Malthus and Mein Kampf come to Cork
Sep 16th, 2007 @ 04:57 am › Sean Corrigan
For those who like their environmental gloom’n'doom spread with a thick dollop of Utopian totalitarianism and garnished with a slice of Galtonian pseudo-science, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas holds its sixth annual conference in Ireland this coming week.
Present will be the usual motley of silk-suited Carbohypocrites – each avidly promoting their tax-eating, alternative-energy start-ups – a gang of anti-capitalist activists, a squawk of sensescent members of the political elite, and a whole Bronze Age roundhouse of associated Gaia worshippers.
A flavour of what will be on offer can be had from this excerpt from one Nate Hagens of the Vermont-based Gund Institute of Ecological Economics (sic):-
The economic system that has ruled the planet while populations have grown will have to choose different ends on a full planet, which implies different means. Supply will gradually become inelastic in a world constrained by energy and power density, temporally and spatially diffuse alternative energy options, and increasing limitations to non-energy inputs such as soil, GHGs, land and particularly water. But perhaps more importantly, demand is inelastic too. We have evolved particular neural mechanisms through 250,000+ generations as hominids, and millions of generations as mammals that a)cause us to compete for resources, b)allow our systems to by hijacked by novelty and c) cause us to focus our attention on the present, rather than the future. The talk will discuss habituation, addiction, hedonic adaptation and other recent neuroscience research showing that homo economicus fails at its most basic assumption — that man is rational. But where we cannot change the way we are wired, we can change what the metric is. Sociological research already shows that we are not happy with more pecuniary accumulation, but are happier with more social interactions, friends and community. Politics is genetic. Economics is cultural. We have to work on changing this cultural carrot, which will then dictate how best to use the remaining high quality fossil fuels.
Categories: Uncategorized
Home
RSS Feed
E-Mail
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Magnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
675 Responses
Well yeah, if by rational these wackos mean omniscient, because that’s usually what they mean and how they understand the mainstream neo-classical model, man is not going to be rational.
“Politics is genetic. Economics is cultural.”
Assertions. Gotta love them. If these knuckleheads knew what they were talking about, they’d realize that every genetic trait they referenced, as well as their talk of material prosperity, is dealt with by economics. If anything it is politics that is cultural, and not economics.
civil and intelligent comment?
Not too hard in this company.
Mr. Corrigan, once again, ably distills the goings-on with :”Present will be the usual motley of silk-suited Carbohypocrites – each avidly promoting their tax-eating, alternative-energy start-ups – a gang of anti-capitalist activists, a squawk of sensescent members of the poitical elite, and a whole Bronze Age roundhouse of associated Gaia worshippers.”
The whole Klatch just reminds me of a line from the movie, Wall Street: “Buddy, Buddy, come on, You’re not naive enough to believe we live in a Free Market are you?”
It’s always amusing to find people – like Mr Corrigan – who believe that repeating their beliefs as loudly and aggressively as possible gives them a magical ability to overwhelm physical reality.
Throwing peanuts from the sidelines may be entertaining and enjoyable – even if the peanits are small and not particular well-aimed. But the facts are that the ice is melting, the weather is getting more extreme, people are dying and essential resources are running out.
Perhaps Mr Corrigan will understand one day that being abusive for the sake of it is no substitute for rational engagement with reality – a reality which is accepted by trained experts with rather better qualifications than he has, and whose job it is to understand and model what’s happening.
No matter how much he rants about people he doesn’t like, the world is round, and not flat and will continue to remain round, and not flat.
If Mr Corrigan disagrees, he might like to research the story of Lysenko in the Soviet Union – an excellent example of what happens when a culture chooses dogma over solid peer-reviewed evidence.
As for ‘tax eaters’ – with half a trillion wasted in Iraq, it’s hardly the ecologists who are doing the most significant tax eating, now is it?
I live in Texas. Despite improvements in technology, Texas produced 44% the oil in 2005 that it did in 1985. That is Peak Oil.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfptx1m.htm
Peak oil is a date. It is geology, not economics, politics, or theory.
The UK, like the US, is now an oil importer and oil is still dirt cheap.
The Irresisitible Force of Economic Growth – which is mandated by the mathematics of compound interest on a deficit-based Money Supply – is now coming up against the Immovable Object of finite resources generally, and liquid fuels in particular.
The assumptions upon which you base your contemptuous (and contemptible) case, Mr Corrigan, bear no relationship to the reality that we lesser mortals daily experience.
As a speaker at the ASPO-USA conference in Houston (and Republican from age 19 till age 52 when GWB cured me), I was amused by the knee jerk and hysterical response.
Well known socialist T. Boone Pickens (who recently committed $6 billion to Texas wind projects, no need to hawk projects with a ten or eleven figure checkbook) is also speaking, as well as oil investment banker Matthew Simmons (he supplies the jet that M. Romney is campaigning in).
Another speaker is Jeffrey Brown (who I collaborate with), who is now completing a new 1,000 barrel/day field in Texas. His mantra is “Economize, Localize, Produce” as a personal strategy for a post-Peak Oil world. I am sure that Ludwig Mises would violently oppose such personal lifestyle choices !
Jeffrey will be speaking on his Export Land Model, observing that oil exporters will usually satisfy domestic demand first and export what is left over. This makes Oil Exports a more importnt metric than Oil Production.
My first and most important recommendation is to level the playing field between trucks (who use socialized roads) and railroads on private ROW that chose to electrify.
The “Free Market” as it is today is leading to failure post-Peak Oil and the Peak Oil Movement is a hotbed of divergent ideas being actively debated. The debate is marked by civility, comity and intellectual rigor, lacking in the article posted here.
Check out
http://www.theoildrum.com
Best Hopes for More Light and Less Heat,
Alan Drake
The last sound on earth will be the squawk of an optimist. It is not merely peak oil, but the energy cost of obtaining it. Mideast oil still costs less than $1.00 a bbl to produce because it is abundant, shallow, and easily accessed with 1950′s drilling technologies. The net energy yield (or energy profit) is about 60 to 1- burn a bbl and get 60 back. For US oil production, the net energy yield is close to zero or negative. We can only drill for oil here because it is subsidized by cheaper foreign oil. The American oil industry is parasitic on the economy.
Dear Sean,
What in particular is it about the word ‘finite’ that have difficulty with?
All finite resources rise, peak and decline in production. You may not have noticed that the UK North Sea oil output peaked in 1999 and despite oil having RISEN in price from $10 to beyond £70 in the interim, has declined to the point where the UK is now a net oil importer. So it goes also in many other countries. Ditto also eventually for the whole planet, and there’s nothing Austrian or any other sort of economics can do about it. Physics always trumps economics.
Wow, it appears that many of the new commenters (Did someone link this to some leftist website?) seem to be incapable of comprehending what Corrigan actually wrote. Nothing he wrote denies the possibility that oil production has or is about to peak.
