Hermann Goering on Anthropogenic Global Warming

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
81

hjmaiere:

“anthropogenic global warming is a manufactured issue, selected specifically for its ability to slough off libertarian approaches.”

While I respect your suspicions (as I have repeatedly acknowledged, unfortunately with a big government politics is now full of rent-seeking), this assertion runs fairly close to paranioa. Beware the frumious bandersnatch, my friend! The fact that you aren`t convinced does not push everyone who disagrees with you into either the class of those who have “manufactured” this issue - use “strained and contrived” science, “outright lies”, “appeals to authority and scare tactics” - or the sheep. There IS some real science behind climate change, as a even quick look at skeptics arguments indicates.

“selected specifically for its ability to slough off libertarian approaches.”

Now what is THAT supposed to mean? That the global warmers are so frightened by libertarian arguments and the powerful presence of rational libertarians on the policy scene (Im mean, look how effective libertarians in checking the general abuse of government under Bush) they they specifically came up with the AGW argument so they could persuade everyone NOT to listen to the libertarians? Hardly. If youre suggesting that it is not too easy to apply libertarian insights to climate change, then perhaps you might have a point. Certainly libertarian and Austrian insights are potent and central - that if there is a problem, it is one that relates to either resources that are unowned, or for which there are no clear or enforceable property rights (and limited ability to homestead), or which are purportedly “public” resources and so mismanaged and/or abused by rent-seekers. But are you simply throwing up your hands at what Cordato calls the “hard cases”?

Environmentalism itself has clearly been called upon to play the role of civil religion.

This is rather sheer nonsense. Only you are rational and good, and everyone else around the world is either a scoundrel in a frock or a Kool-aid swallower?

as political discourse is concerned, the only real point to be made is that the nature of the State is such that the institutionalization of authority in any form sufficient to address anthropogenic global warming would only do far more harm than anthropogenic global warming itself could possibly do. More importantly, it already does.

You might have a good argument here, but unless you`re content to confine your voice to an echo chamber, this is just a start, and it is hardly “the only real point”. Libertarians need to be engaged more proactively than this. Yandle has some good suggestions, as I have noted elsewhere.

82

Ugh…please do me a favor and read this: http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-does-it-mean-to-advocate-market.html

83

Anthropocentric global warming theory is nothing but a massive conflation of causation with correlation. Species were going extinct, continents were crumbling into the sea and the temperature of the globe was fluctuating in massive cycles, long before human beings even invented the wheel, much less the internal combustion engine. Just because we’re here now doesn’t mean that we’re responsible this time around, for things that were happening before we were even a factor.

84

How about thinking about the issue this way:

Imagine that there were a phenomenon which had all the features which the mainstream attributes to global climate change, except that in our imaginary scenario, we would know that it was occurring. What would the proper libertarian response be to such a phenomenon, if such a thing were to exist?

85

Of course there’s no such thing as ‘proper libertarian response’. In a free society the workings of the market tend to ‘solve’ all the problems that people think need to be solved. And a basic libertarian insight is that nobody can foresee how these ‘problems’ will be soved.

On the other hand I wonder why some people are obsessed with trying to come up with ‘libertarian’ solutions for non-problems, instead of, say, coming up with ideas to drastically limit, or abolish government.

86

We can speculate, can we not? After all, libertarians do spend time seeing how property can be used to resolve a variety of problems, and definitely do not shy away from advancing theories as to how the market may handle defence.

87

Juan, by the reasoning you just advanced, the entire political theory section of this site is completely purposeless. The answer to all questions would be, “However the individuals involved decide to do it.” What I meant by a “libertarian response” is that where rights are being violated, the appropriate libertarian response would be to acknowledge the violation, and perhaps to offer suggestions as to how those violations might be dealt with in a just manner.

88

Donny with and A, what if global warming was addressed by courts in a tort like manner? I think I might understand your theory on the rights of carbon dioxide emissions if it means that you do not have an inherent right to release more than your natural biological needs (essentially all emissions without technological use). After that everything else might be up for review by courts IF it is proven it causes a certain level of damage. Is that what you have meant by carbon emission rights?

Unfortunately I will not be able to see this response tonight since I must now head out but I will check it out tomorrow.

89

To clarify I mean specifically bodily emissions of CO2 having the inherent right since how would you live without that right. But other technological uses, such as cars can be demanded of having some form of technology limiting it’s emissions by court liability orders.

90

I’m not completely sure what I think the best answer is, actually. That’s part of the reason it’s so frustrating that people won’t actually engage the issue; I’m writing my thesis on this, and although it’s due in two weeks, I don’t know what my conclusion should be!

