environment and ideology

Economics Political Theory
1

Creating a new thread to discuss a topic that came up in another…

liberty student, I don’t mean to be hard on you here - I am using your post as a kind of a springboard to ask some questions and raise some issues that I have in general with libertarians and environmental issue. Hopefully, I won’t offend you in so doing.

Here’s the starter post:

First, perspective does not matter. Anthropogenic global warming (hereafter, AGW) is either factual or it is not. If I choose to disbelieve in gravity, it does not stop operating, so my perspective on it is immaterial. The question is: can I back up my perspective - my opinion - with facts and evidence OR is it a logically unjustifiable matter of faith?? In other words, can I show that my opinion matches what we do know of the reality via fact, evidence, data, or can I not?

The fact is that I have just stated that my analysis indicates that we do not know if AGW is factual or not, and yet here you say it’s “pretty clear that you have a perspective settled closer to warming/change=true”. Well, if by ‘closer’ to warming you mean ‘neutral/don’t know’, then OK, but that’s not what I think you mean. To be clear, in my mind, as I have said, AGW could well be factual, and AGW could well be non-factual, but that we (I) do not know, because the evidence - on net - does not support coming to either conclusion at this point, so if I am giving the impression that I think it is factual, I’d like to understand, so that I can correct it.

I guess this touches on the central point I wanted to make. Now, this is not directly in reponse to you, LS - this is a generalized statement.

It often seems that, anyone who challenges the ‘belief’ (and it is per force faith based) I see all too often among ancaps and libertarians in general that AGW is bullsh*t gets categorized as an AGW-believer. That is, ‘if you are not with us you are against us’ (a position NO non-Statist should EVER hold, IMO, thanks to the Statist legacy of this sort of thinking!!!).

But I am not a ‘believer’ of anything sans evidence. Now, that does not necessarily mean that logic cannot enter into this in the form of something like Pascal’s Wager, of course. One can be uncertain, and not have rock solid evidence and facts, and still make a good decision based on a chain of logic. This is part of the beauty and usefulness of logic and reason in an uncertain world where we often do not have enough data to support a decision, and to deny it is to deny that reason is as powerful as it demonstrably is. Anyone who has read Socrates/Plato knows this.

So let’s get away from AGW for a moment. My analysis of a different set of facts indicates that there most definitely is ongoing, human-caused, massive biodiversity loss - and this definitely will impact future generations, perhaps dramatically. But those who have not taken the time to understand just exactly what role biodiversity plays in safeguarding human survival and sustainability could not care less, of course. Just as most Americans who do not understand that the major yield enhancements that come from monoculture farming also leads to major vulnerabilities could not care less. In other words, we are not an informed and educated people, even when it comes to subjects that bear directly upon our own survival as a species. Which is just one reason my view of the future of our species is dim. We really, most of us, are sheep, yielding even a basic understanding of the things that could threaten us to our shepherds. But this point of view SHOULD BE abhorrent to anarchists, shouldn’t it? We believe in taking responsibilty for ourselves, and yet from where I stand, far from it, we go along with the conservative status quo! Astonishing!

Regarding the biodiversity crisis, EO Wilson has for decades done some fiercely intelligent work and I consider the case to be compelling, by which I mean the evidence for it is abundant and clear, unlike for AGW, and the evidence against it is weak and most seems to me to be clearly ideological in nature (much like Intelligent Design Theory is an ideological theory, and not a scientific theory [not testable, nor falsifiable]).

Additionally, the geological facts of peak oil are also clear - this is inherent in the words ‘finite’ and ‘non-renewable’, after all. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist (and I know, because I know a few rocket scientists). The question there is ‘when’? The only possible way that peak oil is not factual is if oil is abiotic in its origin, a notion which a few geologists in Russia have been publishing, but which seems clearly flawed, according to the evidence (e.g. biomarkers which exist in all oil thus far discovered).

So because I understand that Peak Oil is not a ‘theory’ [more on ‘what do we mean by scientific theory’ here], and because I have determined that the evidence is compelling for a biodiversity crisis, both of which have immense and grave and relatively near term implications for our species, I have often been cross-categorized as an AGW-‘believer’. Huh? How does the one translate to the other? It doesn’t logically. But it DOES - ideologically - because, irrationally, these issues - which are distinct - are all lumped together indiscriminately. And that’s the core problem, as I see it. It doesn’t surprise me when Republicans do this - they’re willing subjects of magical thinking and mind control. It does greatly surprise me when I see libertarians - including ancaps - do it, because they’re supposed to be more rational.

In other words, in general, what I see is this: any person who says - in regard to any environmental issue, not just AGW - ‘there are increasingly negative ecological consequences to current human activity’ generally gets branded by both libertarians and Republicans - remarkable how similar the responses are from these two groups who in such cases tend to speak as one (which is something I’d be very worried about were I one of these speakers) - as an “environmentalist” - and we all know what that’s code for: Statist.