What Corrigan is attacking, aggressively so I will admit, is the idea that there is no solution other than putting the state in control of economics. This was the central idea of the gentleman Corrigan quoted. Here are the relevant sentences from that talk:
Now, tell me, what do you (skeptic, Richard Leon, Chris Cook, and Alan Drake) think he means. My interpretation is that since we are clearly irrational beings, we need someone like Mr. Hagens to tell us what we really want, and someone like Mr. Hagens to tell us what to do.
Also, in addition, we again see the absolutely ridiculous argument that since we are running out of oil, it is best that we stop using it. In either scenario, we stop using oil, so what is the point, exactly?
Mr. Corrigan…this is simple logistics. If you have X amount of a finite resource and you try to add additional consumption on top of that, someone is going to come up short. If the availability of the finite resource remains constant or itself starts to come up short, no amount of philisophical or strategical wrangling is going to bridge the gap.
It’s why Patton didn’t get across the Rhine in the late summer and early fall of ’44. The finite resource faced increased demand from another quarter and he literally ran out of gas, despite his best attempts to beg, borrow and actually steal it.
One can explotate this to a more modern time as the cold reality of demand vs. resource availability makes itself felt.
Logistics doesn’t care that oil may reach a price that makes it “economically feasable” to go to the moon in an attempt to find more. If it ain’t there, it ain’t there…and increasingly the quantities required to run the modern dreadnought simply aren’t there…no matter how many holes they punch in the ground.
As it stands, they’re not finding the kinds of quantities required to replace what’s being burned up. And they’re spending billions trying…
At the same time, the “free market” is cutting the existing supply with raw alcohol (like a cheap whiskey) just to keep the tanks full. They’re trying to scrape the bottom of old wells like a used bong, hoping the gobs of hardened goo will be enough to keep getting high with. The same free market is sinking millions into trying to figure out how to burn rancid fruit and chicken grease in your tank.
If oil was flowing like the fountain of milk and honey that it used to be, why is the market throwing this kind of money at “alternatives”??
How can you call yourself a free market advocate if you refuse to watch the real indications the market is throwing to you…?
If I’m spending billions trying to figure out how to fly an airliner on chicken ass, there’s probably an underlying economic reason for that…
Mean, mean logistics…it simply doesn’t care about your markets, your lifestyle, your civilization. It merely asks, “Where’s the stuff.” Increasingly that question is becoming troublesome to answer.
It’s amazing how much effort the posters in this thread have gone to in constructing strawmen to knock down — paragraph upon paragraph making an argument that no one could possibly disagree with: that the oil supply is finite.
Are far as I can tell Sean Corrigan’s ‘article’ just appears to be an immature stream of abuse for no particular reason. There is certainly nothing intelligent or civil about it. Get help Sean.
“But the f-a-c-t-s are that the ice is melting, the weather is getting more extreme, people are dying and essential resources are running out”
==================================================
Really? A-r-c-t-i-c ice may be undergoing one of its cyclical, multi-decadal retreats, but Antarctic ice is thickening and spreading (and is of much greater magnitude and hence more important).
==================================================
“Weather is getting more extreme”? No, uncritical reportage of violent weather is now a 24/7 infotainment item to distract us from the state of Paris Hilton’s liver. Yes, unsubstantiated solipsism and propagandist scare-mongering about its effects may have become more extreme, but ‘weather’ itself? I think not.
==================================================
“People are dying”? Yes, they always have and always will (it’s called ‘mortality’), but – even assuming warming is not just an hysterical/political artefact or a natural fluctuation which will reverse over the next 30 years or so as it usually has in the past – more people tend to live better lives in warmer climes than in cooler ones.
==================================================
“Essential resources are running out”? Which resources exactly and which services that such physical resources currently supply?
==================================================
This may possibly be true of easily accessible oil (though even that is as much a man-made curse of bad politics and ill-defined property rights as any physical necessity), but e-n-e-r-g-y sources, in general? NO! Coal is abundant, as is nuclear (short-term supply humps notwithstanding) and we still barely exploit a fraction of a percent of the solar energy incident upon the earth because it has not yet paid us to do so.
================================================
Besides, even if such an imminent depletion of the resources important to our present way of doing things were beyond question, the exact point is that their increased scarcity would naturally be signalled by higher prices on the unhampered market and these would (a) progressively rule out the least economically important uses and (b) offer very sizeable, free market incentives for entrepreneurs to make money in the service of their fellow men by finding ways to ameliorate such shortages. There is nothing in all this to argue for any of the evils of autarky, mercantilism, or the imposition of centralized controls on individuals.
===============================================
==================================================
To blindly repeat the Al Gore/Sierra Club/WWF nonsense about us human cancer cells using up the bounty of three planets as if it were beyond contention is a statement of misplaced faith and an open invitation to collectivist control, not one of either scientific truth or economic logic – exactly the point my original post was making!
“For those who like their environmental gloom’n'doom”
Scientific truth about geology and resources is not doom and gloom. It is just stating the facts.
“spread with a thick dollop of Utopian totalitarianism and garnished with a slice of Galtonian pseudo-science”
You are generalizing. Not everybody is like that
Why don’t you attend to find out? You could learn a few things about the real physical world of resources, rather than just mere ideas.
“the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas holds its sixth annual conference in Ireland this coming week.”
So you don’t like ASPO? That’s it?
Where is your _scientific proof_ that shows they are wrong?
“Present will be the usual motley of silk-suited Carbohypocrites – each avidly promoting their tax-eating, alternative-energy start-ups”
Ad hominem. Show a person doing this in the line up.
“a gang of anti-capitalist activists, a squawk of sensescent members of the poitical elite, and a whole Bronze Age roundhouse of associated Gaia worshippers.”
Anti-capitalist? You clearly haven’t even read the conference schedule and contents.
“Vermont-based Gund Institute of Ecological Economics (sic):-”
Do you have _any idea_ what ecological economics is?
Do you understand philosophy of science?
Do you understand the scientific method?
Please post more of your enlightening thoughts, when you do.
This is encouraging. I think the sudden spike in desperate posts here might be an indication that “ecological economists” (as if there is such a thing) are becoming uncomfortable wrestling with their denial in the face of reason.
Yeah, Mr. Corrigan, it’s like, duh, if there’s a jar full of M&M’s and you’re eating them, eventually they’re gonna be gone. Finite resources and all. Then you’re screwed. What does your precious economics have to say about THAT?
Some of you better wise up or you’re in for a rude awakening when society returns to a glorious, er…I mean, primitive, poverty stricken hell.
Firstly, Antti Kaipainen: Standard scientific method does not apply to economics–an economy of around 6 billion different people engaged in various and sundry activities to support themselves, their families, pets, causes, etc is too complex a system to completely isolate variables in an experiment. Popper’s work only applies to the [i/]natural[i] sciences, not the social ones.