Something I have strong intuitions about, but no completely thought out structure regarding, is the idea that if some people emit a whole lot of CO2 in order to maintain lavish, luxurious lifestyles, and other people emit just enough to satisfy their basic needs, and climate change wouldn’t occur if everyone only emitted enough to satisfy their basic needs, then the entire responsibility for causing climate change should fall on the people who emitted the large quantities. Does that make sense? I guess I can’t spell it out more coherently than that just yet, but it just seems so intuitively right that I can’t bring myself to accept a view which doesn’t accommodate it.

91

I will not be able to give this response the most detail since I presently am at work. I might be in danger of boring people to death since I have said this so much but I believe a court based, common law tort approach could be very effective in making people and companies be more aware of the carbon they emit since they would be liable under precedent.

For instance even if you only left a little bit of litter on someones property your still liabile for it. This litter approach could easily be used in issues such as individual car use on the roads and carbon emission. The courts cases could easily implement certain technologies to be applied to car owners if they want to avoid liability. Now the courts could not force all people to do this (unless they are sent to court) but since they all would be liable in court the incentive is great to cover up your liability. This is why companies and others have applied certain technologies to their production in the past, in order to prevent torts. Now if your a car owner and someone for some reason takes you to court since they suspect your car emits a certain level of carbon (more than is needed) the court will see if you have taken the proper “Duty of care”. If they find you have not or if you fail to live up to past court precedents for liability you will face a judgment.

Now do you want this to be approached in a Minarchist or Anarchist manner? I think in an anarchist manner the court system alone would be able to handle it. In a minarchist manner the courts would still be able to deal with it but maybe you could have legislation creating liability and maybe setting specified fines and punishments (and nothing more) to help with the process if the government courts fail to tackle the issue.

Also as you and I have talked about I think a stronger push for free trade will create better resource conservation and prevent alot of government subsidized deforestration in the third world.

92

I didn’t mean the theory of global warming via anthropogenic CO2 was deliberately invented from whole cloth for its political utility. I meant that a whole lot of both conscious and unconscious effort has gone into establishing and maintaining its (entirely artificial) status as a primary political issue of our time, specifically for its service to the institutionalization of political authority. (My claim is more nuanced than that, but I would only be repeating myself.)

I can’t claim I read everything referenced, but poking around randomly, I saw no “real science.” I’m not going to waste time addressing each of the ten or so pages I visited, but l will pick one because its topic was something I happen to know a little about, and refuting it automatically refutes several others:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/223942/43

Contrary to the article’s claim, weather is indeed ‘chaotic’ in the very real and formal sense that there is no such thing as average weather. This means very specifically that you can consider any measurable aspect of the weather, take a moving average over any timescale you want, and you will never get a straight line. This doesn’t mean that the weather isn’t the consequence of deterministic natural forces—of course we have seasons for a reason. It does mean that the weather is always changing, and that changes in the weather can’t be used as proof of anything.

What this means as a practical matter is that if you hear someone say something like “anthropogenic atmospheric particulate matter is causing a cooling effect that is masking the true magnitude of the warming effect of anthropogenic CO2,” you can be sure that they’re making it up as they go along, and all they really care about is blaming the weather on humans no matter what the weather is actually doing at the moment.

Not quite. I’m suggesting that the issue gets the attention it does exactly for its ability to distract people from libertarian insights. The problem is not that government doesn’t properly enforce property rights. The problem is government itself—the territorial monopoly on the institutionalized use of coercion.

The ‘religious’ notion that consumption and material prosperity is evil in and of itself is a common theme recurring throughout history—long before the now-ubiquitous call to “reduce our carbon footprint.” There is reason to believe this eschatological tendendency is built into the psyche of everyone to one degree or another. We should expect that it would take root in some form or another just beyond the fringes of our scientific understanding. It always has.

93

On the other hand I wonder why some people are obsessed with trying to come up with ‘libertarian’ solutions for non-problems, instead of, say, coming up with ideas to drastically limit, or abolish government.

Juan, the focus of Austrian economics with relation to environmental conflict is a problem-solving one, as I have pointed out many times: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/controlpanel/blogs/posteditor.aspx?SelectedNavItem=Posts&sectionid=31&postid=1381. Libertarians are actively at work trying to solve environmental problems by promoting environmental markets - and pushing for regulatory, legal and institutional changes that clarify property rights, strenthen enforcement mechanisms and lower transaction costs: http://www.perc.org/. The people who are interested in pushing “libertarian” approaches want to work for solutions to problems that they perceive - and to forestall other “solutions” that they see as counterproductive. These people may seem “obsessed” to you, but they simply have their own preferences. You, of course, are entitled to your own preferences, but looking at everyone who has different preferences than you as an enemy does not seem to be a productive style of engagement.

