Well, technically there always is climate change because by definition a climate is dynamic rather then static. It is always in a state of flux. I know what you meant though. Climate change as apocalypse, at least any time in the near future, is an imaginary threat.
Did you read the post, or did you just hate the title?
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
If the 'free market' determined that anthropomorphic climate change were a problem 'it' could solve the problem just the same as if 'it' determined that a wheat shortage were a problem.
Consumer preferences would tend to shift to industries that didn't contribute to the problem and if it were severe enough could even spend capital trying to mitigate the past damages.
Same as if the 'free market' determined that having a bunch of poor folks who couldn't afford health care was a problem to be solved...there is only the ability to derive psychic profit from such an endeavor but there is a long history of charity hospitals and free clinics serving that market.
Acting in one's best interest doesn't always mean acting in one's economic best interest.
If you read the post, then I'm confused. I specifically said:
The question should not be, as Reisman seems to want to make it, whether or not the free market is the best system for facilitating adaptation to changing conditions. The question is whether we do something unjust by contributing to climate change. To be fair, Reisman briefly addresses this issue, as I discussed here. But my point is that by glossing quickly over the issue of justice, many libertarians have completely missed the point. If the free market is to be relied on to provide a "solution" to climate change, it must be through a strict adherence to the principles of justice. If we simply ignore injustice, and define fairness in terms of mere participation in the market, then we cannot claim to be advocating libertarianism.
There's nothing in my post which precludes us from saying that there is no injustice involved in contributing to climate change. My only point was that reliance on the free market means taking justice into consideration, and not simply pointing to the market's ability to allocate resources efficiently.
I don't think free market can solve a non-problem.
If a market solution has not already emerge for what you're talking about, it's because:
-the exacte responsability of human activities in the current climate change is far from being established, no matter what all the neo-marxists and akin keep shouting
-the actual bad effects (and their superiority over the good effects) aren't clear too. There was a time when greenland was actually a green land. A time when climate was warmer than now, and it was neither the human fault, nor an apocalypse.
Donny with an A:There's nothing in my post which precludes us from saying that there is no injustice involved in contributing to climate change. My only point was that reliance on the free market means taking justice into consideration, and not simply pointing to the market's ability to allocate resources efficiently.
I liked what you wrote personally. I don't devote much time to enviromental thinking, outside of positive and negative externialities. Its not my thing and I don't worry about it one way or the other too much. People a lot more involved in the debate will come to a solution. If it comes down to me paying for a service (on the free market) that researches that type of thing, I would be more than happy to do it. I know that the enviroment is important and that I want a good one, LOL. I will leave it to someone else to convince me they offer the best service in that regard. But thinking along those lines I DID actually look study up on global warming some. While I was doing that I found this article...
One huge obstacle in this question is drawing a clear cause and effect relationship between the "polluting" action and the effect.
If I have a lake of cyanide (which many metal refiners do), and through carelessness or malign intent let the cyanide off of my land and on to yours, then a clear cause and effect relationship can be drawn between my action and the consequences on yours. I believe that few would argue that a free market justice system can deal with this clear causal link.
The problem with global warming is that there is not a clear causal link. Some people think there is. Some people think there isn't. There is not a clear consensus in the scientific community. Even if there was clear consensus, there is still room for dissent. For a long time the scientific community thought we lived on a flat earth. They also thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. In fact, I think that it is mathematically possible to explain that the Earth is the center of the universe - but the math is far more complicated than the simple gravitatonal mechanics that make the Earth one insignificant speck in a sea of stars.
For a question of property rights law to be adjudicated with justice in either a private court or a state court, a clear causal link must be estabished beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of one property owner violate the property rights of another property owner. This would indeed include air pollution, one a causal link could be established. Anti-statist point out that it is only government protection of the polluters that allow them to get away with it today. If I could sue a metal refinery for putting out acidic emmisions that rusted out my car, then the financial pressure put on the refinery would make them stop polluting. (At least, that is how the theory goes.)
BTW, I am not picking on metal refiners. I just happen to know that they use lots of dangerous stuff in doing what they do.
Well I think it's fair to ask whether or not climate change is happening, but that doesn't absolve us from a need to decide what we would say if we knew it were happening. I didn't read Callahan's essay in any depth, but it seems like the case he's making is that if climate change were a problem, it would be because atmospheric temperature (or more broadly, climate stability) is a public good, and climate change would represent a market failure. He then points to the Nirvana Fallacy, where the government is seen to be a perfect problem solver, in spite of the fact that its past is riddled with obvious failure to solve even the most basic problems. On the other hand, he points out that wealthy individuals like the ones living in Manhattan would have great incentive to voluntarily negotiate to reduce emissions.