Secondly: What reason, Vanmind? All these comments seem to be poorly written polemics hurled around.
I’m willing to bet that environmentalists form a large enough portion of the US economy that if they stopped demanding the government to enact ever more incomprehensible and contradictory regulations and instead started a company to manufacture environmentally friendly technology (like low-emission cars, alternative energy) we would not have to worry about anything.
So find some venture capitalists!
Peak oil relies on the inability to more and different sources of fossil fuels, the anthropogenic story of global warming is getting more skepticism than ever (get this: humanity’s total contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is like the linoleum on the first floor of the empire state building), and all of this eco-malthusianism misunderstands the power of freely trading people to preserve and extend their resources. If Nate Hagens gets his way, we’ll be stuck on the same fossil fuel formula that his lack of imagination cannot see beyond.
Oil production is to a very large part politically controlled. Arabic kings and US wars are not market forces.
Politicians have incentive to cause short term overproduction of oil in order to stimulate consumption during their period in power. If the oil wells of the world were for sale, their owners would not extract the oil at todays low prices. They would wait until proces rose. With market forces, oil prices would rise gradually during a long time, stimulating one substitute after the other to kick in.
Peak oil is a problem caused by politics. Market economy is the solution!
Following the same logic, horse manure production as decreased sharply in the last century, therefore there is going to be some serious horse shortage a few years from now…
Wow, what is with the influx of stupid commentary? “Physics trumps economics” What?
RWW: “It’s amazing how much effort the posters in this thread have gone to in constructing strawmen to knock down — paragraph upon paragraph making an argument that no one could possibly disagree with: that the oil supply is finite.”
I know! It’s ridiculous.
Clashes of Fundamentalisms are always funny, shame its the real world that sickens as we bicker. I predict Mises fans will declare ideological victory when their local gas station starts auctioning fuel in 10gal cans, shortly before they scream for government mandated prices.
“Clashes of Fundamentalisms are always funny, shame its the real world that sickens as we bicker. I predict Mises fans will declare ideological victory when their local gas station starts auctioning fuel in 10gal cans, shortly before they scream for government mandated prices.”
Why would we do that?
Would one of the “peak oil” guys posting here please inform us of exactly how much oil the planet has. To know that we’re close to running out of oil, you would have to know exactly how much we have. So please tell us. Then we can use the current rate of depletion and learn the exact year we will run out.
To know that we’re close to running out of oil, you would have to know exactly how much we have. So please tell us. Then we can use the current rate of depletion and learn the exact year we will run out
.
That is not how oil extraction works. A number of oil fields will still be producing significant quantities of oil a century from now.
.
I would wager that South Ghawar alone will produce more than 100,000 barrels/day. Canadian tar sands (if natural gas is still available) and Orinoco asphalt will likely be over 1 million b/day each in 2107 (less certain about Orinoco).
.
As the saying goes “It is not the size of the keg, it is the size of the tap.”
.
Production rates are bound by a large number of factors, many of them reservoir specific. And a general truism is that the faster the rate of extraction, the lower the overall oil recovery % will be.
.
Also, the supply of oil from a geologically depleted province has very little price elasticity of supply. Example, Texas 1972 (their Peak year).
.
.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-brown_11edi.ART0.State.Edition1.900c598.html
.
The East Texas oil field still produces 1 million b/day. Unfortunately, it is 99% water. The oil produced today from East Texas could not have been produced twenty years ago by any known economic exploitation strategy.
.
North Ghawar, the “good end ” of the largest oil field and the largest producing province in the world, appears about to water out in 1 to 5 years time at full production rates.
.
Cantarell, the source of 60% of Mexican exports in 2004 and, until recently, the second largest producing oil field in the world is another example. First produced in the late 1970s, it peaked with conventional production at 2.2 million b/day and then sharply declined to just over 1 million b/day. Massive nitrogen injection boosted output back to 2.1 million b/day and now it is in very steep decline (scenarios leaked from Pemex have a range of 14% to 40%/year, the President of Mexico acknowledges “double digit” declines).
.
Peak Oil does NOT mean that we “run out of oil”. It means that the rate of production declines and economic incentives have little impact on production rates (see Texas, see Cantarell today).
.
Major new oil production has long lead times (about a decade typically) and depletion within that time frame will very likely exceed known new production for a significant net decrease in oil production and an even greater reduction in available oil exports.
.
Peak Oil is about rates of production declining.
.
Best Hopes,
.
Alan Drake
What a parade of economic ignoramuses…
Clue: if some resource gets depleted prices go up. When prices go up, the use of alternative resources becomes economically feasible.
And we do have a huge source of energy (er, negative entropy – the energy is conserved) right up there in the sky.
Trying to rush switching over from a finite resource to a not-yet feasible alternative is just as stupid as calling to conserve rocks – because they are also finite on this planet and humanity is sure to run out of them at some point in the future.
Galton was not a pseudo-scientist. He invented fingerprinting, the weather map, the silent dog whistle the correlation coefficient and the concept of “regression to the mean”. He was a genuine scientist whose work we still benefit from.
All I know is that if we have a problem, ONLY THE STATE CAN FIX IT.
But then again, because politics is genetic, I was born a communist.
Seriously, one would laugh if it all wasnt so sad.
What a parade of economic ignoramuses…
Clue: if some resource gets depleted prices go up. When prices go up, the use of alternative resources becomes economically feasible
Let me introduce you to the non-Austrian concepts of EROEI, energy return on energy invested and the
Law of Receding Horizons”.
What is the energy gain for the energy invested into extracting the energy (energy economics rather than dollar economics) ? Society gets to operate off the profit, not the gross energy produced.
And the related Law of Receding Horizons notes that the more expensive (in $) conventional energy gets, the more expensive alternatives become (because the direct and indirect cost of energy to produce the alternative increase). Thus, when prices go up, the use of alternative resources does NOTbecome economically feasible !
Ethanol derived from corn has an EROEI of 1.3, Tar Sands about 4, Today’s US Oil about 10 and steadily declining, Past Oil 100. Oil shale perhaps 3. Nuclear reactors are a matter of some dispute, but 40 is close, and wind turbines about 40 as well.
UK coal production peaked in 1913 when 1/7th of the coal mined was used to mine coal. An EROEI of 7.
Speculation is that modern society and civilization cannot operate on EREOI of 4 or 5, and that major disruptions occur as EROEI declines. EROEI also predicts that oil shale and corn based ethanol will never be economic unless one form of energy is significantly cheaper (say natural gas) than another (say gasoline). And in an energy constrained world, different sources of energy will tend towards equilibrium.
There is a definite observed (if poorly measured) trend towards lower EROEI over time.
There is a good argument, IMO, to use resources in today’s higher EROEI world (lower than last year) to create long lived infrastructure that will save or produce energy in tomorrow’s world. Thus Germany will derive future benefits from not issuing building permits unless new homes have R-49 wall insulation, etc.