Even with those you disagree with most strongly, there is plenty of room for discussion and agreement on middle ground that would represent an advance of the libertarian agenda - such as deregulation of power markets, elimination of energy subsidies and of depreciation allowances, freer trade and immigration, etc. The “enviro” agenda presents many opportunities for libertarians with enough confidence to seek them.

94

You: I didn’t mean the theory of global warming via anthropogenic CO2 was deliberately invented from whole cloth for its political utility. I meant that a whole lot of both conscious and unconscious effort has gone into establishing and maintaining its (entirely artificial) status as a primary political issue of our time, specifically for its service to the institutionalization of political authority.

If the theory of global warming via anthropogenic CO2 was NOT deliberately invented from whole cloth for its political utility, then you appear to be conceding that there MIGHT be something to it from a scientific ground. But since you immediately thereafter advise that you see “no ‘real science’”, it seems to be that we’re back to your posiition that there is NOTHING to AGW, other than rent-seeking. Sorry, that is just a little to dismissive of what other people say they think and prefer for me to buy.

Sure, “a whole lot of both conscious and unconscious effort has gone into establishing and maintaining … [AGW] … as a primary political issue of our time”. And sure, some are engaged on this effort in order to further institutionalize political authority. But is that why everybody - or even most people - are interested in AGW? I think not. I think that they’re interested because they see a problem, and one not easily solved.

Sure, addressing climate change is difficult, but that doesn’t mean we should then deny the issue or direct ourselves mainly at the motives of those who profess concern. This was noted recently by Steven Hayward of the AEI, in his piece “Is ‘Conservative Environmentalist’ an Oxymoron?” …
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.22934/pub_detail.asp

“The environmentalists are making noises because there are obvious market failure, tragedy of the commons issues that confront us, and very little is being done to address them. We can tell the environmentalists that they do not understand the institutional underpinnings of the problem or the appropriate cure, but responsibility lies in acknowledging that a number of problems exist that we should be working to cure.”

You: This doesn’t mean that the weather isn’t the consequence of deterministic natural forces—of course we have seasons for a reason.

If there are deterministic “natural” influences on the climate, can there be deterministic human influences on the climate? Or should we embrace as without any possible consequence the prospect of restoring to the atmosphere the CO2 that has been locked away for millions of years and bring atmospheric CO2 to levels not seen since the age of the dinosaurs? Should we also abandon as sheer, unscientific fantasy any hope of ever terraforming Mars?

The ‘religious’ notion that consumption and material prosperity is evil in and of itself is a common theme recurring throughout history—long before the now-ubiquitous call to “reduce our carbon footprint.” There is reason to believe this eschatological tendendency is built into the psyche of everyone to one degree or another. We should expect that it would take root in some form or another just beyond the fringes of our scientific understanding.

Interesting point, but I’m not sure I agree - it’s easy enough to point to how wasteful people are with resources when they are extremely abundant. But if there is such a predilection, don’t you suppose it is there because it is evolutionarily advantageous - and serves the purpose of moving a community of users when resources start to seem scarce from a position of unregulated free-for-all access to one of community property that is subject to agreed terms of use? Yandle addresses some of these issues here: http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/Article.Asp?Aid=4064

Regards,

Tom

95

American Enterprise Institute ? Isn’t that the headquarters of neoconservative ‘thought’ ?

96

Since it’s the point I’ve been trying to make all along, I’ll repeat it more bluntly one last time. People are interested in anthropogenic global warming because they subconsciously want it to be true. So they tell each other scary campfire stories, skillfully embellishing them with scientific jargon, nodding their heads in reassuring tribal consensus that something can and must be done about the situation. But spending taxpayer money collecting circumstantial evidence that reinforces your preconceptions is not science. Postulating contrived chains of causal relationships is not science. Inferring global cloud cover from 19th-century maritime logs is not science. Argument from authority is not science. Most importantly, any argument that assumes what you claim is proved is not science.

The interesting conversation is about why people want anthropogenic global warming to be true. It was the discussion I was hoping to have when I started this thread. But like the discussion about why the U.S. really invaded Iraq, it is culturally and institutionally off limits.

97

I don’t think it has to do with tribal instincts at all. I think this whole global warming thing is just the latest embodiment of the anti-capitalist mentality. It seems to be motivated by plain old envy. Some people just hate the fact that others are better off than they are. They think that they are equally deserving if not more so than their material betters and that the current distribution of wealth is the result of some injustice. Any idea that the creation of wealth is some form of sin and there is a need to redistribute income or punish the capitalist euntrepreneurs is inherently attractive to people, and AWG fits the bill.

