laws that create incentives to clean up (e.g., deposit laws).  But even with the best of laws, people will still throw things away irresponsibly whenever they can get away with it.  The beaches and rivers in Japan are choked with garbage.  One of the answers has to be in developing plastics that will readily break down after prolonged immersion in water, and in mandating its use in plastic bags and other products that pose the greatest risks to the oceans.

As to cleanups, if the fishery management regimes needed to prevent over-exploitation are put in place, resource users will have incentives to invest in clean up.  Sheer speculation, but a few big driftnets dragged, compacted and sunk might do the trick.
On Texas size swirling vortex of plastic debris threatens variety of sea life posted 3 years ago 10 Responses

David, Japan should stop the confrontation

on whales, and build up political capital and international trust by working on fishery issues.  The MFA's stance on whaling has greatly harmed its international image, and has distracted from efforts to solve fishiery problems.  

Japan should focus first on the fishery isses, which are far more pressing, while maintaining only a nominal scientific take (and adding observers from ANZ, US etc.).  A coordinated effort is needed by all nations to maintain the health of the oceans.  Japan could win alot of respect by focussing on these matters first.

Do you do any work in these areas, or is this strictly a hobby?On It's not driven by demand posted 3 years ago 39 Responses

No, you're not the only one!!!

Without Dems at least in the House to restore balance, we will probably have war with Iran soon, as if Iraq has not been bad enough, as well as much more corruption and trampling on civil rights and liberties.

Even with popular opinions against Republicans they have done a great job of insulating themselves from the voters by redistricting.  I also have no doubt that the Republican get out and deny the vote machine will also come into play.On Am I the only one ... posted 3 years ago 3 Responses

Without property rights, there are only PR wars

I think that the second Economist piece cited by David captures some of what I have been trying to say:  

"If the whalers are needlessly obdurate, their opponents can be just as needlessly hypocritical. Their mixture of propaganda, insults, distorted scientific half-truths and lies tends to stir up nationalist sentiment among the pro-whaling countries, who consider themselves victims of sanctimonious foreigners practising cultural and culinary imperialism."

"It is the politics that excites: politicians champion whaling in Japan, Iceland and Norway because it is popular to stand up to foreign bullying. Perhaps, too, if there were less bullying, Iceland and Japan might feel less compelled to lavish taxpayers' money on such elaborate and ambitious whale-killing research programmes."

"Iceland boasts some of the best marine-resource management policies in the world, which should not be surprising as fish products make up 70% (by value) of the country's exports of goods. ... [T]he Norwegian government is justifiably proud of the greenness of its policies, including those for fish-stock management."

"In reality, pollution, merchant shipping and commercial fishing all pose far greater threats to the world's whale populations than any likely commercial-whaling industry might."

But the Economist strangely fails to provide any policy analysis.  The problem is that, as nobody owns whales, the only way people can express their opinions about them is by PR wars.  Neither whalers nor environmentalists have any rights to protect whales, or to battle against the risks posed by pollution, merchant shipping, and commercial fishing.  

As long as governments remain in the way, we will have a rather childish deadlock that politicians and interest groups on each side manipulate for domestic benefits, and a big distraction from real problems.  The solution is to get the governments out of the way by creating transferrable whaling quotas that can be owned and purchsed by enviromentalis as well as by whalers.

If Greenpeace, England, the US, Canada and others were really concerned about the state of the world's oceans, they it would behoove them to talk with Iceland and Norway, which manage their fisheries resources well, and Japan, which should be concerned that global fish stocks are plummeting.  Yet all prefer to engage in wars of words over a whaling resource that is not threatened.

This is the very definition of immaturity all around.  Does nobody want to be adults?On It's not driven by demand posted 3 years ago 39 Responses

Incompatibility - ITQs (fishing quotas)

MadMermaids:

There are of course cases of conflict between whale-watching and whaling, but these do not always have to be in conflict and conflicts can be managed to maintain healthy populations and abundant whales at places where they are viewed (much commerical whaling is pelagic, out of the way of whale-watching tourism).  

Hunters often invest in habitat in order to maintain healthy populations of animals that others view.  There are many examples all around the world, from Ducks Unlimited to trout stream restorers to those providing big game habitat in South Africa and local communities that battle poachers in other parts of Africa in order to protect big game revenues and wild game takes.

What is missing is whaling is a lack of willingness of the various parties to look at the big picture of ensuring that healthy populations are maintained.  Common interests are ignored, and there is too much grandstanding on matters that cannot be accommodated, viz., moral positions of right and wrong.  

This is a shame, because an agreement related to whaling is well within reach, and would provide a basis for working together to solve the real problems of collapsing global fisheries.

I sense a lack of seriousness here among people to really think about the institutional failures that underpin open-access resource problems and to think about approaches, such as ITQs in fisheries, that may provide solutions.  What we have left is simple and unproductive moral fundamentalism - I am right and you are wrong.  This is the same problem that renders the environmental movement so susceptible to criticism from the right that environmentalism is essentially an intolerant religion that is aimed at changing human nature and shutting down capitalism.

Too bad.On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years ago 61 Responses

For alternative views,

see RP Jr's blog:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000974the_stern_review_on_.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000973sterns_cherry_picki.html# comments
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000972open_thread_on_uk_st.html #comments

Although we haven't heard from Sen. Ihofe yet, I am sure that the cry will soon go up that the Stern report is another effort by sneaky, envious Europeans to sabotage the US economy, drag us down with them AND bring the US under the boot of the UN!  They will be aided in their efforts by the fact that Gore has signed up as an advisor to the Stern project.