I personally think that an Austrian school, leave it to (inefficient) markets approach will result in GDP at a small % of today’s GDP and major social and economic disruptions. The reasons for market inefficiency are a matter of debate within the Peak Oil community but it is generally conceded that the markets are inefficient.
My annual stock market returns of 20% to 30% (compounded) for the last 5 years are partial evidence of market inefficiency.
Best Hopes,
Alan
EROIE is one of those seemingly self-evident statements which nonetheless obscures its irrelevance to matters of economics.
=================================================
For example, if I decide I like the taste of hand-massaged Japanese beef beyond all other foods, it matters not a whit that the calorific content of what I ingest is a small fraction of that which went into its production. Indeed, it was entirely my choice not to graze the lawn outside my house instead, a choice made because of the greater satisfaction I expected to derive from the finished product and as long as I can afford it, bully for me!
=================================================
Now, given that some estimates have it that the incident radiation flux from the sun equals, in a matter of a few short weeks, the current (definitionally incomplete) estimate of known mineral energy resources we are some way from approaching any absolute frontier of physical availability and hence we can be just as physically inefficient as it pays us to be in making such conversions.
=================================================
Where we are, of course, is that it is currently many times more convenient – and hence it entails much lower costs – to use those minerals now, while they are still cheap and readily available. To rig the market and/or to infringe personal choice in the name of some new ‘Manhattan’ project in favour of installing vast acres of materially wasteful, unsightly and risibly inefficient windmills, or by dictating that consumers take long-term capital spending decisions (through, e.g., ‘higher’ building standards) they would not otherwise countenance is to assume that bureaucrats, politicians, and tax-eaters in general are intrinsically more able to make wiser, more far-sighted decisions about our individual welfare than we can ourselves – the verdict of history is not exactly favourable to such a view point.
=================================================
Moreover, as even many Germans in the 1930s realized, insisting on unnecessarily inferior ‘ersatz’ production methods imposed genuine welfare costs on society little justified by their putative long-term benefits (hence my reference to Mein Kampf which was not, therefore, an easy sign of a losing argument – as some energy catastrophist blogger snidely remarked elsewhere – but the drawing of a genuine parallel with much of what lies at the core of today’s Green politics, ‘low food miles’, energy ‘independence’, et al)
=================================================
As with all such state-led picking of ‘winners’, ‘national champions’ or ‘technologies of tomorrow’, the door is not only opened up to much covert banditry at the expense of the tax payer, the consumer, and the honest entrepreneur (which just about covers all of us not earning a crust from Leviathan), but the opportunity costs of all these broken windows are always left unnoticed.
=================================================
Why dictate that individuals surrender their welfare in order to lock into inferior technology today, instead of allowing each of them to make what they feel is the best possible use of what is available now (as guided best, of course, by free market price signals and as supplied most effectively by the entrepreneurial decision making to which these give rise)? That way, the surplus available for investment in new solutions will also be maximised and the detrimental effects of any physical constraint (should these ever, in fact, arise) will be greatly reduced.
=================================================
To employ a little Crusoe economics, it makes no sense to give up eating the shrinking harvest of berries on the nearby bush because the realisation suddenly dawns that they will one day run out and instead to start scrabbling around inefficiently trying to dig up hard-to-find wild roots from far up the hillside, on the basis that this is ultimately more ‘sustainable’. Far better to meet one’s daily nutritional needs in the shortest order by eating the berries while they last and by then using the time saved and the ability to work left over by collecting seeds and preparing the soil for one’s own vegetable garden and fruit orchard (i.e. by maximising short term returns and investing the savings in the capital with which one expects to ensure and hopefully to increase future income)
=================================================
And yes, when we try to tap some novel source of energy, the associated inputs may also go up in both intensity and price. Funnily enough, the first is usually a concomitant of a deepening capital structure, while the second applies to all economic goods which are, sui generis, ‘scarce’. Having one’s cake and eating it only plays a role in political, not economic, theory which is why savings are crucial to advance: that requisite pool of savings is not likely to be deepened by the forced impoverishment which the Gaians would call down upon us all.
=================================================
Such problems of allocation and choice would, of course, be solved in the least time and at the lowest cost by the action of the unhampered market. The fact that they are not, should not lead us to the market cannot work – or that it is ‘inefficient’ (your stocks went up largely due to that other non-market evil of inflation, by the way) – rather that it is not being allowed to do so.
=================================================
That is a failure which we can attribute to the same, sorry litany of political interventionism and intolerant Utopianism which so pervades the thinking of Peak Oilers, AGW zealots, and that global Platonic elite which insists all we little people give up our cheap flights, compost our own manure, and restrict the numbers of our offspring, so they can continue to enjoy their luxurious and ill-deserved lifestyles unimpeded on a world reduced to a planetary theme park for their exclusive pleasure.
===============================================
Accordingly, the attempt – often explicity endorsed by such organisations as ASPO – to solve a problem of market interruption and the violation of property rights through a programme which is composed of further such outrages seems a little – shall we say, perverse?
=================================================
PS Did UK coal output begin to fall because a certain EROIE threshold was crossed or because the use of oil became much more efficient (or because the British state – in the form of Churchill – favoured using that oil for the Royal Navy out of an exactly analogous false Malthusianism) even as labour costs were being artificially boosted by rising trade unionism and capital was being destroyed on a vast scale by war and inflation? Ironically, there are currently moves afoot to reopen some of those fine Welsh coal seams – assuming, of course that the Ultraviridians don’t prevent it because of their irrational and unscientific fear of CO2 at the same time that they bleat that we are facing an incipient energy crisis.
Alan: “Peak Oil is about rates of production declining.”
What determines the rates of production? Investment and technology. Are you telling me that no one will invest in new production in the future and that no technological improvements will ever occur again?
Current high prices are a result of the lack of investment in the oil industry during the ’90′s, which was caused by low prices. High prices spur investment in new drilling and technology, which increases production. For example, new laser drill bits will increase the productivity of drilling dramatically because drillers won’t have to pull miles of pipe out of the hole to replace mechanical drill bits.
“by maximising short term returns and investing the savings in the capital with which one expects to ensure and hopefully to increase future income)”
Have you any evidence, Mr. Corrigan, to suggest that this is what the industry is actually doing, or any explanation for why they appear rather to be doing precisely the opposite?
Far from investing the savings, the supermajors are returning it to the shareholders for lack of anywhere suitable to invest. They are merging and downsizing their workforces because they can’t keep them gainfuly employed. They are shutting down their R&D facilities. They are failing to invest in new refining capacity, even though demand growth projections indicate that new capacity will be necessary within the investment cycle.
Why, if your theory is correct, are major oil company CEOs coming forward to confirm the reality of a peak in conventional oil supply in the near future? Why is the industry giving every signal consistent with being in long term liquidation? If industry is the agent of the change you believe them capable of, how long do you suppose it can continue to function with compounded annual reserve replacement factors now of below 60%?