So I, an anarchist, am labeled a Statist by minarchists!?! It’s so absurd as to be hilarious, and I think this as much as anything points out the ideological problem. After all, if it’s not the case that an anti-Statist is a Statist, then the other half of the equation MUST - by all the rules of logic - be wrong: that an environmentalist is necessarily a Statist. And thus we come full circle: those who are not with us in believing AGW is bogus must necessarily be against us in believing it is true. This is a pernicious example of illogic and a failure to use reason.

Why do I see this clear evidence of non-reason so often among otherwise seemingly rational libertarians? Bottom line: are libertarians ACTUALLY more rational than most, as we commonly presume, or do they just happen to be ideologically aligned with a rational ideology, and therefore appear to be rational, but demonstrate that they are not, in fact, when it comes to issues like this one which manage to expose that illogic?? Now that could serve as at least the basis for a Master’s Thesis, though whether poli-sci or psychology would be the question. :wink:

In a sense, this is just another way of saying, at what point do ideology and rationality necessarily part ways, and are libertarians (I use the general term for convenience) more or less ideological, i.e. more or less rational, than those with other political beliefs? I am sure most of us assume we’re more rational (we sure as hell hold ourselves out to be), but I am not as sure as I used to be. In fact, it’s gotten to the point where I feel the need to attach ‘rational’ or ‘non-ideological’ to whatever label I choose to give myself in regard to my political beliefs to distinguish myself from other libertarians. Non-ideological anarchist? Rational individual anarchist? Anarchic rationalist? Dunno…

So, in short, enough about belief. Enough with the magical thinking already. I don’t care what anyone BELIEVES. I care what they think, and can back up with logic, fact and evidence.

2

Whilst only indirectly related to the topic of this thread, this seems interesting.

-Jon

3

Your article, Jon, sure gave me a number of inspirations on a topic I’ve long been pondering about. Thanks for that.

4

It’s a useful introduction on the debate, I guess. I think the author loses the plot though when he goes into government funding of research. I don’t see why this could not be done privately, especially at the amounts he is mentioning. It should be left up to individuals if they think the risk is high enough to justify the costs of such an activity.

-Jon

5

"By implication, if we were at 3 °C of warming at the end of this century, we would be well into the 22nd century before we reached a 4 °C rise, with this associated level of cost. This is the central problem for advocates of rapid, aggressive emissions reductions. "

In other words, the ONLY implication worth considering - the “central problem” - is ‘what is the impact on the economy?’

Ecological balance - which all 6B of us depend on utterly for our very lives - not worth looking into?

This is an astonishingly myopic view, in my, err, view. I consider sustainable survival to be of considerably more importance than prosperity, which is a joke anyway as long as the current State is in charge. Only the State’s pets, and a few lucky folks here and there, get access to any real prosperity (i.e. prosperity which escapes the tax man). Additionally, it establishes the rule for treating all environmental issues the same way - as standalone issues with no interconnection to anything else that is worth considering, and only worth talking about in terms of ‘will they make GDP go down and if so how much?’ About what I would expect from Cato, Reason or the rest of the inside-the-Beltway crowd, most of whom are just glorified Republicans.

Sorry, but my interests extend well beyond the GDP. Life and liberty come before the pursuit of happiness - these are what seem more pressing to me, and both are under threat, in my estimation.

Don’t get me wrong - his argument against State intervention is right, but for the wrong reasons. He argues on the practical grounds that such intervention would be ‘too expensive’ - when in fact, we all know State intervention invariably leads to a negative outcome, meaning that, if there is a problem, the State is the least competent to attempt to solve it. It’s more important to stress that it will be ineffective than it is to implicitly admit it will be effective, just inefficient, which is the heart of his argument. Because this latter argument is a judgment call - what you deem ‘too expensive’ I can argue is not. But if you make the case that it’s ineffective, I am left arguing that it is, and abundant historical fact, rather than just my judgment vs yours, is available.

6

Haven’t the Cato people been accused of increasingly becoming Beltway Libertarians? It wasn’t a surprise for me when the author began talking about government-funded research as that was the only option he could arrange with his (and Cato’s, as seems to me) utilitarian framework.

It’s unfortunate indeed he didn’t employ the non-aggression principle at all, but I figured that it may not be valid to use in the case of AGW since we have to engage in “GHG aggression” in order to survive (breathing). In my opinion, the Cato people are on a good road by comparing the estimated costs of AGW with the approximate economic damage of government intervention on behalf of “saving the climate”. While I’d be happier to see the problem solved via non-aggression, no fruitful solution of that kind has yet appeared to me.