Jason, your first concern is correct, but unproductively framed.  Yes, this is an extremely complex issue and more complicated to the ones the world has dealt with in the past.  Effectiveness will require close work, coordination and trust, all of which the Bush has done its best to torpedo over the last six years.  But if we decide to enlist in the effort, we can make it work.  The real issue is political will.  And much of the foundation has already been laid by Kyoto.

This relates to your second concern.  In order to solve ANY of the other problems you mention, political will and political capital will be required.  I do not see attention to climate change as a zero-sum game, because working on solving that will help lay the groundwork and build up the trust needed to tackle many of the other related issues.On Some reservations about global warming policy posted 3 years ago 20 Responses

How do we protect "advanced animals"?

Jason, I care about individual sentient creatures too, but merely arguing, as you do, that "some advanced animals deserve rights that are inviolate- that can't be bought and sold- that are not subject to a cost-benefit framework" is empty, because how else are advanced animals around the world going to be protected?  

Any such animals in the US or Japan are protected because someone owns them and is willing to defend them; in open-access regimes, NOBODY owns or protects them, and a unilateral grant by you or anyone else to such animals of "rights" are only as meaningful as the ability of you or the other lawgiver to actually defend the animals you speak of - at which point you will essentially have created meaningful property rights.

We are starting to see successful conservation of wildlife in Africa and other places where communities that otherwise would simply kill wild resources are acknowledged to have protectable rights in such resources, at which point local communities have started to protect and defend (and harvest) such resources.On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years ago 61 Responses

Why are open-access resources over-exploited?

And why do we care about that?

I think the answers to both questions are rather straight-forward.

A careful look at the problems in that concern us most in the relatinoship between man and our environment will show they all revolve around the question of whether there is a meaningful management regime in place.  Where there is no such regime, we have what Garrett Hardin famously wrote about forty years ago: a "tragedy of the commons".  I hope all commenters here are familiar with that term and what it implies.

We, like all other forms of like on the planet, use resources and other forms of life for our own benefit.  We differ in our intelligence and ability to use technology to manipulate and exploit our environment.  The result has been a continuing race of technologies and exploitation by mankind.  That exploitation is contained, managed and sustainable only where there are clear and enforceable private or common property rights.  Otherwise, those using the resource have disincentives to husbanding the resource as they cannot prevent others from taking it.

It may seem cold, but that's just the way things are.  In days and cases where the exploitation rate is very low, the absence of a property rights regime may be fine, until the point where technology allows a higher catch or the resource is discovered by the modern market, when use of the resource becomes a frenzied free or all, resulting in a resource crash - at which point even "subsistence" use may be too much.

That is exactly the case for the human explotation of whales and other fisheries.  These problems have been avoided for various animals that humans directly manage through ownership of the animals themselves or the property on which they dwell - which is why enviromentalists focus on the species that are not owned or managed.  (We can and should care about how we treat such animals, but at least we are not worried about their extinction from the environment.)  In other words, markets work fine, but only for resources that are owned or otherwise managed.

And why do we have fruitless fights over whales and other unowned animals?  Because when a management regime that clearly states each parties rights and responsibilities is not in place, parties have no way of acting on their preferences except through exploitation or in-your-face, political means.

David is right that it should be possible to agree to a management regime for whales.  The former whaling nations that agreed to the whaling moratorium have been unable to agree on a management scheme because of moral grandstanding by environmentalists have convinced the public in many nations that whaling is simply immoral, and politicians in those nations are unwilling to take the time to understand the issue or to explain to voters.  

This is more than sad, not only because there is plenty of room for both whaling and whale-watching, but also because we desperately need to move ahead to protect global fisheries, and solving the whale issue would be a good example.  If there was a sustainable regime agreed, the whalers themselves would be conservationists, with a vested interest in ensuring the survival of whales.  If this was in the form of a transferrable property rights regime, then environmentalists would also be able to directly express their preferences, by acquiring interests in particular whales or whaling companies, and by reaching deals with whalers over when and where whales would be harvested.  Instead, we simply have a useless and overheated war of words, of the type exemplified here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001114.html

On whales and other issues, we should recognize the common interests that resource users and conservationist have, and use the levers of governments to halt resource abuse and to accelerate the creation of meaningful managment regimes.

We are already moving in this direction in the case of domestic fisheries, by creating individual transferrable quotas (ITQs) in fisheries following the example of New Zealand and other countries.  More on fisheries is here:  http://www.reason.com/news/show/36839.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34998.html.

More on "property rights" analysis of resource management generally is here: http://encyclo.findlaw.com/2000book.pdf.

David, the case of moas is a classic case of the introduction of exotic species (us) to island ecosystems.  They were vulnerable, as well as extremely difficult to establish property rights in.  Did you hear of the reports of sightings in the 90s?  http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp....  An interesting connection here is that the same David Inwood seems to be the David Inwood who is quoted on the blog post linked above and who is the chief PR representative of Japan's pro-whaling fisheries ministry!

Regards,

Tom
On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years ago 61 Responses

Jabailo, Bush believes in pork for his friends

Bush's so-called "climate change" policy has been simply pork, pork, pork of coal and nuclear power, plus continued research - research that scientists have been saying for decades is more than enough to warrant moving ahead on GHG emission control/sequestration policies, and which led his father to sign the UN Climate Change Convention so many years ago (and which the US remains party to).