Sorry, but I suggest you check your facts and pay less attention to the doomsters.
=================================================In truth, industry investment IS rising even if – yes – money is being returned to shareholders at the same time (check out quarterly reports to that end). If there were no investment and no expansion, how would we explain the strong performance of oil service stocks, rising rig counts and rig rates, rising engineer salaries, etc etc?
=================================================
Granted, costs have risen so sharply that the effectiveness of much of this has been less than spectacular, but R&D and E&P budgets have risen substantially in recent years.
=================================================
Refinery capacity is also on the up – so much so that there are fears in some quarters that we may soon face a glut. Most of this investment, yes, is taking outside the US (perhaps that’s why you seem to have missed it) as crude producers wish to ‘add value’ by adding to their downstream facilities and as those countries not hog-tied by Western enviroluddites are seeking a piece of the pie.
=================================================
Yes, CEO’s at the IOCs are facing problems replacing reserves, but that’s because they have been frozen out of c.90% of known deposits and are having to be content with earning money from expertise and processing/distribution, not ownership. Extrapolating from this political truth to assume that nothing is being added to national oil company reserves is highly questionable at best.
=================================================
Nonetheless, it is hardly supportable to say that the oil majors are “giving signals consistent with long term liquidation”, whatever they might be. For example, XOM’s stock is up 150% absolute and 70% relative in the past four years, in which time shareholders’ equity has risen 40% and ROC has expanded from c.23% to 33% – some decline!
What determines the rates of production ?
The primary determinate is geology. A comparision between the northern and southern halves of the world’s largest reservoir, Ghawar can illustrate.
North Ghawar is medium quality oil with near ideal rock formation (high permeability). It has produced as much as 6 million b/day (from memory) in the past.
South Ghawar is thicker, lower quality oil in tighter rocks. It is doubtful if it will ever produce more than 1 million b/day, although it can be expected to produce this oil for a very long time.
The total volume of oil in the two halves is roughly comparable. The ultimate recovery % will be lower in the south.
The secondary determinant is the strategy of development. The major oil companies (before KSA bought them out) wanted to inject water throughout the field and the Kingdom vetoed this because it would increase production rates at the expense of a lower % of oil recovered. Instead, Aramco has water flooded the periphery of the oil/water boundary and gradually drained North Ghawar, maximizing the total oil recovered at a lower production rate (6 rather than, say, 10 million b/day max). An “efficient market” would have drained N. Ghawar before now and oil prices would be $150 rather than $80 today (my estimate on price elasticity of demand with Aramco production 1/3rd of today).
Are you telling me that no one will invest in new production in the future
As with Texas in 1973+, massive investments will be made in seeking oil, but relatively little will be found. Larger reservoirs are simply easier to find and are found first.
Texas saw +1000% prices, producing wells up +14% and production down -26% in a decade (1972 3.4 million b/day, 1982 2.5 million b/day, 2007 1.06 million b/day) $150/barrel will NOT bring forth significant new supplies from Texas, or any other mature oil producing province. And almost every significant oil producing province is mature.
Investment and price elasticity of supply of oil are largely irrelevant, except on the margins for a few %. Besides, investment on large scale oil projects takes about a decade from $ in to oil out. Higher investment will mean very little new oil on the market (see Texas after 1972 peak).
The last two super-giant oil fields discovered in the world were both in Kazakhstan, in 1988 & 2000. The 2000 discovery (1 million b/day) MIGHT see production in 2011. Outside this one corner of the former Soviet Union, no super-giant fields have been discovered in over 20 years. We get about 60% of oil production from super-giants.
and that no technological improvements will ever occur again ?
No significant new technology will see widespread implementation in the next ten years. Prior experience with other oil field innovations supports that view.
As for laser drill bits, even if they work (VERY unlikely) the energy requirements will be enormous to vaporise rock. Despite much lower EROEI, there is also the issue of getting energy to the drilling site.
Cheaper wells are NOT a solution if there are only small pockets of oil left. And well drilling technology has already improved with little effect other than opening up ultra deep drilling. And all world-wide ultra-deep drilling combined is unlikely to ever equal Ghawar alone.
Better seismic has increased the wildcat success rate (some oil found, even if not commercial) from 1 in 6 or 8 to 13 in 14. Limited room for additional improvement. And better seismic also increases the confidence that not only are no super-giants left, but also no giants and few medium size fields. Just lots of small fields that were overlooked before. Jeffrey Brown (author of the linked editorial) is now completing a 1,000 barrel/day field in Texas that will add significantly to his wealth but not to Texas production.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Alan Drake,
You keep missing the point. However, I will credit you with finally owning up to the statist intentions of a lot of peak-oil alarmists, thus proving Corrigan’s actual point.
As for EROEI, I doubt there is a single Austrian economist that is unaware of its significance to energy production. However, it is pretty irrelevant to the economic solution to the problems caused by the depletion of finite stores of fossil fuels. As oil and gas are depleted, the prices will rise, and at some point alternatives such as nuclear, wind, solar, or something else still unforeseen will become economically viable as a source of marketable energy. It does not matter that these alternatives, today, have lower EROEIs than the energy sources they are replacing, it only matters that they exist. Price signals will determine which are developed, used, and in what proportions, and the market price signals will do this in the most efficient way possible because it includes all the necessary information for making the requisite decisions. For example, you mentioned a level of insulation as a state mandate that would be more efficient than what the free market would decide. However, you completely overlook today’s costs of the mandate, and how those extra costs in the present subtract from future value. In other words, you neglect to include them in your cost/benefit calculation- the same mistake all statists make. The free-market price system does not overlook these costs- they are already included by the fact that some participants already purchase such insulation. If those present purchasers are correct in their cost/benefit analysis, then increasing numbers of market participants will freely purchase such insulation in the future. If those present purchasers are incorrect in their cost/benefit analysis, their actions will not be adopted by increasing numbers of free-market participants.
The same logic applies to your claimed success at stock trading. If, in fact, you are truly ahead of the market curve (you have correctly anticipated a future price signal), others will notice and adopt your strategies, and your return on your strategy will decline. To stay ahead, you will have to find another successful strategy. The fact that you were successful the last five years does not even partially prove that markets are less efficient than you as a whole, just that you were more efficient at a particular point in time. In time, you may prove that you are better able to predict future price signals than the market over the course of your life, but that still does not support the case for using state coercion to force everyone to adopt your decisions today since we would need to be omnicient to know that you were correct. And if you were wrong, then the harm to the whole would be magnified, and since state decisions often don’t get overturned by market realities, it may be an everlasting harm.
Oh, well, I see I should have read the thread just a little longer before replying. Corrigan had already written my reply.
Rich,
Even if I grant to you all that you assert, the obvious reply is, “So what?”
