New York Times Death Spiral Watch (John Tierney Edition)

Outsourced to Mark Kleiman:

The Reality-Based Community: Greenhouse-gas footprints and environmental activism: John Tierney, demoted from the NYT op-ed page and now continuing his libertarian propagandizing in the guise of "science writing," points out that flying around to climate-change conferences creates a large carbon footprint for high-profile environmental activists. That allows Tierney to claim the sort of faux-populist gotcha! so beloved among glibertarians and greedhead conservatives. (The theocrat, nativist, and imperialist wings of conservatism prefer their faux-populist gotcha!s on different topics.)

If you travel frequently by air, even on commercial flights, you can’t escape having a huge carbon footprint. Yet many of the most vocal advocates of cutting emissions — politicians, environmentalists, journalists, scientists — are continually jetting off to campaign events and conferences and workshops. Are they going to change the way they operate? If not, how are they going to persuade anyone else to cut back emissions? (My advice to the peripatetic preachers: Do not try explaining why your work is more important than everyone else’s.)

Where to start?

1. The point of environmental management isn't to denounce sin, it's to get prices right. The problem with GHG-emitting activities is that they are artificially underpriced due to the lack of a carbon tax (or equivalent mechanism, such as cap-and-trade, for internalizing the external costs of those activities). With the right prices, the cost of conferences with physical attendance will rise, improving the competitive position of alternatives such as high-quality teleconferencing, which allows people to meet virtually rather than physically. But if people want or need to confer in person, and are willing to pay the full price including the price of the environmental damage their travel does, they can do so with a clear conscience.

2. Rich people use more goods and services than poor people. That's what "rich" means. Of course multi-millionaires have larger gross GHG footprints than you and I do. So what? If Tierney wants to work on decreasing income gradients, I'm all for it. But of course he's not. He just hates the idea that some rich people use their wealth to promote ideas he dislikes.

3. A large gross carbon footprint doesn't imply a large net carbon footprint. That's what offsets are about. Once GHG contributions are priced appropriately, there won't be any need for private offset purchases. But in the meantime someone who wants to be personally GHG-neutral can get there by writing checks for the activities necessary to offset his or her footprint. Tierney's admirer and fellow faux-populist glibertarian Glenn Reynolds thinks that this is no better than "buying indulgences." The difference, of course, is that the purchase of an indulgence didn't offset the damage done by the underlying sin (and certainly didn't make reparation to the other people injured by it), while GHG offsets actually undo the original damage. If Al Gore is prepared to pay for enough carbon sequestration or tree-planting or whatever to offset the GHG costs of his house and his air travel, it's no skin off my nose, and given the nature of market transactions it's a benefit to whomever he's buying the offsets from; otherwise those people wouldn't be willing to sell at the price. Isn't it astonishing how many devotees of "the free market" know jack sh*t about how market processes actually work?

Footnote Yes, Tierney's technique is precisely that of feminists who criticize anti-feminist women such as Phyllis Schlafly for not staying home and raising their kids, as anti-feminist ideology would dictate. And the technique is equally dishonest and offensive in the two cases. Schlafly is a liar and a scoundrel, but she ought to be criticized for what she says, not for entering into the debate. Is she supposed to leave the case for sex-role differentiation to be made exclusively by men, which would discredit it from the outset?

Second footnote Yes, there are some fools on the "moral/spiritual" or "deep environmentalist" end of the spectrum who also disdain offsets as indulgences. Indeed, the Al Gore who wrote Earth in the Balance might not have been fully comfortable with the offset idea. But if he's learned something in the meantime, and the climate-change denialists haven't, it's not Gore who warrants criticism.

Third footnote And yes, offsets are not without their practical problems, especially the problem of choosing a baseline. But that's a technical issue, not the basis for an objection in principle.

Comments

[bigTom]

I think the holier than thou attack/debate meme is effective. Thats why it is so continually used. I've seen many a discussion derailed, by it, with the argument being about whether advocates on one side are totally pure. We humans are highly susceptible to several logical fallacies. We can all learn to common ones, and the best ways to deflect them. This one is a variant of ad-hominem.

[Joe S.]