Rather than actually solving the problem by imposing a quasi-market measure that would make fossil fuel producers or users pay something for using the atmosphere as a carbon dump, Bush instead chose to bestow favors on the fossil fule producers (see the Luntz memo) and to make hay by bashing lefties and enviros.  But Bush and Republicans are seeing that stalling on climate change has political costs as well - which is why Bush recently added Paulson (a firm believer in action against climate change) as Treasury Secretary, and continues to talk up his climate pork.On In a word, yes posted 3 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

David Wojick - your help is urgently needed!!!

Mr. Wojick, thank you for your kind visit and the information you have provided.  However, it just won't help here - we're all committed envirofascists who want to destroy America.  A little speculation in the science won't stop us and out plans!  Science?  we don't need no stinkin' science!

But by the way, I'm not sure if you noticed, but it's not only envirofascists that hate America - Republicans do too, starting from the very top!!!  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/....

""The evidence, in my view, is more compelling than ever," McCain said in an interview, professing a "respectful disagreement" with his GOP colleague on the issue. "The scientists have become more and more definitive. ... Sooner or later we will recognize that climate change is taking place and it's serious and it's generated by human activity causing greenhouse gas emissions," McCain said.

"Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., who has joined McCain in sponsoring legislation to cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, said he was aghast at Inhofe's latest comments.

"How do you say, ridiculous? How do you say, failing future generations?" Gilchrest said.
"I don't mean to defame anybody, but the state of the science on global warming is top-notch, and it says we are nearing a critical tipping point in devastation, in creating a world that will be hard to live in," he said. "This is not Chicken Little, this is not 'The sky is falling.' The fundamental physics of the atmosphere as it has been degraded by human activity and the burning of fossil fuels is clear.""

Are you aware of what Bush really thinks about climate change? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-...

Do you also realize that a majority of US senators and the House Appropriations Committee approve of a mandatory cap on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions?  http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=234960 &Month=5&Year=2006&Party=0

And that the Senate Energy Committee has, with the help of industry leaders, been planning appropriate regulations in the US?  http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Conferences.Detail&Event_id=4&Month=4&a mp;a mp;a mp;Year=2006

And that Bush just appointed as his Secretary of the Treasury a true believer in climate change, Hank Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs and of the Nature Conservancy (despite opposition from anti-warmers)?  http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/06/01/treasury/

It seems that the Republican party as a whole has actually caught the global warming fever ¨ If you really want to have an impact on this, then you probably should stop wasting your time here (you're unlikely to win converts from the envirofascist greenies who want to destroy America), and immediately turn your attention to your favorite Congresscritters and industry leaders.  Quick, before it's too late!!!

Oh, and please don't investigate what Exxon thinks about climate change - it might make you lose your mind!
On A new series posted 3 years, 1 month ago 24 Responses

"Energy independence" is a great frame

Of course we gaining energy independence is a fantasy and in fact a dumb policy, but the fact that our foreign policy has run off the rails in the ME actually helps with moving to clean coal at home and meaningful climate change policy (either directly or through gas taxes) - so I'm really not too concerned if people give independence more hype than it deserves.  I'm happy enough that politicians and others are starting to see the oil addition as a bad habit that we need to kick, even if the primary motivator is to lower defense costs and our counterproductive war on terror.
On It's a bad frame in the long term posted 3 years, 1 month ago 9 Responses

Heat island effect is real, but accounted for

Coby, while your conclusions are perfectly fine, I think that your argument would be stronger if you started with more of an explanation of the heat island effect, which after all is the main reason why our cities have been dramatically heating up over the past decades.  Refusal to acknowledge this is what gave such ammo to Crichton and others.On 'Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect' -- No, it isn't posted 3 years, 1 month ago 25 Responses

Good comments by all but Jason?

Jaso, it seems to me that all of your commenters have made balanced and informed points, so I am puzzled that you have not welcomed them but responded with prickliness.

No one here has insisted on immediate steep GHG emission reductions, regardless of cost or political feasibility, so I see no basis for you to assert they have demonstrated that there are ideologues on both sides of the debate.  Surely there are, but they haven't commented here yet.  Rather, the comments made here actually show how well-informed Gristmill commenters are.On Denialists are not the only ones posted 3 years, 1 month ago 27 Responses

A few comments, Coby

Coby, let me copy here a few comments that I made to David on his introductory thread:

"I think it's great that you're adding both Coby and Andrew Dessler; they will both provide heft and continued focus on this important topic.
However, it seems to me that you are missing a lack of focus on a very key issue.  While Coby has a very impressive list of responses to arguments made by skeptics, these responses are all narrowly focussed and ignore the big picture that most skeptics already have their minds made up, and that others prefer to lean in the direction of skpeticism.  These people will really not be convinced on an argument by argument basis, especially arguments that are limited to the science.  

