Tyler Cowen Speaks Sense on Global Warming

UPDATE: No, it's not Tyler Cowen. It's Jonathan Adler.

Tyler Cowen Jonathan Adler speaks sense on global warming. Unfortunately, he thinks that he is the "right." I wish he were. It would be a much better world we would live in if the right thought like Tyler Cowen Jonathan Adler:

Marginal Revolution: The Right speaks sense on global warming: "The scientific debate over global warming is not so much over whether anthropogenic emissions will affect the climate. Rather it is over the nature and magnitude of the likely effects. Even the most ardent global warming skeptics within the scientific community believe that the increased accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will have some effect. The policy question, then, is what (if any) measures are justified to prevent or mitigate such effects.

Most on the 'right' argue that the best response is to do little or nothing. Whlie some advocate various 'no regrets' policies to improve the efficiency of energy markets (and perhaps pave the way for alternative fuels) -- as I did here -- few conservatives, libertarians, or other free-market advocates believe the most reliable climate forecasts justify drastic measures to suppress the use of carbon-based fuels. The costs of such measures, many argue, are likely to swamp the costs of climate change, and more direct measures to address global ills that could be exacerbated by climate change (disease, flooding, weather extremes, etc.) would be far more cost-effective than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

As an analytical matter, these assessments are probably correct -- it is hard to justify one Kyoto on ecoomic grounds, let alone the dozen or so that would be necessary to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere -- but that does not mean the proper 'free market' climate policy is to 'do nothing.'

If property rights lie at the heart of free market environmentalism, than FME advocates should think seriously about the normative implications of human-enhanced climate changes that could disproportionately harm those portions of the world that have (at least thus far) contributed least to the problem. Even if a modest warming were, on balance, beneficial, the impacts would not be uniform. It may well be, as some argue, that increases in crop productivity and reduced energy costs in temperate regions will be greater than the costs to tropical regions, but this does not address the property rights concern absent some system whereby industrialized nations would compensate or indemnify less-developed nations. No such system exists -- nor is it likely that existing international institutions could implement such a system -- but that does not mean it would not be the first-best approach to climate change from an FME perspective.

Comments

[Mandos]

But there are costs to global (I almost typed blogal) warming that don't seem to be taken into account here, exacerbating man-made effects on the natural world. It's possible we might be able to mitigate it for ourselves, but I still worry whether my grandkids (let alone myself) will be able to visit great coral reefs...

I'd love to think this way, and at this point I do hope it all works out, and Paul Ehrlich was wrong in the long run, and Julian Simon right. But there's still a price to be paid for choosing not to hold back.

[masaccio]

Yes, people, the heart of environmentalism is: deep breath: property rights!

Lets see how this works. Right now, utility companies spew mercury into the air. They claim some property right to do so? I suppose this requires some balancing of their property right arrogated by these utilities to pour mercury ( and heaven knows what else) onto the land of the the people upwind, and into the waters where others try to make a living fishing, against my "property right" to be free of mercury poisoning.

Tyler Cowan might try looking around him to see just what property rights inhere in people who have no capital.

[Mike]

For What It's Worth*


"Faith" in "markets" (nevermind the bullshit about ANY of them EVER being "free") is VERY popular these days--among persons who can still afford (and/or those who get paid) to indulge in effete "science" fiction fantasies of that sort...


--------------


Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

1,300 (UN) experts from 95 countries

4/14/05

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx


--------------


The Wealth of Nature

Lissa Harris

08 Apr 2003

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2003/04/08/harris-economists/


--------------


WHY DO SOME SOCIETIES MAKE DISASTROUS DECISIONS?

JARED DIAMOND

4/28/03

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond03/diamond_p2.html


--------------


Global Warming: Early Warning Signs

Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund

1999

http://www.climatehotmap.org/


--------------

THE END OF CHEAP OIL

Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrère,

March 1998

http://dieoff.org/page140.htm

--------------

*"For What It's Worth"

Stephen Stills

1966

http://people.clarkson.edu/~winklebh/vietnam2/buffalo.html

[sm]

"Most of them saying, hooray for our side."

[Old Ari]

It is probably pointless to worry about global warming, we are passed the point of no return.

[Jonathan H. Adler]

Just to clarify - Tyler Cowen was quoting my post on The Commons Blog (http://commonsblog.org). There's more there, including a response from Carl Pope of the Sierra Club.

Given Brad's harsh criticism of factual errors in the mainstream media, I assume he will correct the post.

[dilbert dogbert]

If we are dealing with a unstable non-linear system, climatewise, then small perterbations can have large effects - say near instantainious state changes. If we are dealing with a linear system with large inertias then there will be time to make changes, but it will require large inputs, say massive?
I dont think anyone, pro or con climate change, knows the type of system we are dealing with. Is the correct policy a cautious watchful waiting or a cautious bet the world economy end of human net additions to carbon emissions? I hope things end with a wimper instead of a bang.