How do you know that returning increasing income to the shareholders is not the best path available to oil companies? If you think what they are doing is wrong-headed, then you and others like Alan Drake can take advantage of this by putting your own capital at risk.
Or are you more like Alan, wanting to coerce others to put their capital at risk based on your opinions of what is best?
You cling to the fallacy of an efficient market with respect to oil/energy, which is demonstrably false.
First, to use the Crusoe analogy, the optimum choice is to consume a fraction of the diet from the easy to get berries & nuts (perhaps drying some) and get part of the diet from harder to get sources. So that 1) the effort required to keep from starving never exceeds the calories available and 2) when sick or some other shock (broken leg) occurs, the easy to get resource is available to prevent starvation and not entirely depleted. I think Aesop had something to say about grasshoppers and ants in that regard.
Second, rational trust fund recipients generally prefer level payouts (with perhaps higher levels during child raising years and old age) because of the marginal utility of money. Money to provide basic needs has significantly higher value/utility than money for simple luxuries, which has higher utility than money for conspicuous consumption.
However, Net Present Value calculations would call for all the trust money NOW !
I truly expect to see the US GDP shrink by half or more, with associated social distress and economic dislocation, as available oil shrinks significantly and no “good†substitute appears. One can argue that maximizing GDP today at the cost of minimizing it tomorrow gives one maximum NPV (it may well do so), I would argue that most Americans would prefer a more stable economic environment.
Third, those statist, uber-liberal Swiss voted in 1998 to spend 31 billion CHf over twenty years to improve their already excellent rail system. There were several goals, but the primary one was to shift freight off heavy trucks and onto their hydroelectric railroads. Adjust for currency and population and this is comparable to the USA voting $1 trillion for a similar purpose. Many 1998 voters would get little or no benefit for this investment (dying beforehand) but, IMO, a hallmark of a successful society is making prudent, long term investments even if the NPV is low.
Fourth, the free market solution for developing North Ghawar, proposed by the IOCs, would have maximized production in the 1960s to 1980s at 10 million b/day and resulted (one estimate) in 20% less oil in toto being produced and essentially no oil today in today’s high price environment. The Kingdom chose a slower rate (max 6 million b/day and more oil in toto). In retrospective, the NPV chosen by the Kingdom is higher than that of the IOCs, and the social benefit is dramatically higher.
Fifth, the UK and Norway developed North Sea reserves side by side. UK was strictly market forces & develop AFAP by the IOCs (and spend the royalty money as fast as possible). The Kingdom of Norway withheld several smaller, then marginal reservoirs, for development later and enforced some production limitations to maximize total production. UK Peaked in a period of low oil prices and it now a net oil importer. The Norwegian production peaked later and they got much higher NPV for each barrel of oil originally in place (I daresay 50+% better). And Norway is saving & investing their oil royalties.
Sixth, adding high levels of insulation in new construction is about 1/10th to 3% of the price of retrofitting it later. Insulation reduces energy consumption passively, and the market does not price all of the externalities of energy into the marginal price paid by the user. The Iraq War comes to mind. In Germany, it is political fear of excessive energy dependence upon Russia as well concerns over Global Warming. Although the building owner benefits from improved insulation, the benefits may not be a positive NPV (that will depend upon future energy prices & interest rates). However, it could be considered a tax on the builder for 1) benefits to future generations 2) a national defense tax and 3) environmental benefits.
Best Hopes and Likely My Last Post,
Alan
Yes, Cro-Magnon man truly was a wealthy SOB without a care in the world, what with those plentiful resources and all that wonderful unused oil. Oh, but today we’re hounded by that terrible beast of the modern age – scarcity. What can save us from scarcity? What science can possibly inform us of how we can continue live without ration cards when it is ever more apparent that roasted chickens do not fly into our mouths and the seas aren’t filled with lemonade? A curse on the person that paved the road to our impoverishment by using the first drop of petro.
Alan,
You cling to the fallacy that you can always make better predictions of future value than the market as a whole. This is the thing that is blinding you. We don’t know that the Swiss have made the correct investment at the correct time- you again completely discount what is not, and now won’t be seen. The same thing applies to Norway and Great Britain- we still don’t know who made the better decision in the long run, or even now, because you once again only focus on one side of the investment equation.
We have gone 41 comments deep, and I have to acknowledge that the most correct and succinct comment was the very first one by Mathieu Bedard.
Alan: “Outside this one corner of the former Soviet Union, no super-giant fields have been discovered in over 20 years. We get about 60% of oil production from super-giants.”
So you’re saying that we will discover no new significant oil fields in the future at all; we have discovered all of the oil that the planet has? And you’re saying that no new technology is on the horizon that will reduce costs of searching and drilling for oil? I assume, then, that you would be purchasing future contracts in oil in the hope of making a killing?
So you’re saying that we will discover no new significant oil fields in the future at all
Zero, one or two supergiant fields left to be discovered. Low probability of three. From memory, a 5% chance that ANWR is a supergiant (better than 50% of being a giant oil field). The Arctic is expected to trend gas more than oil and likely contains several supergiant gas fields with some associated oil, but the ratio may surprise. The South China Sea (if territorial claims can be settled) is the best single chance left on this planet. Yellow Sea probably has at least one giant, but no supergiant, oil field. Likewise offshore Africa, Brazil and GoM.
With modern seismic techniques it is almost impossible to hide a supergiant oil field.
we have discovered all of the oil that the planet has?
Some giant and medium size oil fields left here and there (China found one recently in the Yellow Sea that was giant at first estimate, revised down later) and LOTS of small puddles.
Global production at 1,000 barrels/second (about 600 barrel/sec from supergiants) takes a LOT of big reservoirs and giants cannot replace depleting supergiants.
And you’re saying that no new technology is on the horizon that will reduce costs of searching and drilling for oil ?
Yes. Never say “never”, but not on the horizon.
I assume, then, that you would be purchasing future contracts in oil in the hope of making a killing ?
I have invested in oil & gas companies with good reserves and no refineries & pipelines, as well as railroads over two years before Warren Buffett did. Small shorts on airlines, mortgage companies and casual dining/fast food. Safety portion in hydroelectric producers and foreign denominated bonds.
Could not resist,
Alan
Alan Drake: ‘Another speaker is Jeffrey Brown (who I collaborate with), who is now completing a new 1,000 barrel/day field in Texas. His mantra is “Economize, Localize, Produce” as a personal strategy for a post-Peak Oil world. I am sure that Ludwig Mises would violently oppose such personal lifestyle choices !’
You must be joking.
“I personally think that an Austrian school, leave it to (inefficient) markets approach will result in GDP at a small % of today’s GDP and major social and economic disruptions.”