7

Yes, he’s a neoclassical economist, and they tend to have a very pecuniary view of how things are. There are a number of criticisms an Austrian could raise of his paper, e.g. whether GDP can be considered equivalent to growth, whether praxeological as opposed to mere catallactic (i.e. economic) analysis is required in this case &c. But he does put the economic costs of the matter into perspective, IMO.

-Jon

8

Well, that all depends. From whence come his assumptions about GDP impact? From the very same IPCC report which conservatives and many libertarians regularly fault for: fatally flawed assumptions.

It hardly seems rational to say that the IPCC scientists are fudging the numbers when it comes to future temperature trends - but let’s take them at their word when they forecast an even more notoriously difficult thing to forecast: economic trends. One hundred years in the future, at that!

Where is the skepticism?

In Wikipedia’s section on this issue, it says:

"Many estimates of aggregate net economic costs of projected damages and benefits from climate change across the globe are now available. These are often expressed in terms of the social cost of carbon (SCC), the aggregate of future net benefits and costs, due to global warming from carbon dioxide emissions, that are discounted to the present. Peer-reviewed estimates of the SCC for 2005 have an average value of US$43 per tonne of carbon (tC) (i.e., US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide, tCO2) but the range around this mean is large. For example, in a survey of 100 estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide.)

One of the most widely noted projections on this issue is the Stern Review, a 2006 report by the former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank Nicholas Stern, predicts that climate change will have a serious impact on economic growth without mitigation. The report suggests that an investment of one percent of global GDP is required to mitigate the effects of climate change, with failure to do so risking a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP The Stern Review has been criticized by some economists, saying that Stern did not consider costs past 2200, that he used an incorrect discount rate in his calculations, and that stopping or significantly slowing climate change will require deep emission cuts everywhere. Other economists have supported Stern’s approach, or argued that Stern’s estimates are reasonable, even if the method by which he reached them is open to criticism. Research by Harvard Economist Martin Weitzman has suggested that structural uncertainty and low-probability high-impact risks are very important, and that "the influence on cost-benefit analysis of fat-tailed structural uncertainty about climate change, coupled with great unsureness about high-temperature damages, can outweigh the influence of discounting or anything else

But of course then others weigh in on the other side, disputing these estimates. And so it goes…

So - JUST like the theory itself, we have loads of disagreement from so-called ‘experts’ about its impact. Big honking surprise.

But what does suprise me is: why areallegedly rational, fact and data driven libertarians seemingly so eager to swallow what this know-nothing from Cato - which we know is a pro-State-in-some-form organization - says?

9

So it’s not up for debate?

10

Sure I’m happy to debate it if you don’t find this self-evident. I mean, if you have a finite, non-renewable resource and you continue to consume some portion of the total, what are your arguments that you will not someday reach the halfyway point?

While we’re at it, would you like to debate gravity? How about electricity? The internal combuston engine? Whether or not 2+2 = 4 in a base 10 numbering system? You pick…

11

You didnt even click the link!

[N]

12

Sorry - did not realize it was a link. My bad.

So - banned - have you researched the abiotic origin theory in depth? In other words, was this the result of a quick google search, or are you seriously proposing that this theory is worthy of serious consideration? If the latter, please provide the compelling arguments as you see them, including rational justification for rejecting the findings of virtually every petroleum geologist in the world.

If the former, you have just provided a compelling example of what I have been talking about with respect to non-rational, non-fact-based, jumping to conclusions via ideology rather than reason, in which case, thanks very much.

13

BTW, note that my intent here is not to argue whether or not peak oil is fact, whether or not the biodiversity crisis is fact, nor the implications of either. It is not note that the high level of skepticism brought to bear upon one side of these debates is completely lacking when it comes to the other side. This indicates an ideological bias, IMO.

Having done my due diligence and looked at both sides of these issues, I am satisfied with my judgment, and I could not care less whether people here choose to believe, say, that the tooth fairy is the source of fossil fuels. I simply would point out in such a case that the rationality we (in many cases justly) celebrate ourselves for, vanishes without a trace when it comes to certain issues. That should concern every libertarian who cherishes independent thinking, IMO.

14

Actually, I haven’t researched it in depth, it was merely a citation that there are competing theories. And I wasn’t attempting to say the abiogenic origin theory is true. But it IS debatable.

Anyways I’m neither a scientist, nor do I particularly enjoy biology or chemistry so I don’t feel compelled to go read research journals on the topic or conduct my own experiments.

And frankly, I could care less. Free markets would solve the problem of peak oil and so I have no problem having it either way (petroleum being chemically renewable or being biotically created.)

The idea that we, as a collective, ought to be concerned about the future of the availability of fuel I think is entirely uncalled for.

Is an ad populum claim a rational sort of argument?

15

His point is that we don’t have free markets presently. We have hampered ones that are significantly distorted by the state’s activities.