You got Schlafly wrong. Her very entry into, and effectiveness in the debate disproves the point she was trying to make. It's not a hypocrisy point. It's an evidentiary inconsistency point.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Gov. Terminator, who commutes daily by private jet because he thinks Sacramento is beneath him, is more than anxious to smack down auto workers because California is overpopulated and smoggy.

There is massive hypocrisy here, but that is as old as civilization, so I guess we can live with it.

[aimai]

Well, I don't agree that this is the same thing as Phyllis Schlafly at all. In the Schlafly case Schlafly specifically argued that no women should take jobs that belong, by definition, to all men. And that all women should stay at home, silent, looking after children. But she had a law degree--displacing a more worthy man--and she in fact earned a good living neglecting her children and going around the country lecturing other women on staying home so as not to compete with men. Either she didn't think it was important or it was perfectly possible to do all the things she did and still be a "good mother" and a "good woman." No feminists ordered her back to the kitchen, they just pointed out that what was sauce for the goose was, well, sauce for the goose and that other women might want the luxury that PS had to actually decide which bits of the burden of womanhood to take up and which bits to put down.

The "environmentalists are big jerks" argument is actually quite different. Look, no rich people/environmentalists are arguing that only other people should stay home and conserve. They are trying to make a bigger structural argument that will *begin* with the eventual diminution of excess consumption at the highest level but that has to work through the creation of sustainable, long term, solutions for less consumption and more equitable consumption all the way down the line to the poorest and, by definition, most fragile consumers. Since those consumers also have to buy their inputs, and conserve them just to make ends meet, its a good thing to imagine and work on conservation issues all up and down the ladder of inputs and consumption. But in addition, of course, the people lowest on the scheme of things economically and politically also have the least ability to a) get the big picture, b) aquire funding for new schemes and materials and distribution patterns, c) talk to each other across economic and political divisions. In other words *without* inputs and extra consumption from "rich people who are not assholes like tierney" not enough can get done on this front.

Another issue is, of course, that even when first world/rich people do charitable shit that looks like and costs like uncharitable shit it doesn't have an *add on effect* it simply displaces consumption that would already have taken place for no reason other than pure pleasure. Its not a fucking potlatch, in other words. If you could fly to Cannes to sunbathe with gina lola bridgida for X dollars but you choose to fly to Cannes to talk to other donors about raising money to pay for housing for the poor you haven't actually expended more of the world's resources than you would have with the first thing--but you may have materially increased the world's overall goodiness. The weird thing about these libertarian assholes is that they cheerfully accept waste, fraud, mismanagement, and even outright theft (as in the Iraq war) as long as its done for purely selfish reasons. But intimate for one second that it might be done for disinterested or unselfish reasons, or that it might actually have as its primary (not accidental) purpose helping someone else and they clutch their pearls and faint dead away.

Kate G.

[Matt]

Purchasing offsets is OK, however beware there is only one certification board and the system allows the offset purchaser some latitude on the projects that are available.

We should have an open market for access to the carbon offset funds, and voluntary contributors should push for open market and transparency.

One of the carbon offsets is for individuals to use less petrol and to receive a claim check for doing so. If you do not include both sides of the market then one distorts the incentives to the point at which the "rating" agency for carbon offsets has unconstrained variables.

[vtcodger]

Seems to me Tierney has a point. Even a stopped watch ... and all that. Should not environmentalists be taking the lead in moving their conferences to electronic media where the pollution costs are far lower than physical travel? Yes, there are cases where face to face is desirable, but is it necessary or desirable to see the same faces in many different cities during the course of a single year?

[david]

"And yes, offsets are not without their practical problems, especially the problem of choosing a baseline. But that's a technical issue, not the basis for an objection in principle."

The principled objection is that the offset system is too easy to game -- it's not just a technical objection. Which is why most offset proponents insist on efficiency first, offsets second, as a strategy.

[bakho]

Does the cap and trade eventually leave the poor out in the cold? Why will the wealthy not be able to buy up all the permits and gouge the rest of us?

[save_the_rustbelt]

bakho:

Don't worry, the government will protect you.

And the check is in the mail, etc.

[ajay]

Does the cap and trade eventually leave the poor out in the cold? Why will the wealthy not be able to buy up all the permits and gouge the rest of us?

bakho: you should worry about this to exactly the same extent that you worry about the wealthy buying up all the movie tickets in America and then forcing you to pay exorbitant prices to see "Spiderman 3".

[Emily]

Kate:

A very small point--Gina's last name is Lollobrigida. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Lollobrigida

Lola is not her middle name. I bet she didn't even inspire Ray Davies to write the song.

[jerry]

All else being equal, and not agreeing with Schafly, but having a law degree by itself does not displace a more worthy man.

Also, I am not a big follower of Schafly, I encounter discussions of her at times on feminist websites, but did she really say *that*?

And just curious Kate G / aimai, how long have you been "out?" But it's nice to have a name and not just a nym.

[Kate G.]

oops, not really out. but guess I am out now. I can't remember all the vile things Schafly said but actually in her world view--which is straight up post WWII "back to the kitchen" yes, taking a space at law school would have been quite beyond the pale because those jobs are needed by more valuable members of society who have families to support.

Kate G.

[NeilS]

This is an effective, but disingenuous (or stupid) argument.

If a person could reduce the his or hers 'personal' atmospheric CO2 concentration and thus greenhouse effect, it would be a no brainer. Do it.

However, we all share the same atmosphere and climate.

The goal is to reduce societal CO2 emmissions. That requires coordinated efforts by the entire community. One's carbon footprint is largely determined by the time, society and status into which one is born.

Online meetings are a good idea and are increasingly utilized, largely because they are cheaper. However, face to face meetings are still very necessary.

I'm skeptical about carbon offsets. I can't think of one that isn't really a scam. If I was amoral I would start selling them myself. Planting trees is a nice thing to do, but has zero impact on increasing CO2. Trees live and grow, but they are not immortal. They eventually die and decay. No net change in CO2 fluxes.

[smaug]

"If a person could reduce the his or hers 'personal' atmospheric CO2 concentration and thus greenhouse effect, it would be a no brainer. Do it."

Which is what Tierney says. Here is Tierney's post up to where Kleinman quotes it:

"The Daily Mail has gone after celebrities who preach against greenhouse emissions but travel by private jet, like Brad Pitt, Madonna, Barbra Streisand and Coldplay’s Chris Martin. The British newspaper gives its full five-star “hippy-crite” rating to Mr. Pitt for narrating a documentary, “e2: The Economies of Being Environmentally Conscious,” and also taking dozens of private-jet trips last year, including a quick day-trip from Chicago to Los Angeles and back so he could perform jury duty. This critique raises a couple of questions in my mind:

"1) How are the chattering classes going to cope with this kind of scrutiny? [Kleinmann quote begins]"

Of course, GWG emissions must be addressed globally, but lets not fool ourselves that the adjustment would not be severe. If all carbon emissions were priced appropriately just in the US, life for most Americans would be exceedingly more expensive, unless the public transportation and associated infrastructure is put in place *first*.

[NeilS]

smaug

you are confusing concentration (a measurement of how much CO2 in the system) with flux (input or output of CO2 mass).

I could reduce my flux to zero and it wouldn't change the concentration in the air around me.

[Carbexch]

Hi, I am the chairman of non-profit Citizens Carbon Exchange. We are leaders in environmental protection. You can use our services to save the Earth by buying carbon offsets. All your carbon investmnet is guaranteed to lower the carbon emissions and we have low overhead. Specifically, for just $10K you will get the written obligation from us not to buy an SUV for 5 years. For just $1M you will get the contractual obligation that we will not build a new power plant. Please help us to save the environment by sending the money to carbexch@paypal.com today!

[jerry]

I am dubious about carbon offsets primarily because of the spam I anticipate deleting, about how they can extend my carbon offsets by 3". I am glad to know that some folks insist on efficiency gains first, offsets last.

At the moment, I think the Schlafly "hypocrisy" issue is the same as the Environmental hypocrisy issue. Kathy, at your website, you link to a journalism student labeling her the stupidist comment on Schlafly yet.

http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/Articles/Opinion/Columns/2008/05/08/24391/

But you don't describe why, and the student goes on to explain that Schlafly doesn't believe that that women must stay at home.

"In her book The Power of the Positive Woman, she clearly states that a woman’s career should extend as far as her abilities can reach: “If her influence is limited to her immediate family, she knows that nothing is more important than building the family … If circumstance and talent extend the scope of her influence to her club or school or business or community or state or nation, the Positive Woman accepts the responsibility.” As she explained, “the possibilities are limitless.”