The Austrian School is actually opposed to inefficient markets, that is to say opposed to the claim of “market economy” by what is actually an interventionist economy. You are correct, Alan, that what you perceive as the market (but what is actually coercive intervention) is inefficient. P.S. GDP=LOL
“You cling to the fallacy of an efficient market with respect to oil/energy, which is demonstrably false.
First, to use the Crusoe analogy, the optimum choice is to…”
Wrong wrong wrong. There is no objective optimum choice, Alan. Value is subjective. Perhaps I would rather live like a king today and die tomorrow. You would probably say that such a choice would be error, but you would be wrong again.
“Many 1998 voters would get little or no benefit for this investment (dying beforehand) but, IMO, a hallmark of a successful society is making prudent, long term investments even if the NPV is low.”
Stealing from the elderly, Alan? Shame on you. Where’s your mother?
I think Alan is going to make a lot of money, despite the fact that he has the whole story wrong. Uncle Sam and the FED will make sure that his investment’s rise.
“The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones, neither will the oil age…”
Richard makes a comment early on I would like to address.
“If Mr Corrigan disagrees, he might like to research the story of Lysenko in the Soviet Union – an excellent example of what happens when a culture chooses dogma over solid peer-reviewed evidence.”
He uses this precisely backwards. It is an excellent example of what “peer review” actually delivers…vetting via groupthink instead of empirical testing, the actual gold standard of scientific method. Peers afraid to come to any conclusion other than that held by the party all agreed Lysenko’s take on reality was correct, and since they had a consensus…concluded they were correct.
This didn’t make a round earth flat, however…and in the real world, millions starved to death while Lysenko tried to teach wheat to grow where it would not, according to proper marxist theory instead of the bourgeous genetics of the capitalists.
HCGW is the province of dogma when it is claimed to be a ‘truth’, and doubly so when ‘consensus’ is invoked as proof or evidence in itself. The history of science is absolutely littered with shattered consensus views, and this one is being used to back a program extending the power of govt over billions of people’s live, resources, lives and actions….all based on a theory for which no control case empirical testing is even possible.
When anyone tells you the earth is 0.8C warmer (or whatever) than it ‘should be’ absent man, ask them to provide the location for the empirical measurement of the baseline unforced temperature. The fact of the matter is it has been at least a century since any empirical baseline measurement could have been taken if their theories are correct, and the farther on in time we go, the more divergent any current claim is from being empirically tested.
Secondly, even if the theory had the possibility of empirical testability, it carries no social imperative or moral basis. Science merely tells us what is and in some cases what will be.
It cannot tell us what is good or desirable. These are all value judgements. This subject has been hijacked from science and straight into politics for those who wish to use it as a lever. This is proven by the fact that shortly after you are told this idea is ‘fact’ or has ‘consensus’…you will be told this means increased collectivism is what must be done, as if science tells us this. It tells us no such thing.
In reading alan’s comments I am continually struck by his continual use of value judgements, resting on his values, to define what is ‘rational’. Now, I can agree that given a particular personal choice some decisions may be ‘rational’ when analyzed using a particular logical chain, but the problem is that Alan seems impervious to the idea that other people have goals and values he may neither comprehend or even know of. When claiming it’s ‘rational’ to invest in any one way, he’s ignoring that he must first know the goals of the people he’s judging, and why they value these goals, and the tradeoffs they have decided to make.
In this light we can see the comments on the ordering of markets, resource utilization, and personal choices are all colored by assertions based on people he doesn’t know making decisions based on values he cannot know.
He is inadvertantly demonstrating why markets are superior the mandates he suggests…the market’s divergence from his choices show that it’s participants are making choices they value for reasons he doesn’t and can’t know. Precisely why markets respect rights, when properly formulated and defended.
Alan – in case if you did not know, free market is weakly Pareto-optimal at any given moment of time if the utility functions are defined as, ahem, personal utility functions of all participants. And because it is also an evolutionary optimization machine (owing to the fact that people tend to imitate success) it also always converges on strong Pareto-optimality, given steady environment.
The proof of weak optimality is trivial, and basically follows from the definition of personal utility function.
It follows that any regulaton (which either enforces non-efficient transactions or prohibits efficient transactions) cannot make market “more efficient”. It is impossible, period.
Where your EROEI argument is wrong is that it assumes that energy matters. In fact, it does not (you should have noticed the remark about negative entropy). The Earth suface receives and dissipates roughly the same amounts of energy (or it’d be heating or cooling). I find it amusing that quite a lot of people pontificating about “energy policy” do not bother to think about ramifications of the energy/mass conservation law which they sure must’ve have heard about in the middle school.
What matters is the efficiency of conversion of high-energy photons coming from a little spot in the sky into low-energy photons going to all different dark places in the sky, as defined by the increase in the entropy of these photons.
The fossil fuel usage is a very inefficient mechanism of conversion of solar photons. It is several orders of magnitude worse than simple things like Stirling engines – and is economical only because it is, essentially, a form of spending the bound negentropy which accumulated over millions of years through the hugely wasteful solar->plankton biomass->geo-liqueification process (if we discount the abiogenic theory of oil formation).
Now, listen carefully, the efficiency has both fundamental (efficiency of Carnot cycle) and technological limits. We are so far from hitting the fundamental limits, that it is not going to be a problem until we run out of raw materials in the Solar system. The technological limits are, essentially, is what we didn’t figure out how to do – yet. And if there’s a sure way to kill innovation, it is to start regulating it.
Which is what all your proposals are about. Stretching life on borrowed time instead of doing business using the inherited capital. How very smart.
(BTW, I’ve got better ROI just by living in my house in Silicon Valley… which proves – what? Exactly, nothing.)
I’ll agree that this article was obviously politically slanted, and probably has no place on an economics blog. Whether or not peak oil or global warming exist has absolutely nothing to do with economics of any sort, and no economist could claim that we are running out of oil too quickly because we have a free market in it (and we don’t, not even close).
In any case, I’d like to point out a gross error in the quoted text. Social interactions, which make people happy, are not “politics”. Politics is a means of controlling the power of the state. Since the state is a near-monopoly on the use of legitimate force over a given territory (Weber, 1919), politics is the means to acquire legitimized force. That is very, very different from social interactions, and I believe it is dangerous to associate politics with voluntary society.
The “economists” who frequent this site seem very unwilling to stand back and look at the big picture of how the global economy works.
Ever since the start of the industrial revolution the world has extracted and consumed more coal, oil and gas each year. It is easy to make a case that “economics” is really no more than the study of how this vast store of free energy is distributed to a grateful populace. When we talk about the “work” that we do in our offices and factories we are really talking about our small part in distributing and consuming this store.
Clearly, at some point in time, this situation will end. Coal, oil and gas are finite and in time we will find ourselves progressively consuming less each year. Even the most devout believer in markets might stop and wonder whether our fragile global economic system can deal with this. It is a profound leap of faith, for example, to assume that renewables can act as substitute (for all uses of fossil fuels, not just energy).