The approach is different from mine because it takes as a premise that the only thing wrong with climate change is that it is contrary to certain people's preferences. Public goods problems are certainly important issues for libertarians to discuss, but it seems much more central to libertarian thinking that injustice must be remedied. If climate change represents injustice, it seems that our obligation to respond would be categorically different than it would be if climate change were simply a market failure.
I agree that even if we say that climate change would be an injustice if we had perfect knowledge of its impacts, it is perhaps true that we could not legitimately hold people responsible for contributing to climate change as we are faced by it. The uncertainties are significant, and if we adhered to the burden of proof necessary in most lawsuits, we would likely fail to establish anyone's guilt. But it's important to note that this kind of thinking would, by default, likely put the entire burden of the harm on the victims, and absolve the rights-violators of all responsibility for their actions.
Yea, I think it should be a priority, because if we don't make it a priority, we're likely to be left out of a conversation that has the potential to fundamentally change the way that governments operate, and the way that society is organized. I agree that there are plenty of other problems that libertarians should focus on. But that doesn't mean that all libertarians have to focus on those problems. Personally, I find climate change to be a much more interesting issue than those because we don't have any ethical theories which can adequately deal with it. It challenges us to come up with completely new ideas, and to reexamine the ideas that we rely on in other contexts in order to understand whether or not climate change demonstrates their inadequacy. I'm not a utilitarian, and it doesn't bother me that certain other problems create more injustice than others, such that my focus would "do more" if directed at them. I don't feel obliged to do the most good; it's my life.
Donny with an A: Yea, I think it should be a priority, because if we don't make it a priority, we're likely to be left out of a conversation that has the potential to fundamentally change the way that governments operate, and the way that society is organized. I agree that there are plenty of other problems that libertarians should focus on. But that doesn't mean that all libertarians have to focus on those problems. Personally, I find climate change to be a much more interesting issue than those because we don't have any ethical theories which can adequately deal with it. It challenges us to come up with completely new ideas, and to reexamine the ideas that we rely on in other contexts in order to understand whether or not climate change demonstrates their inadequacy. I'm not a utilitarian, and it doesn't bother me that certain other problems create more injustice than others, such that my focus would "do more" if directed at them. I don't feel obliged to do the most good; it's my life.
Yes, but Dan, I think the issue for libertarians may be that the libertarian answer is not the answer people want - at least in my views of the libertarian answer as a much more complicated one than what the debate currently facilitates. It seems easier to accept the herd and make it a matter of how to fix the "problem" if such a problem exists - I personally believe it does.
It is interesting to note, however, that much of the "old environmentalists" could have actually been seen as being quite pro-free market - this is why they were called, conservationists. As government is waste, the logical conclusion must be that free markets are conservative - in a resourceful way.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Climate change is a problem? I though increased survivability of the human race - as well as other animal species - due to a warmer climate was a good thing. After all, in a colder climate, it is inevitable that the number of people who die annually of exposure - especially those living in poor regions of the world and those whose employment force them to expose themselves to these new lower temperatures - would increase dramatically. Furthermore, the need to use fossil fuels and other methods for heating would fall off, driving down the demand of such goods without signifiacantly affecting the supply for at least a short amount of time. The net result (at least I would think) would be a fall in the price of fossil fuels, therefore making both common and recreational uses for, say, oil and oil byproducts (i.e. gasoline) more affordable for the average person. This would be a bad thing, how? This is not even beginning to account for the fact that increasing temperature would bring about more surface water evaporation, and therefore more rainfall and mists. This is not even beginning to think of the increase in crops, and therefore increased ability of nations - even poorer nations - to feed themselves. This is not even beginning to think of all of the benefits. When people tout climate change, they are touting one thing: Government control. Climate change will happen with or without humanity, and even if mankind is causing even a little warming, then people need to first demonstrate clearly that it would be a bad thing to begin with.
This thread scares me because it is turning into a Randian viewpoint of "science is bad because it is controlled by the intellectual elite and the government". I doubt any of you here have actually studied the climate change issue from a scientific standpoint, and even if, by chance, you are correct, it is still useless to ignore science; this will only make your opinions seem stupid to everyone else. Neither is it appropriate to dismiss a theory because of the person(s) who have proposed it (allegedly scientists controlled by the government); this idea is Marxist in nature and is contrary to everything we Austrians are supposed to believe in. The only way to possibly refute it is to look at the scientific analysis and find some flaws; I seriously doubt that any of you have done this, other than reading extremely biased Libertarian sources. The truth is that global warming, in the opinions of the people who have studied it the most, is a threat and does exist. I certainly hope that it is untrue, but to ignore the warning because the 'Government' holds the view is foolish and simply shows another Libertarian weakness.