98

hjmaiere:

People are interested in anthropogenic global warming because they subconsciously want it to be true. So they tell each other scary campfire stories, skillfully embellishing them with scientific jargon, nodding their heads in reassuring tribal consensus that something can and must be done about the situation. … The interesting conversation is about why people want anthropogenic global warming to be true.

You know, as I’ve said before, I think that this is an astute and perfectly fair observation. It cautions us that we should always be aware of “predator”, “bogeyman” and “good guy-bad guy” stories. We do love these stories; it’s a constant theme in movies, for example. But stories like this resonate with us for a reason: they appeal to us to act cooperatively, to the point of self-sacrifice on behalf of others, to cope with shared threats that societies did confront over the course of human history.

You also added previously another excellent point - that our susceptibility to horror stories renders us vulnerable to manipulation by elites - priests, rulers and demagogues who profit by stirring us up and maintaining our vigilance against supposed threats.

But of course your purpose here is not at all to provide us with anthropological insights, but to take the position that, simply because we are receptive to stories of external threats, that such alleged threats are all frauds. That, I am afraid, is a logical fallacy and simply doesn’t fly. The fact that there are elites that want to manipulate us doesn’t mean that there are no actual threats.

like the discussion about why the U.S. really invaded Iraq, it is culturally and institutionally off limits.

Malarkey. We’ve been talking about climate change for going on forty years now, including the question of what motivates practically everybody - and the Mises community at least has certainly been examining why we invaded Iraq.

But spending taxpayer money collecting circumstantial evidence that reinforces your preconceptions is not science. Postulating contrived chains of causal relationships is not science.

Neither is it “science” to write off wholesale what scientists around the world say, including virtually every national academy of science and every domestic scientific body with relevant expertise, or to attack a strawman that all these scientists do is to postulate chains of causal relationships. Nor is it science to ignore facts regarding the changes in climate and seasons, or all of the voluntary efforts by individuals, corporations and groups to change their own behavior regarding the atmosphere.

What you’ve really done - entirely consistent with the predilections and reactions of much of the Mises community - is to construct a meta-horror story, where there is no climate change, simply monsters who want to such us dry. But you really can’t sustain your premise, can you? Is everyone in on the conspiracy but a few clear-headed thinkers like you?

And while you’re weaving your conspiracy meme, have you forgotten just what Austrian insights tell us is the chief institutional dynamic behind so-called “environmental” problems - that these are simply conflicts over preferences relating to resources that can’t be worked out in the marketplace because of a lack of clear or enforceable property rights?

99

Juan, if you’d trouble to read Hayward, you’d see that he actually agrees with much of what hjmaiere has to say (which shows that criticism of the “sky is falling” approach is not by any means unique or off-limits).

But I understand; you share hjmaiere’s “let’s be afraid of the enviros and everyone else” meme, and enjoy the reflexive reactions it stimulates. For that reason, you should really steer clear of work like Hayward’s, which takes the position that, despite the fact that enviros over-react and frequently suggest counterproductive approaches to environmental issues, there are indeed real issues that should be addressed - and not necessarily by government.

100

While this does indeed describe too many people, it doesn’t by itself seem to fully explain things. The Hermann Goerings of the world don’t command loyalty merely by promising their cannon fodder material gain. Soldiers fight for reasons that are harder to dismiss than that. I suggest that the social principles at work in wartime, whatever they are, apply just as much to ‘civilian’ life.

There are obviously people drawn to power who are intelligent, yet simultaneously hold the rest of humanity in genuine contempt. They don’t need knives and guns to rob and murder. From the mid-level drug dealer, to the morally-challenged corporate bigwig, to state figureheads and their hidden handlers, they get other people to rob and murder for them.

There are just as obviously people drawn to power who seem to be motivated by an honest desire to do good. Of course the system tends to weed out those who aren’t at least partially corruptible, never mind that government—by its very nature—can only do more harm than good.

But there are many people not in direct command of political power, who, to one degree or another, secretly imagine themselves disaffected members of the intellectual elite. They vote, they listen to NPR, they buy local and organic, and they honestly believe that the only real problem with government is that it happens to be in the wrong hands. What needs explaining is how they can think this in the face of so much logic and history to the contrary. How are these people so unwittingly engaged in the service of the plutocracy? How do their ranks manage to extend well beyond those employed directly by the State itself?

People clearly do routinely invest some portion of their sense of identity and self-worth in the ‘tribe’ whether that tribe be their family, their football team, their religion or their rejection thereof, their political affiliation, their country, or their status as fellow caretaker of the earth itself. And the plutocracy operates through the conflation of political authority with the voice of tribal consensus.