Harry,

I found one link, published in ’98 in science mag.

[a href=”http://www.climatechangedebate.org/pdf/FanPaper.pdf”>A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models

It is a ridiculous proposition to state qualitatively that the US is a net absorber of carbon therefore our human population can qualitatively pump out 25% of the world’s carbon. Think globally for pete’s sake. Ignorance of global warming will not cause it’s effects to be mitigated, but instead will guarantee the worst possible outcome.

The only thing that will dampen American’s enthusiasm to generate carbon will be cost relative to disposable income. Gasoline has roughly doubled in price in the past couple of years; now consumption is down 3%. That isn’t much, is it? Individuals think about themselves they way you are thinking about our borders — that my (our) carbon generation is somebody else’s problem beyond my house (our borders). Or worse, nobody’s problem (denial).

Much as I adore the free market, it is totally egocentric in nature and therefore cannot be trusted to be a guardian of anything except the bottom line. It is immune to any concept of accountability except as can be imposed by lawsuits in the near term. Any effect years out (e.g. tumors caused by pollution) will be ignored. Any effect that can’t be pinned on it (global warming) will be ignored.

Unfortunately, politicians can’t be trusted either. Hence, between politicians and those who advocate a totally free market (by it’s nature devoid of long term responsibility), global warming will keep on truckin’ until the costs become unbearable (aka New Orleans).

Mr. Harwood, I beg to differ. (Please oh please let me differ???) Sorry, old joke.

I believe I see the error in your assertion that somehow “the market” is devoid of long-term responsibility. I would direct your attention to such works as _Democracy: The God That Failed_ by Hanse Hermann Hoppe.

Specifically, he addresses the problem of what is termed “Public Choice Theory”, a good example of which is Rothbard’s insight about the 4 ways people spend money. To wit:

   1: Spending your own money on yourself, you are
   very careful about how much and on what.
   Maximum consideration for "return on
   investment" as it were.

   2: Spending your own money on other people, one
   tends to be more extravagant, to buy less
   useful things or less durable, etc.

   3: Spending other peoples money on yourself, I
   cannot remember if this was ranked 2 or 3, it
   still means much less attention to what is
   purchased, or for how much, or just how much 
   you actually need it.

   4: Spending other peoples money on other
   people. The gloves are off, neither the good
   nor bad effects directly concern you, there is
   no limit to what can be purchased because there
   are no personal restraints.

This is important because in a free market, each individual spends their own money (or reputation to investors, etc) in every transaction. There is no government “limited liability” to hide behind, there is no source of funds that do not belong to someone who themselves care about what it is being spent to do.

There is also real private property. There may be no EPA to prosecute a poluter, but there is also no EPA whose regulations one can hide behind and claim to have been following the law. Long term responsibility both for ones actions and for ones own property are enhanced in a free market, not eliminated.

Prof. Hoppe argues that a monarch “owns” their country, they have a real interest in its long-term viability in order to have something to pass on to their heirs. Bureaucrats have no such interest, they have every incentive to “take what they can get” before being ousted in the next election or post-election shake-up.

Yet the worst of all, in my opinion, is the so-called “mixed” economy, The illusion of private property is easily scratched, the bureaucrats come and go in a fog of political contrivance and revolving doors. There is no responsibility anywhere but the backs of the taxpayer.

I look forward to discussing this more with you, I think the materials available on the Mises.org web site will serve you well. And it is always possible you are correct, and can help us all reach a better understanding of market forces. Even negative ones.

J D,

“Why does no one propose privatizing paved highways, particularly the Interstate System which should be sold to the highest bidder and Federal Fuel Taxes eliminated.”

The highest bidder? A single source for control of movement of commerce? And if the prices are such that commerce is manipulated to the benefit of a selected small group? The highest bidder has to recoup capital employed with revenue generated by selling to consumers.

What will lead to the most rapid and fruitful progress for humans is more choices, not fewer. I’m new to Libertarianism, but the limiting of choices does not seem to fit with the goals of the movement. Please elaborate.