-Jon

16

Thanks - you have seemingly selected yourself to be my proof point. After all, I could not ask for a better example of magical thinking than this. Allow me to summarize:

You say you know nothing about chemistry or biology (though this does not stop you from commenting on “chemical renewable” oil), and you say you feel no inclination to learn about the actual facts of this matter, but still - absent any evidence or data whatsoever - you know that the market is capable of overcoming this particular, and by extension any and all, physical and geological limits that mankind may encounter.

That is as clear a statement of pure faith as any I have ever heard from James Dobson or Pat Robertson.

Have you considered joining the Republican Party? Sorry, couldn’t resist. I’ll continue…

One major problem I have with this aside from the obvious is: we don’t have a free market. If you are saying that our currently heavily subsidized and regulated market (and nowhere more heavily regulated and subsidized than in the energy industry!) can yield the same exact benefits as libertarians are claiming are reserved to a free market, then you just torpedoed every practical libertarian/ancap argument for why we need to get the State out of our economic lives. Needless to say, I disagree.

Let’s stipulate for a moment that the free market is indeed capable of miracles. Since we don’t have one - what now?

Do you see the break in that particular chain of logic you are asserting?

Let’s further stipulate that we won’t have a free market in time - we can only work within the bounds of the lousy non-free market we have. In that context (i.e. the context of reality), do you now have some concerns? Or do you remain supremely confident? If so, why? The free market is not here to bail us out. What could make you continue to be confident that this is a non-issue?

BTW, if the market can do anything, why has it not - despite decades of intensive effort - managed to innovate a battery which can store sufficient energy to make an electric car economically feasible, hmmm?? The monetary rewards for accomplishing such a feat would be astronomical! I have worked with research groups which are attempting this and they are massively incentivized by the prospects of such a prize. Yet - to date - nada. And even presupposing that the wondrous market can do anything, can it do it - instantly? What if we have, say, only 2 years? Can the market accomplish all of the transitional steps and phases that it needs to accomplish in that time frame? Will there be forces working against the market in that time frame which might endanger timely completion of such a project? Does it matter what those might be?

But - miracles don’t concern themselves with something as mundane as a time frame or potential obstacles. That’s the clear implication here. That market can and will. Period. That’s the magical assertion. Do you see that this argument not only is not based on reason or logic - but it requires the active suspension of reason and logic!

As far as being debatable, you need both sides of a debate to be able to withstand minimum scrutiny. The abiotic side cannot - this theory was conclusively disproven with data and evidence which was not available when the theory was proposed, 50 years ago but which is available now (only you would not know that, not having been motivated by a quest for ‘truth’ to do any due diligence). BTW, minimum scrutiny does not mean ‘I found a web site that says such and such.’ You have therefore failed to perform even the small amount of due diligence which is required to even come to a judgment as to whether there CAN be a legitimate debate.

But - that doesn’t matter does it? As long as you can cite a web page, you can feel comfortable with the magical thinking in which you have engaged.

And that is my point. You do not KNOW - and you have made no attempt to KNOW (and you are clearly not interested in KNOWING) because it is sufficient for you to BELIEVE. The truth doesn’t matter - only ideology. This is the same obstacle that I have observed in libertarians for years, and I think it is one reason (though only one, and not a primary one) why libertarianism has made so little headway. People get a whiff of the irrational ideologue and shy away.

You’ve been the perfect subject, and have demonstrated my point conclusively, thanks. Good luck with that faith thing.

17

Ozzmeister, this is a monster thread, and I started reading it, but I probably won’t respond until the weekend. Didn’t want you to think I was ignoring it, and thank you for accepting my friendship request! [:)]

18

I said I didn’t care for the two… Of course I’ve only had high school level chemistry, so I won’t really contest that.

I raised a point of disagreement towards your universally true claim that oil is non-renewable (at least in a short term sense). Since there’s still a contest as to whether or not it is, I think saying it is true beyond theory is utterly false.

I said I had no inclination to delve further into abio/biogenic theories, atm. I’m trudging through Human Action and getting ready for a new semester and cant be bothered. I have read some of Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere though.

Do you question whether a free market can overcome peak oil? My statement was not faith based, It’s fairly easy to prove.

I never said anything of the sort. But peak oil is not the problem, the problem is the group of thugs who steal and control property titles.

My statement stands.

And yet, they still hold debates on something that has been thuroughly disproven. How strange.

false

Blasted Trade offs.

Is that what you BELIEVE?

I’m not the one who’s quick to claim that there are unconditional truths in the Natural Sciences.

Because Ad Homs are totally rational.

And here you demonstrate faith in my having faith in something I’ve already said I’m not prepared to make a conclusion on. I wish you luck as well.

19

Ozzy, Have you considered joining the green party ? Sorry, couldn’t resist…

20

LOL touche…nicely done…:wink: