Give That Man a Cigar!

By -
David Friedman makes a brilliant point: The debate over whether or not global warming is caused by humans is irrelevant to the debate about what to do in response!

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy5:06 PM

    Eh, I agree that there are some people who emotionally say, "If we caused it, we have to clean it up." (And I'm not making up strawmen--someone said this to me at RealClimate or Env-Econ when I was arguing policy.)

    But I have to side against Friedman on the big picture. If humans have been responsible for the majority of the warming in the 20th century, then their activities will cause a lot more warming in the 21st. So that is a good reason to consider "action" on the matter.

    On the other hand, if it's something like the sun that caused most of the 20th century, then restricting CO2 emissions isn't going to do anything.

    Thus it seems to me that it makes perfect sense that arguments over policy overlap with arguments over the scientific explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah11:09 PM

    Bob, I think you're dodging Friedman's central point by positing special cases:

    1) The warming is caused by the sun, and it will subside, and we can't do anything about it anyway.
    CONCLUSION: Do nothing.

    2) The warming is caused by humans, by Co2 emissions, and we could act to cut them.
    CONCLUSION: Do something!

    But
    3) what if the warming is caused by the sun, it will not stop, and the results will be catastrophic?
    CONCLUSION: Do something!

    Or
    4) The warming is caused by humans, it is caused by CO2 emissions, but it is self-regulating and will damp itself out?
    CONCLUSION: Do nothing.

    Friedman's larger point stands: the real issues are:
    1) Is it a serious problem? and
    2) Can we do something about it?

    If the answer is 'yes' in both cases, then we should do something! If either answer is 'no', then it would be silly or pointless to do so.

    Whether or not man caused it is fundamentally irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Silas Barta11:13 PM

    Semi-OT: Why is it that now people who are in favor of free markets, criticize anti-carbon policies on the grounds that all kinds of catastrophes would result from energy being expensive?

    Not to go out on a limb here, but wouldn't it be a pretty damning indictment of the free market (indeed, any social system) if you could show that it heavily relied on the existence of cheap or easily obtainable energy? I thought free markets were supposed to be amazing in their ability to economize on resources.

    I can't imagine Bob advising the remote republic of Podunkistan and saying, "Alright guys, you need to have clear, well-defined property rights, and cut taxes ... uh huh ... oh, really now? So it costs a lot to port oil over there? ... Ah, I see. Well then, **** it, Rothbard's whole spiel doesn't work there, just make off with whatever loot you can. Yeah. ... The account number is ..."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy1:15 AM

    I can't imagine Bob advising the remote republic of Podunkistan and saying, "Alright guys, you need to have clear, well-defined property rights, and cut taxes ... uh huh ... oh, really now? So it costs a lot to port oil over there? ... Ah, I see. Well then, **** it, Rothbard's whole spiel doesn't work there, just make off with whatever loot you can. Yeah. ... The account number is ..."

    I can't imagine it either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Murphy1:16 AM

    Gene, you are ignoring the points raised by luos.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Elvis3:18 PM

    Bob is right, luos raised some fair points.

    I disagree with Friedman-Callahan here. They are oversimplifying what it means to "Do something." A very serious question whether or not 'doing something' involves the use of coercion. Consider the following two courses of action:

    1 (Non-coercive): Personally cut back on my CO2 emissions and pressure everybody I know into doing the same.

    2 (Coercive): Pass a law to the effect that anyone who produces more than a certain amount of CO2 must pay a fine.

    If 'doing something' simply means something like 1, then Friedman-Callahan are correct; The cause is irrelevant. However, if 'doing something' involves the use of coercion, then proof of human causation is crucial to know whether or not such a course of action is justified. Because if global warming is caused by humans, then coercive action is defensive; and if it's not caused by humans, then coercive action is aggressive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah4:14 PM

    Jeff, you make a valid point in that we might do DIFFERENT things about GW if it's caused by humans or by, say, the sun. But I don't see how that negates Friedman's contention.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous1:37 AM

    Welcome to our game world, wakfu kamas , wakfu gold , buy wakfu kamas , wakfu money and wakfu kama , they are very interesting.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more