[Les Brunswick]

dilbert dogbert is on the right track. The problem with the conservative view of the environment is that it assumes the universe was designed to be safe for the human race, and especially for the free market. In fact, Francis Bacon, the grandparent of the industrial revolution, said that God had purposedly created the universe so that it could be controlled by mankind, and therefore attempts to do so could only bring good results. Hidden away in contemporary conservatism is a similar set of theological assumptions.

If you look at history, you find lots of cases where societies have vanished because they have destroyed their evironmental base (see, for instance, Topsoil and Civlization by Carter and Dale). Why is there any reason to think that ours will not suffer the same fate? The chief difference, of course, being that we can now damage the whole planet, not just a single region.

[Lee A. Arnold]

It is nice that the Right has come so far, after years of denying the whole shebang! But they still have a way to go! "As an analytical matter," policymaking about climate change is neither here nor there. Analytical observations routinely delimit the effects to the narrowly economic (for example, ignoring the fact that for most people ((70% to 90%?... everybody who's conscious?)) wildlife ecosystems are priceless and worth preserving; while the deranging effect of rapid climate change on the remaining fragmentations is irrevocable.) These observations also accept the present distribution of income as some sort of efficient result, and underplay the possibility of economic growth when compelled by new constraints. The lack of familiarity with systems-thinking on the Right is astounding! Is there a debilitating psychological disposition linked to methodological individualism? When you dig down to the bottom of it, the free-market environmentalists seem-to-want-to-hope to apply the free market, in that wishful Hayekian mapping, over the much larger ecosystem of which it is a part. Ignore the systematic certainty that the part can never know the whole: the "theory" here is that individual actors will each educate themselves in the enormous complexity of this science, in order to make proper decisions in the market. And that if they choose to remain ignorant, or make the wrong decisions, the market can respond in time to avert disaster. This, because they are looking-out for their individual pieces of property! Of course there is no evidence that this works, except in times of "stability," and a good deal of evidence to the contrary, merely from the history of losers to technological innovation alone. But unlike technological breakpoints, a climate disjuncture may be disastrous beyond imagining. Of course there is a higher probability that it will not be so disastrous (another observation which may really be worthless,) and so the Right has until recently argued that mitigation policy should not begin: we'll find ways to pay off the "losers!" (Not realizing what we have lost in the bargain.) Now a little more light seeps in to their crania. But the monstrous and misshapen intellectual machine clankers on. A scientific indicator quivers on its dial. People give speeches. A dog barks. It rains.

[Julian Elson]

Cohen mistakes the individual as the core unit of analysis for conservatives. I don't think that it is: it's probably something more like the guild/corporation. Although some liberals believe that conservatives want everyone ruthlessly at the throats of everyone else trying to grab all they can get, I don't think they do: they want corporate groups of people to take care of their own while fighting vigorously for their in-group self-interest (emphasis on families, for instance, is not a notably individualistic ideal, nor is protection of state governments' autonomy). A libertarian sees global warming as a problem because there are going to be a bunch of Bengalis who are going to be out of their lives and property. Conservatives see themselves levying a corvée on the Third Estate of Bengalis in the form of having to rebuild their lives for the sake of the greater good. It's too bad those Bengalis have to get new homes and all that, just as it's too bad those French peasants had to devote every seventh day or so to public works, but the economy has to run on hydrocarbons until a good, cheap substitute is found, just as those French roads had to be built by someone.

[Jim Brady]

OK I WANT NOW TO SHOUT SOMETHING!

STOP LOOKING AT TOTALS AND LOOK AT DISTRIBUTION. MEDIAN NOT JUST MEAN!

Thankyou!

Conservatives always seem to be arguing that as long as TOTAL cost exceeds TOTAL benefit do nothing. The problem is that the costs and benifits are born by different people (and if we follow Friedmannite logic we can't compare the utility of different people). They sometimes also argue that the winners could compensate the losers, but whenever that is practically suggested they are against it. It is OK for the rich with their balanced portfolios, but some people are totally dependent on a particular environment.

I also wonder about their calculations. A modest sea level rise would force a good proportion of the world's population out of their homes (London, New York, Tokyo for instance are on the hit list). The main effect comes not just from melting ice (though that is significant) btw. but also from expansion of ocean volume due to warming. What is the cost of rebuilding or protecting these cities? It is very difficult to do these sort of calculations comprehensively so I am very suspicious of the excercise in the first place.

[p.lukasiak]

"It is probably pointless to worry about global warming, we are passed the point of no return."

I disagree.... although we are past the point of no return in terms of climate change overall. We've totally screwed up the atmosphere, and the only reason climate change is not happening faster is that we've inadvertently managed to achieve something close to a balance between "ozone depletion", "greenhouse gases", and "particulate pollution" and god knows what else.

[Mike]

Deja Vu (All Over Again)*

Some folks are born made to wave the flag. Oh, they're red, white and blue...