Schlafly never said that all women should be housewives. She simply pointed out that feminists were trying to take that option away from women who wanted it, by making the homemaker role economically infeasible and socially disdained. They did so by trying to overturn laws granting economic protections for dependent wives and disparaging homemakers as “unpaid servant-mistresses” and “human incubators” who were living in “a comfortable concentration camp” (as Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan put it). Schlafly defended a woman’s choice to be a homemaker.

Actually, Schlafly’s attitude about the proper role of women was revealed when she ran for Congress in 1970. When her male opponent said she should be at home raising children instead of campaigning, Schlafly responded, “My opponent says a woman’s place is in the home. But my husband replies, a woman’s place is in the House — the U.S. House of Representatives.” Feminists immediately started passing off the comment as their own, creating the popular slogan “A woman’s place is in the House … and Senate.”"

Hard for me to know what's true or false about Schlafly. There is so much ad hominem attack directed her way. When I read an interview with her this morning, when I ignored the truly anti-feminist statements, what I found was that she was a) pro-privacy, b) pro-free speech, c) anti-copyright extensions and abuse of IP (she wrote an amicus brief for Eldred (and blamed Lessig for not using conservative arguments)).

http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/schlafly.php

She's certainly not a liberal and not a feminist, but between that interview and the article you linked to above, there is much to agree with her.

But at any rate, I see you doing to Schlafly precisely what you claim right-wingers do to Gore/Edwards/Pitt/.... You make the claim she said one thing and is hypocritical for not taking that advice herself. But it turns out she may not have said that, or believe that.

I don't know if it was at FARK today, but somewhere today, I read that environmentalist Pitt took a private jet between Chicago and Los Angeles to get to jury duty. I'd say that's a pretty bogus use of a jet for an environmentalist. It's not as though there aren't one or two other flights he could probably make.

What's stupid about the claims against environmentalists is that the global warming deniers want us to think these people are saying is that we should abolish all plane flights and therefore these people should stay at their home and teleconference anywhere they want to go.

It's a ludicrous argument though it does seem to convince Ann Althouse.

Your claim that Schlafly says "that all women should stay at home, silent, looking after children" remains uncited. Citation please.

(Btw, if you don't want the name and nym linked, ask Brad to change it. I am a big believer in a) Internet Privacy and b) being able to maintain different personas on the net.)

[bigTom]

Carbon offsets are quite variable in quality. If your offset is a direct subsidy for say a wind turbine, or purchases a CFL for the poor you have probably made an impact on net CO2. Some may do good things for poor people, but may have little to no impact on CO2, for instance buying solar lighting for poor villages in Africa/India, which displace kerosene lamps. You improve the health of the family, but in a supply constrained oil market, someone else will consume the displaced oil consumption. Planting trees does help. Eventually the reforested land will contain more CO2, than it did in the deforested state. But it may not be carbon negative for the first several years. In high latitudes, the albedo effect (dark trees) actually makes planting trees a net contributor to warming.

[J from Wpg]

Why do environmental activists hold climate-change conferences? To get politicians and business leaders to actually do something.

The science is clear; global warming is an issue that must be dealt with. The public is generally on-side. Unfortunately, the business community, especially the oil companies, have used a small number of scientists and HUGE numbers of media/think tank pundits to oppose any action. If politicians actually did something, the conferences wouldn't be necessary.

[Kate G.]

Jerry,
Schlafly isn't really that big a deal to me. She is a typical paleo-con, republican woman who set out to deny equal protection to all women in the guise of helping middle class women. She opposed the ERA, sex education, and innumberable other attempts by feminists and progressives because she insisted that it would be bad for hypothetical homemakers. Meanwhile, the economy forced most of those women into the work place anyway, divorce law and child support were problems in and of themselves that were not caused by feminists but might have been helped by the ERA. She had her cake and ate it too while denying it to other women. I don't need a single cite--she's a republican woman of some privilige who tried to get everything she could while denying it to other women for fear that the state and women's groups would overturn the power of the family and the husband. Events overtook her fantasy of women's protected place in the home and we've had to fight every step of the way ever since. My daughters have gotten, and will get, where they will get without the help of women like Schlafley but with hand ups from greater women who proudly call themselves feminists and progressives.

Kate G.