In this connection, Coby's arguments are NOT directed towards any of:

(1) the policy analysis of whether on a cost-benefit basis it is actually WORTHWILE to incur the costs of having our government compel us to do something about AGW,

(2) helping people understand WHY AGW occurs in the absence of any governmental regulation, viz., his responses do not explain the economic underpinnings of AGW (externalities, tragedy of the commons) or explaining how various groups are spending money to protect their financial interests,

(3) any of the rather inflamed and absurd political arguments, accusations and assumptions that are made (like enviros are trying to destroy the US/world economy, socialists/UN are trying to take over the world, Dems are just trying to win elections, enviros are scaremongering idiots who are always wrong),

(4) explaining that a big part of the problem is unconscious psychological denial - but that many well-respected business and political figures and skeptics have changed their minds, including Republicans (most skeptics and voters really do not understand the extent to which competent leaders on the right support measures to deal with AGW, or

(5) in connection with the above, in pointing out the near-universal opinion that we need to ADAPT to climate change, that this adapatation will be costly, and that it also makes sense to change our behavior to avoid future costs that have not yet been committed (viz., an ounce of medicine).

I hope that you will keep focussed on these items, which are just as important in getting people to really open their eyes and to change their minds."

Regards,

TTOn A brief post-preamble posted 3 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

Good, but a focus on converts is also needed

David, I think it's great that you're adding both Coby and Andrew Dessler; they will both provide heft and continued focus on this important topic.

However, it seems to me that you are missing a lack of focus on a very key issue.  While Coby has a very impressive list of responses to arguments made by skeptics, these responses are all narrowly focussed and ignore the big picture that most skeptics already have their minds made up, and that others prefer to lean in the direction of skpeticism.  These people will really not be convinced on an argument by argument basis, especially arguments that are limited to the science.  

In this connection, Coby's arguments are NOT directed towards any of:

(1) the policy analysis of whether on a cost-benefit basis it is actually WORTHWILE to incur the costs of having our government compel us to do something about AGW,

(2) helping people understand WHY AGW occurs in the absence of any governmental regulation, viz., his responses do not explain the economic underpinnings of AGW (externalities, tragedy of the commons) or explaining how various groups are spending money to protect their financial interests,

(3) any of the rather inflamed and absurd political arguments, accusations and assumptions that are made (like enviros are trying to destroy the US/world economy, socialists/UN are trying to take over the world, Dems are just trying to win elections, enviros are scaremongering idiots who are always wrong),

(4) explaining that a big part of the problem is unconscious psychological denial - but that many well-respected business and political figures and skeptics have changed their minds, including Republicans (most skeptics and voters really do not understand the extent to which competent leaders on the right support measures to deal with AGW, or

(5) in connection with the above, in pointing out the near-universal opinion that we need to ADAPT to climate change, that this adapatation will be costly, and that it also makes sense to change our behavior to avoid future costs that have not yet been committed (viz., an ounce of medicine).

I hope that you will keep focussed on these items, which are just as important in getting people to really open their eyes and to change their minds.

Regards,

TTOn A new series posted 3 years, 1 month ago 24 Responses

Katrina may be a strong political lever, but

it's a week one scientifically and from the policy end, Andrew.

I agree 100% that we should invest in establishing an AGW mitigation policy, but no feasible mitigation policy will prevent already commited warming, and of course additional commitments will accumulate for the time being.

Katrina might make a great political 2x4 for Dems, but an AGW policy will not obviate the need to mitigate likely climate change impacts.  In the case of hurricanes, much more immediately effective policies would be to start restoring up barrier islands and wetlands, strengthening infrastructure, improving evacuation capabilities, and moving people off of the most vulnerable coasts (or at least eliminating the various subsidies that incentivize their ongoing presence and further development).

Sincerely,

TTOn It's about risk posted 3 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

Great, idea, Dave!

Except I would extend this not only to the latest reports (which can be dismissed as obvious cherrypicking), but to items that will display Inhofe's firm but skewed view of reality.

Kinda like conversions by Republicans, prominent skeptics, and businesses.  And this rather stunning statement by Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's Deputy defense Secretary turned President of the World Bank:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ESSDNETWORK/Resources/EnvironmentandDevelopmentReachingforaDouble Dividend.pdf

From Southern Africa to Latin America and from Bangladesh to Afghanistan, it is poor people who suffer most from climatic variability and environmental degradation.  Seventy percent of the world's poor live in rural areas.  When extreme weather hits, small farmers pay the price with failed crops and disrupted water supplies - hardships that are hard to recover from.  These farmers need predictable weather to earn their living and feed their families.

This past year alone, we have seen a major drought in the Amazon destroy fish and crops--the lifeline for indigenous communities.  Last week, I visited Ceará in the northeast, where the entire culture has been warped by having to deal with the vagaries of an erratic climate.  It is no wonder that this is where one finds the largest concentration of poor people in Brazil.
Vulnerabilities like these are exacerbated by global warming.  There has been much debate on the global community about the major causes of climate change and how best to curb carbon emissions.  But while the world continues to debate long-term goals to protect the environment, it is the poor who suffer in the short-term - too often.

Here in Latin America, around 7 million cubic meters of ice cover disappeared from the tropical glaciers of the Andes over the last three decades, jeopardizing water supplies in the area.  Sea levels in the Caribbean basin are rising at a rate of 3 millimeters per year, and threaten to displace people, damage infrastructure, and affect fresh water sources on islands and coastal areas.  Tropical diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, have become more common and have started to appear even under mild temperatures.

We may not be able to link all of these changes directly with global climate change, but we know the pressure on the environment is serious and the livelihoods of the poor are at risk.  We must collectively work on mitigating the consequences for the most vulnerable among us.  But doing so is treating the symptoms.  We also need to address the underlying causes.

Dave, this is not enough

First, while you make it clearer whom you're aiming at (those who are mouthpieces for commercial interests trying to stop effective GHG emission regulations), that doesn't really happen until below the fold.  It's perfectly fine to hit hard at these types, but you should clarify the debate.  There are far too many who are misreading you to think that your ire is directed at everyone, including scientists and laymen alike, and not a very special group that is deliberately manipulating debate for their own commercial, financial or political interests.

Second, why not ALSO aim at people who are simply in cognitive denial, and who dismiss all discussion of climae change because it comes from left-wing nutjobs?  So much of the culpability of the first group comes from the fact that for the average citizen it is difficult to understand the science and we can be easily led astray by the rhetoric of the commercial interests.  On More navel-gazing! posted 3 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Mark, scenarios are not science per se. Okay?

What is it with you and the IPCC scenarios?

The climate change science continues to improve, even while complexities mean an infinite amount of research is possible.  The question is when do we make a POLITICAL decision to act, in the face of the evolving science.  For many, that point was passed a long time ago, when governments around the world signed the climate change treaty that later led to the Kyoto Protocol.  The US has not ratified Kyoto, but continues to recognize obligations under the climate change treaty.

You might disagree that the problem is serious enough to merit any political action at all - although I see you actively favor government subsidies for fusion research - but it is still a political decision that our society has a right to make regardless of the existing science.  

What is an undeniable truth is that presently there are no clear or enforceable property rights relating to the global atmosphere, so all GHG emitters (in cluntries that have no Kyoto obligations) are allowed to do so to an unlimited degree without cost.  A related undeniable truth is that commercial interests that make heavy use of the atmosphere as a GHG dump (either as producers of coal or pettroleum or heavy users of such fossil fuels) have been undertaking deliberate PR campaigns designed to allow them to continue to use the atmosphere for free as a GHG dumping ground, by frustrating any domestic GHG regulatory action that would impose costs on GHG emissions.

Please let me know if you disagree with either of these two points.

Your flogging of the scenarios does not challenge climate change science, but simply goes to the question as to when policy makers have been sufficiently informed to make a decision to act.  In my view, that time was long ago, way before the IPCC TAR projections.  Are you trying to take the policy decision out of the arena of politics and make it purely a scientific one?

Regards,

TomOn More navel-gazing! posted 3 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

REPUBLICANS want emissions caps!!!

FLASH for all of you coming from the right:

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says the debate whether humans are changing the climate is over. Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, says the science linking human activity to global warming is overwhelming."

"President Bush recently called global warming "a serious problem." He said there is still uncertainty over how much of the warming is natural and how much man-made, but he added that it was time to "get beyond the debate" and deploy new technologies to curb greenhouse gases."

""The evidence, in my view, is more compelling than ever," McCain said in an interview, professing a "respectful disagreement" with his GOP colleague on the issue.

"The scientists have become more and more definitive. ... Sooner or later we will recognize that climate change is taking place and it's serious and it's generated by human activity causing greenhouse gas emissions," McCain said.

"Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., who has joined McCain in sponsoring legislation to cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, said he was aghast at Inhofe's latest comments.

"How do you say, ridiculous? How do you say, failing future generations?" Gilchrest said.

"I don't mean to defame anybody, but the state of the science on global warming is top-notch, and it says we are nearing a critical tipping point in devastation, in creating a world that will be hard to live in," he said. "This is not Chicken Little, this is not 'The sky is falling.' The fundamental physics of the atmosphere as it has been degraded by human activity and the burning of fossil fuels is clear.""

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/...

It's not only envirofascists that hate America - Republicans do too, starting from the very top!!!On An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot posted 3 years, 1 month ago 36 Responses

Dave, you might enjoy

http://newsbusters.org/node/8249.  Perhaps you can show them a mirror of all the nasty names they throw at climate scientists, enviros and the like.

And caniscandida:  "we liberals"?  Speak for yourself.  I'm a libertarian and tired of being sucked dry by this Administration, Congress and their grasping corporate backers.  I also have my eyes open and see that we need to act to figure out a climate control feedback mechanism, so the great bread machine doesn't overheat us.On I have arrived posted 3 years, 1 month ago 26 Responses

Those were rather intemperate remarks, David,

even though you've got excellent points to make about the cynical manner in which industry and certain politicians on the right have deliberately tried to manipulate the science and public opinion to block open and honest policy discussions.

Now that you have the attention of the right (and probably others as well), may I suggest that you take maximum advantage of it?  This might entail discussing not merely the deliberate efforts at manipulation, but the elements of human cognition that makes denial of climate change so seductive and simple.  Didn't you indicate yourself in a recent post that Sen. Inhofe appears to be a true believer in his own position?  With a little more follow up, you can make them question their own denial and make it more difficult for them to sell denial to others - as Morano is already trying to turn you into a poster boy of the oppressive, radical left.

There is an advantage here to be pressed - as more and more the right sounds like whiners who can dish out the name-calling but find it unfair when they themselves are under attack.

You might find useful discussion of these matters at RP Jr's blog (especially on the RS letter and on the term "climate change denier"), although discussion there is more focussed on the perceptions of the poor oppressed, dissenting scientists, rather than on the deliberate abuse of the science by certain industrial and commercial interests.