I do agree with your points regarding movement by people and steadily increasing travel. Homebased work should become much more prevalent in industry whenever it can be used. And there are lots of methods of moving commerce more efficiently that are not being used to their potential.

Eliminating government interference has to be the goal, but any move to limit choices and give too much power to nongovernmental controllers can be at least as bad as government, in my humble opinion.

And i’ll throw these quotes in just to stir the pot (he is talking about desocializing a more socialist country than the US, but still…):

“A third commonly suggested route to privatization deserves to be rejected out of hand: that the government sell all its assets to the public at auction, to the highest bidder… why does the government deserve to own the revenue from the sale of these assets?”

I don’t think it’s responsible to claim that conservation is a ‘hoax’. Provided market prices are in effect for energy, people need to be informed that they can reduce their energy consumption and save money.

Conservation may not conserve global energy stocks, but it conserves your bank account.

Hi xteve:

I’m slightly inclined to argue that you’re point about the government’s paying back its debt has only a superficial merit. But i’ll admit i am influenced by my predisposition towards controversy. My thinking is the following: who exactly does the government owe, and who exactly is paying off this debt? The latter is the tax-payer, who did not contract for the debt in the first place, but is left holding the bag. As for the former, if it owes its partners in crime, the banks, then i may just say welch. If it is foreign central banks, welch. In fact, i may just say welch period. If no one ever lends a dime to our government again because of this it will be soon enough in my books.

There are some very mixed signals in the comments. The article speaks of hoaxes and mentions global warming. Here we go again! What hoax? Global warming is occurring as it has many times throughout history; it is a natural phenomenon. The hoax that human industrialization caused it?—if this is the subject, then get specific. Did industrialization bring it on sooner, or will it cause it to be warmer, or will it cause it to last longer than past periods of warming? Well, now we have something arguable.

I’ll buy the book and will enjoy learning from it. And I believe Capitalism is the Answer. And I believe that the sooner we live in a Libertarian world the better. But how is it that people are supposed to be able to use their own capital and make their own decisions but also be encouraged to do whatever they feel like even if it damages others? We are not living in a Libertarian world. People aren’t operating in free markets. Decisions are not being made using Libertarian or Misesian economic principles. I enjoy discussing and learning and developing ideas about how to bring about DAY-0, as I call it, but until the market can actually act upon human action naturally, then actions are going to be manipulated.

The Bush regime is truly awful for America, and I am confident in my opinion that any time the regime asks for conservation, there is an ulterior motive. To ask for conservation makes sense to me, and in a Libertarian world conservation will probably occur for economic reasons. But the Bush regime is certainly not famous for suggesting anything related to environmentalism or conservation, so it is likely to be a ploy for gain elsewhere.

And so now we have an article discouraging conservation. Now THAT fits in with the Bush regime. If this light bulb was developed and marketed by a private company in a Libertarian world, would it not be sought by consumers?

There is nothing wrong with sensible conservation either in a government/corporate plutocratic oligarchy or a Libertarian world and as we are not living in the latter, it serves no purpose to discourage such activity. NOT conserving will not make government go away.

The author almost gets there. That is to say the US is one of if not the most efficient economies in world at using energy. The US is able generate more wealth out of its energy than just about anyone else.

On the subject of conservation. Government forced conservation only creates the need to use more energy. I have not had a person yet who can refute my example of a person who cuts grass for a living. That person needs a big 4 door pickup truck with a trailer to haul his equipment and personnel. If we make the truck more expensive then that person must begin to make choices most of which consume more fuel than the truck. If the user has to buy a bigger truck to do the job that uses more fuel. If the user has to have a smaller truck he will be left with moving people or equipment in another vehicle. The best way for the grass cutter to complete his tasks at the peak of energy efficiency is to use the truck he has.

Ultimately, life is a consuming thing, expanding, exhaling CO2, making garbage and being cruel …

Er, not quite. Consumption cannot take place without production. The oxygen you breathe was created by the plant life that takes your CO2. There is no garbage until there is something created that becomes waste. The only real question is whether or not an individual is producing as much as they consume, or if somebody else is making up the difference, willingly or unwillingly.