--------------


Tanking up on the oil crisis

Mike Davis

May 25, 2004

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1458


--------------


The Earth's Life-Support System is in Peril

Margot Wallström, Bert Bolin, Paul Crutzen and Will Steffen

January 20, 2004

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0120-06.htm


--------------


IMF Says US Debts Threaten World Economy

ELIZABETH BECKER and EDMUND L. ANDREWS

8 Jan 04

http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2004/US-Debts-IMF8jan04.htm


--------------


BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION

Peter Dale Scott

5/27/03

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html


--------------


Lest We Forget

By Laurie Manis

Apr 9, 2003

http://www.mikehersh.com/Lest_We_Forget.shtml


--------------


Blood Money

27 February 2003

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=53

-----And-----

Of Gods and Mortals and Empire

William Rivers Pitt

21 February 2003

http://truthout.org/docs_02/022203A.htm


--------------


US dollar hegemony has got to go

Henry C K Liu

April 11, 2002

http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html


--------------


Global Capitalism: From triumph to crisis

Walden Bello

Aug/Sep 2001

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Globalization/Global_Capitalism.html


--------------


Power to the people

Kevin Danaher

April 29, 2001

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/global/story/0,10786,524245,00.html


--------------


The National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Act of Congress

1974

http://www.thesustainablevillage.com/partners/nrel.html


--------------



*"Fortunate Son"

John Fogerty

1969

http://www.mts.net/~mloewen1/ccr/lyrics/ccr1.html#15

[theCoach]

I have never understood the import of whether or not global warming was anthropogenic. If it were not, and just part of a natural cycle like a texas sized meteor was a natural event? The cause is irrelevant. The questions are, is it happening?, and can we do anything about it?

[mds]

"Even the most ardent global warming skeptics within the scientific community believe that the increased accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will have some effect."

"It is nice that the Right has come so far, after years of denying the whole shebang!"

Notice the important caveat within Mr. Adler's statement: "within the scientific community." The case for global climate change has long been considered a strong one by serious scientists. But "the Right" is on an anti-science kick right now, and this area is no exception. This administration has ignored climate change analysis even when it's been done by the Defense Department. Members of Congress still ridicule the very notion. The radical religious right, who are calling more and more of the shots, violently reject it (what a surprise). So it's nice to know that there is a desire by smug conservative pundits to lay out how "the Right" speaks sense, when the leaders of "the Right" refuse to do anything whatsoever, however modest. Of course, the same thing can be seen with foreign policy in general, US budget policy, etc, etc. Plenty of smart folks out there know that the General Fund deficits are out of control, but cheer for more tax cuts anyway, because policies that will never be implemented would deal with the shortfall.

And what a sensible solution it is, anyway: Let's not ever fundamentally change our fossil-fuel-based ways, but perhaps we should compensate other nations for destroying their agricultural production, or indeed submerging portions of them?

I take back my defense of Professor DeLong in the Matthew Yglesias/Dan Drezner post. John Emerson was right that it's not necessarily a good thing to view all policy through the lens of economics. Then again, I believe that some cost/benefit analysis out there treats potential globally catastrophic events differently from choosing a brand of ice cream.

[Jonathan H. Adler]

Thanks for the correction!

JHA

[dilbert dogbert]

Always the engineer, I was reading the thread again and remembered that I had not included the idea of reversability of systems. Most real energetic systems are not reverable. Thermo was not my best subject so I may be wrong on that, but I think not.
The other image that came to mind was that of the Titanic and the iceberg. Ships, air and water, have interesting responses to control inputs. A hard over left rudder to avoid the iceberg, say it is to the right of the Titanic, will result in the Titanic first moving right before it starts moving left. Complex systems are full of surprises and what seems like the proper thing to do may turn out to be wrong. MMM?, fire surpression in fire based ecologies?
Enjoy.

[Carleton Wu]

The costs of such measures, many argue, are likely to swamp the costs of climate change, and more direct measures to address global ills that could be exacerbated by climate change (disease, flooding, weather extremes, etc.) would be far more cost-effective than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So would I be correct in assuming that the author of this doesn't disagree with a carbon tax, but would prefer to see the money spent on 3rd world H2O supplies, etc? Of course not! All of this faux concern for the poor evaporates once the argument has been presented. In fact, what is being advocated is leaving the money in the hands of those who benefit from the externality, so that they might purchase larger SUVs.

One man is snout-deep in the trough, and the others complain that he isn't being fair. Stopping briefly, the pig replies "Well, actually, there are poor people in Africa who could use this food more than any of us! Giving this food to them would be ideal. But we can't get it there from here. So, since a perfect solution isn't available, if you'll excuse me..." and returns to stuffing his face.

[Auros]

Of course, there's also the question of what level of investment is worthwhile to insure against a low-probability outcome that has an incalculable cost. e.g. The oceans are becoming more acidic. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3571152.stm ) The long-term consequence were this to continue indefinitely, would be the end of life as we know it. Earth would end up looking like Venus, though perhaps not quite so extreme, and with carbonic acid rain instead of the nastier strong acids that Venus has. Still, certainly not much fun for us apes.

What is it worth, on a per-individual basis, to reduce the chance of that happening?

As a species, we are doing a very bad job of planning for contingencies that might wipe us out -- global warming, asteroid impacts, etc.