I think that we all have problems keeping our minds open, and that our penchant for falling into opposing "camps" is very much at play and part of the problem.  But that said, you've got the quickly changing climate, the IPCC and all of the intermediate science on your side, against a narrowing group of iconoclasts.On I have arrived posted 3 years, 1 month ago 26 Responses

My apologies, but your arguments just aren`t clear

1.  Jason, perhaps you can clarify your position; perhaps there are other blockheads oth there besides me who don`t understand it.  You indicate that we need to pay "attention to individual animals" and implicitly criticize the "the hunting of dolphins, many species of sea turtles, elephants, rhinos, lions, tigers, bears, gorillas, monkeys, and most of the other megafauna that in many ways have been the most potent symbols of environmentalism" and the "killing of other advanced mammals".  

Am I reading too much between the lines when I conclude you oppose hunting and killing of "advanced" mammals, incluidng those in the barnyards and stockpens?

And do you mean to imply that those "environmentalists" who approve of sustained harvesting of any animals cannot at the same time affirm an "explicit role for animal welfare in the environmental movement"?  I for one see no conflict between the two - even those who are focused chiefly on preventing extinction and impoverishment of ecosystems can also be secondarily concerned about the conditions of animal husbandry and the barbarity of slaughtering procedures.

2.  Thank you for acknowledging my position.  I think you lose.  We also have wide capacities and, fortunately, differing interests.  We cannot individually accomplish anything unless we focus our energies on the things that mater too us MOST.

TTOn If environmentalism doesn't include animal welfare, why not? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 65 Responses

Your position is actually counterproductive

Jason, call me a conservationist rather than an environmentalist - I think we have bigger battles to fight tham trying to stop the rest of mankind from hunting or raising animals.  There is certainly a moral aspect to killing other animals for our own purposes and we debase ourselves from ignoring that, but the rest of creation ALSO kills other animals for their own purposes.  I'm glad my ancestors did or humans wouldn't be here.

But this is besides the point, which is that if I can about maintaining the rest of creation, the goal is not to stop killing PER SE, but to put an end from the rampant destruction of open-access common resources that results from lack of effective management.  There are aspects of animal husbandry I certainly care about, but I think that there are bigger fish to fry (if you'll excuse the expression).  Horse, dogs, cats, pig and most mammals that we raise are sensitive creatures, with an equal and perhaps greater claim on my sensitivities that whales, pandas, rhinos, etc.  I focus on these other animals simply because no one owns them, so no one has an incentive to make sure they're around tomorrow.

We have limited time and energy, and any moral calculus is a balance of priorities.  Not only do I think that your focus on individual animals and stopping the killing of particular reason related to their "charismatic" nature to be a counterproductive as a practical matter to actually preserving them, but because it shows little sense of balance or purpose in the face of limited, it seems to me to be morally frivolous.  If one is really concerned about respecting life then we must be more pragmatic.On If environmentalism doesn't include animal welfare, why not? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 65 Responses

Pielke condemns the Royal Society

David, good points.  Did you see Roger Jr.`s take on this?  http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/the_honest_broker/000932david_whitehouse_on_.h tml

He seems to think that it is not in the job description of "honest brokers" to point out when economically-interested parties such as Exxon are doing their best, through anonymously using paid pundits, to politicize the science.  Rather, he takes the position that such questioning by the RS is an act of censorship.

Regards,

TomOn Which of these three ... posted 3 years, 2 months ago 1 Response

stop damage & keep skeptics on the hook

Dave:  I tried to comment on this thread at Prometheus, by RP Jr. declined to post it; I take the liberty of noting it here:
"Roger, while conceding that adaptation is also absolutely necessary allow me to note the following in defense of David:
1.  AGW resulting from GHG emissions falls within the class of "tragedy of the commons" problems.  Failure to solve it produces a net subsidy for current consumption, paid by all present and future generations that will bear the costs which are diffused among all.  At a minimum, mitigation focusses on stopping the implicit subsidy, and thus has been blocked by those who have benefitted most from the subsidy.  This group has been effective by marrying its private interests with the partisan political advantage that the Bush administration has felt it could gain (along with notoriety for certain pundits) by selling "fear of enviros" rather than seriously tackling the problem and the difficult international equity and free rider issues involved.  While it can perhaps be considered as a separate issue who should bear the costs of trying to roll back emissions (as to merely ceasing the current subsidy), it's only fair to point to those who have done the most to ensure the delay and benefitted most from delaying action so far.  
2.     A vigorous discussion is needed of the amount of adaptation costs that are now unavoidable, just so that the public gets a good idea of how much damage has been done to us by delay.
3.    However, just as libertarians and those on the right argued that the government should NOT be involved in trying to regulate GHGs, a consistent "skeptic" position would be that adaptation measures are best made by private decisions in the market, and governmental interference is likely to be counterproductive.  Those opposed to mitigation to fix a market failure problem but who favor government involvement in adaptation show no small lack of intellectual honesty.   What is instead being suggested is that, rather than eliminating the subsidies that now go to fossil fuel users and consumers, we should have a host of new government expenditure programs at home to benefit more corporate interests.  I other words, adaptation politics, like mitigation politics, is about pork barrel spending.
4.     Although the most pressing needs for adaptation and institutional/economic reforms are in the developing world, there is very little domestic political interest in spending abroad the hundreds of billions per year that such adaptation measures require (there is a domestic constituency only if funds are recycled to our own companies in the form of purchases or research funds).  We would rather spend trillions on wars and fences (more funds to domestic corporate constituencies) than fund the needs of non-citizens abroad.
5.     Our economic performance despite high oil prices (another partial consequence of wasteful wars) has show the resilience of our economy to the level of costs that serious mitigation efforts would entail.
6.     It is possible to build a domestic constituency that would demand meaningful GHG restrictions from China and India (which could be achieved through trade pressure and through financial carrots).
7.     It is becoming clear that AGW is a real issue that imposes real costs on our lives and ecosystems, and that the cynics/skeptics have been proven wrong.  The US Senate and House Appropriations Committee, and Bush has just appointed a Treasury Secretary who is openly concerned about AGW. Noe is the time to keep pushing for mitigation.
Given these points, I think it perfectly understandable that David prefers to focus on pushing for what appear to be achievable mitigation gains, and not to let those corporate interests that have deliberately muddled the debate and delayed meaningful action continue to impose costs on us by neatly shifting the discussion to adaptation.
While a focus on adaptation is clearly also needed, it is a clear mistake if damaging GHG emissions are allowed to continue unregulated, and attacks against those such as David who are trying to forestall continuing environmental damage are unwarranted.
Regards,
Tom"On Adaptation and political context posted 3 years, 5 months ago 23 Responses

Bradley's a so-called libertarian

Bradley's op-ed was also posted on the libertarian website Mises, where I commented.  I've had an interesting time struggling with libertarians there, who are generally quite perceptive as to how corporations are corrupting and milking the government, but seem to buy hook, line and sinker the corporate hype that enviros are recycled commies out to ruin America.

Please note that on the adpatation argument with RP Jr., what you have stated is absolutely the pure libertarian position - of course adaptation is necessary and will occur, but GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO NOTHING it will just get in the way, do it poorly, generate pork for favorites, etc.  A good summary is by respected libertarian economist George Reisman, who is responsible for my entanglement at Mises.  I apologize for a lengthy quote, but this is worth a gander because this is the pure rationale that so many of the skeptics who are/were industry shills (Bradley, Bailey/CEI folks) have corrupted:

The question of how to deal with climate change, in turn, is subsumed by the broader question of how should human beings deal with physical reality in meeting their needs and wants. It is part of that question.
And that question has already been answered--by the science of economics--and answered beyond all honest dispute. The only way for human beings to meet their needs and wants in an efficient and progressively improving way is if they produce under a system of division of labor and monetary exchange, which in turn rests on a foundation of private ownership of the means of production and economic freedom. The name for this system, of course, is capitalism. (A much smaller number of human beings than are now alive could survive without this system, as our ancestors survived, namely, as essentially self-sufficient farmers. But they would live in the poverty and misery of our ancestors, and, as stated, their number would be relatively small--a billion or so versus our present six billion or more.) For the present number of human beings to survive and to be able to enjoy the comforts, conveniences, and luxuries now found throughout the modern, industrial economies of the world, capitalism and its economic freedom are essential.
Economic freedom is what is required to cope with global warming, global freezing, or any other form of large-scale environmental or social change. If global warming turns out to be a fact, the free citizens of an industrial civilization will have no great difficulty in coping with it--that is, of course, if their ability to use energy and to produce is not crippled by the environmental movement and by government controls otherwise inspired. (This applies even to responses to natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods, that allegedly will occur in connection with global warming. The response of a free market would be typified by that of the Biloxi, Mississippi gambling casinos in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Within months of being freed of restriction to riverboats and being allowed for the first time to locate on land, they sprang into existence ready and eager for action, in the midst of otherwise unrelieved devastation and paralysis, as most property owners waited for government aid from FEMA. The casino owners were fortunate in being ineligible for such aid and so took immediate action on their own. On this subject, see my blog post of March 14, 2006.)
The seeming difficulties of coping with global warming, or any other large-scale change, arise only when the problem is viewed from the collectivist perspective of government central planners. It would be too great a problem for government bureaucrats to handle, as is the production even of an adequate supply of wheat or nails, as the experience of the whole socialist world has shown. But it would certainly not be too great a problem for tens and hundreds of millions of free, thinking individuals living under capitalism to solve. It would be solved by means of each individual being free to decide how best to cope with the particular aspects of global warming that affected him.
Individuals would decide, on the basis of profit-and-loss calculations, what changes they needed to make in their businesses and in their personal lives, in order best to adjust to the situation. They would decide where it was now relatively more desirable to own land, locate farms and businesses, and live and work, and where it was relatively less desirable, and what new comparative advantages each location had for the production of which goods. Factories, stores, and houses all need replacement sooner or later. In the face of a change in the relative desirability of different locations, the pattern of replacement would be different. Perhaps some replacements would have to be made sooner than otherwise. To be sure, some land values would fall and others would rise. Whatever happened, individuals would respond in a way that minimized their losses and maximized their possible gains. The essential thing they would require is the freedom to serve their self-interests by buying land and moving their businesses to the areas rendered relatively more attractive, and the freedom to seek employment and buy or rent housing in those areas.
Given this freedom, the totality of the problem would be overcome. This is because, under capitalism, the actions of the individuals, and the thinking and planning behind those actions, are coordinated and harmonized by the price system (as many former central planners of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have come to learn). As a result, the problem would be solved in exactly the same way that tens and hundreds of millions of free individuals have solved much greater problems than global warming, such as redesigning the economic system to deal with the replacement of the horse by the automobile, the settlement of the American West, and the release of the far greater part of the labor of the economic system from agriculture to industry.

This is not to deny that important problems of adjustment would exist if global warming did in fact come to pass. But whatever they would be, they would all have perfectly workable solutions. ...
For densely populated, impoverished countries with low-lying coastal areas, like Bangladesh and Egypt, the obvious solution is for those countries to sweep away all of the government corruption and underlying irrational laws and customs that stand in the way of large-scale foreign investment and thus of industrialization. This is precisely what needs to be done in these countries in any case, with or without global warming, if their terrible poverty and enormous mortality rates are to be overcome. If they do this, then the physical loss of a portion of their territory need not entail the death of anyone, and, indeed, their standard of living will rapidly improve. If they refuse to do this, then nothing but their own irrationality should be blamed for their suffering. The threat of global warming, if there is really anything to it, should propel them into taking now the actions they should have taken long ago. ...
Whether global warming comes or not, it is certain that nature will sooner or later produce major changes in the climate. To deal with those changes and virtually all other changes arising from whatever cause, man absolutely requires individual freedom, science, and technology.

In short, libertarians want the government out of the way.  Those so-called libertarians who are calling for government to be involved in adaptation should have this thrown in their faces, because it displays an inconsistency that reveals they are simply protecting vested interests, and are not really concerned about whether the government gets involved in doling out more money to favored groups.
On More rightie attacks on Gore posted 3 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses

Reality has a way of winning - eventually

David, you're absolutely right that this has not been a science debate; rather domestically it has been a fight over spoils and internationally it has been all about trying to forge a meaningful policy while fighting over who bears the costs and who gets to be a free rider.  Both aspects combined to provide incentives for industry to spin, and the Bush administration's closeness to the energy industry, and its view that it could find politcal advantage in spinning, were behind the Administration's abandonment not only of Kyoto, but meaningful international engagement.

However, the spin cannot last forever, as Katrina and a long hurricane cycle are now upon us, together with undeniable evidence of climate change.  There are real cracks in the armor, and the Administration knows it.  It cannot be a mistake that Paulson, who has so much personal reputation wrapped up in cliamte change and environmentla matters, was brought on as Treasury Secretary.

My concern is that the Administration may try to dodge mitigation and simply move to adaptation - which leaves fossil fuels and industry offf the hook for paying true costs for GHG emissions, and public subsidies for others.  This is certainly what newly converted "skeptics" are trying to push, but I'm not sure Americans will buy it.  If the government says "wait, there's this problem that we need to spend money on to get ready for", Americans can be expected to say that, well, if it's that important, then maybe we ought to see if we can avoid the problem as well.On Skeptics posted 3 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

You're right; peak oil doesn't reflect CO2 costs

David:

You're right, for the simple and obvious reason that prices of fossil fuels today do not include any pricing component that reflects their climate change costs.  An efficient market that excludes these costs will still lead to increasing energy efficiency and thus declining carbon usage, but such changes will simply occur at a less rapid pace than is economically optimal - and certainly reflects no need to make mitigation or adaptation matters relating to climate change.  Because GHGs are not regulated in the US (and are insufficiently regulated elsewhere, as everyone is waiting for the US, China and India), essentially we are subsidizing fossil fuel consumption, and these subsidies are on top of a host of other subsidies for fossil fuels.

The plain and simple economic principle that we should be focussed on is eliminating the subsidies that are skewing energy consumption towards fossil fuels.  There is no need, and certainly no possibility, to change human nature or to completely rework society.  We just need to correct the pricing structure, hopefully in a manner that is least intrusive, relies most on private investment and consumption decisions in the market, and is least susceptible to government micro-management and wasteful pork-barrel politics.

The best answer is to distribute transferrable GHG emissions permits, set at declining levels, free of charge to existing major producers, and to allow offets for carbon sequestration.  This will immediately change incentives and market prices, and will lead to investments in coal gasification/sequestration, CO2-light natural gas, nuclear, conservation and a host of alternative technologies.

Other sensible policies would be to allow immediate write-off of new investments for tax purposes, and to pass laws creating schedules to compensate NIMBYs (thus undercutting incentives for judicial obstruction).

Some of these are possible in the real world, where everyone is looking for a government handout, and those who have existing direct or indirect subsidies and be expected to use current political leverage not to see them eliminated.  Progress can be achieved here either by steamrolling if there is sufficient pressure, or by paying off those now feeding from the public treasury.  

There is a grand bargain that can be offered that would actually be win-win; namely, industry should be happy to give up subsidies in exchange for substantial streamliing of permitting and environmental regulation, which environmentalists themselves recognize is incredibly inefficient and much more costly than necessary.  Industry could save alot of costs if environmental regulations were based on performance rather than detailed technology requirements.  The SO2 emissions trading scheme has been a very successful example of the right type of policy.

Regards,

TTOn Peak oil will not help us in the climate change fight posted 3 years, 6 months ago 39 Responses

Mining for climate change profits

David, I understand your skepticism, but as you know from the Senate Enrgy Com. testimony the reason why climate change legislation is starting to move is because of industry pressure, GE and others can make money and utilities would like regulation so the incentives favor coal gasification, nukes etc.  The Republicans have been getting burned by providing favors to the oil companies and the failing auto industry due to the run-up in prices post-Iraq and Katrina, and are exploring possible political cover, so it's possible that Inhofe is serious.

This is a good development, and I for one would be happy if ANYTHING came out of Congress on the mitigation side, even if the targets are too soft.  It would help create grow an industry that would create political pressure for tougher targets, and for negotiating menaingful deals with China and India.On Inhofe coming around? posted 3 years, 6 months ago 2 Responses