World population has grown ten-fold since the start of the ind. rev. The resources might be going away but this massive population won’t (at least, not voluntarily). Again, this should be real food for thought.
“World population has grown ten-fold since the start of the ind. rev. The resources might be going away but this massive population won’t (at least, not voluntarily). Again, this should be real food for thought.”
The reference to Malthus in the title responds to this.
Yes, but any clarity of thought in the article and comments is subsumed by a torrent of labels such as “Carbohypocrites” and “knuckleheads”.
I don’t really buy in to Campbell (of ASPO) style “peak oil is the end of economics”, because while coal and unconventional oil are around there will be many ways to make liquid fuels.
But at some point (this century?) the world is going to have to face up to year-on-year declines in ALL fossil fuels, coupled with growing environmental problems and a population of maybe 10 billion. Its going to be interesting, to say the least.
Hopes that Adam Smith will come to the rescue seem far fetched. He didn’t even see the 2007 credit crunch coming.
Yancey Ward: Even if I grant to you all that you assert, the obvious reply is, “So what?”
“So What?” is a great question to ask. Even if I grant you that the market is capable – given sufficient time – of restoring the prospect of an uninterrupted, monotonically increasing energy supply – so what?
The challenge facing the crew of Apollo 13 was not to restore the air supply – it was to restore the air supply before the interruption of the air supply prevented them from restoring the air supply.
The challenge facing the market is not to restore the energy supply – it is to restore the energy supply before the interruption of the energy supply prevents the market from restoring the energy supply.
Failure to secure energy supplies in time, and failure to secure energy supplies at all, are indistinguishable. So the question economists must address is whether markets can secure energy supplies in time. The indicators are not reassuring.
According to a report commissioned and endorsed by the U.S. Government[1], the consequence of even a short term interruption of the global oil supply will be catastrophic failure of, amongst other things, the market. According to the CEO of Statoil[2], interruptions to the conventional oil supply will start in about 4 years. According to the President of Exxon[3], to prvent this a volume equivalent to 80% of today’s production will have to be mobilised in the next 8 years just to maintain supply.
Irrespective of debatable remaining resource volumes, there is no technology or market scenario of which we can conceive today that is capable of mobilising production of that magnitude in a 4-8 year time scale. In the event that one fails to emerge in the next 4-8 years, the market itself will become at best significantly impaired, further reducing its capability to deliver one.
Technology or scenarios of which we can not conceive are indistinguishable from magic. So economic theory, as it applies to the real challenge that faces us, is indistinguishable from magic.
That is not a secure platform from which to launch so complacent an argument as “So what?”.
[1] Robert Hirsch, Peaking of world oil production: Impacts, mitigation & risk, 2005
[2] Helge Lund, Chief Executive Statoil, DNtv, Jul 30, 2007
[3] Jon Thompson, President ExxonMobil oil company, The Lamp(1) 2003
“I’ll agree that this article was obviously politically slanted, and probably has no place on an economics blog. Whether or not peak oil or global warming exist has absolutely nothing to do with economics of any sort, and no economist could claim that we are running out of oil too quickly because we have a free market in it (and we don’t, not even close).”
The blog is not just an economics blog – it addresses political theory as well.
A weird assumption I see here is that we already have free markets in energy; we don’t! Saying the market has failed/succeeded is pointless unless economists can demonstrate if it has or hasn’t, and if so, why it has (thus study the effect of institutions on the market.)
< >
Markets are relatively free. Not perfect, but not bad. Bush’s objective in attacking Iraq was seen by many as an attempt to drag Iraq’s oil on to the global market – because Saddam was not taking any notice of market demand. The objective may well be attained in due course when things settle down. In the meantime the world’s 3rd largest stash of oil is somfortably stashed away underground waiting to be pumped.
To me all of this is missing the point. The world has never experienced an ongoing year-on-year never-ending decline in fossil fuels which is inevitable at some point in the not too distant future. Economic theory assumes that the market will always find substitutes, so what happens if there are none for substances which are simultaneously (a) our primary energy sources and (b) feedstock for almost everything else we make, most notably food?
Holy crap I just went down to the local store and they’re all out of whale oil and they said they’re won’t be anymore coming in. Said it’s much to expensive and scarce to meet our current energy needs with. How in the heck am I gonna light me house???. Oh wait, nevermind….Yawn, wake me up when something important happens.
Rich,
It is not a complacent attitude on my part. I know government cannot save us from the the depletion of fossil fuels- it can only prevent us from using the remaining fuels in the most efficient way. If free-acting people can’t solve the problems, then they can’t be solved.
“Even the most devout believer in markets might stop and wonder whether our fragile global economic system can deal with this. ”
Why? We do not believe markets are ‘fragile’…to the degree that they are free with respect to the excercise of the participants negative rights.
The more regulated they are in ways that are not consistent with negative rights, the more fragile they become. After all, each regulation is at best crafted with a set of initial conditions and some goal and seeks to impose some external set of value judgements and strictures on what is ‘best’ for the market.
At the same time necessarily violating the negative rights of the participants in order to gain the necessary control over said market and it’s operation. this is not only a prescription for failing to allow each participant to regulate their own interactions to their own liking for their own reasons, it is also is a prescription for top down, ‘one best way’ solutions. State imposed stasis serving a limited number of outcomes as forseen, and most often not, by a limited number of planners and *their* values judgements.
A market regulated to defend negative rights is quite the opposite of fragile…it is responsive, fast, incredibly fine grained for each of innumerable choices and values, and adaptable to every single person’s control over their chocies.
A true free market isn’t fragile because unlike a statist one, it is *alive* and infinitely adaptive with the power of untold numbers of people all cooperating openly for their own reasons. It has so many people operating in parallel, essentially everyone, that no group of planners or professors can ever hope to outdo the innovation of everyone doing their own thing for their own reasons.
When I see the power of markets called fragile I have to smile because markets are the ultimate in economic adaptability…when they are not chained in stasis by regulation. Look at the complaints pouring forth continually from leftist corners around the world that markets create ‘too much’ variety, have ‘too many’ niches that are ‘wasteful’, and create ‘too much’ wealth, while decrying the fact that govt’s are offtimes powerless to keep up with regulation because of market innovation.
“Fragile” markets indeed. To keep them from being fragile, stop chaining them to the floor.
mtngoat – The problem with the “free markets will solve anything” concept is at the macro level. Global resources are finite and suffer from the “tragedy of the commons” – in simple terms over-exploitation. The reason is that the marginal utility to the individual of (for example) emitting CO2 into the atmosphere or burning that irreplaceable barrel of oil will always vastly exceed the cost to that same individual of this single action.
Economics conveniently “externalises” such costs. Pumping waste CO2 into the atmosphere or depleting global fish stocks does not appear in the micro-economic equation, despite the massive costs we might be incurring at a macro level.
Free market economics would be the perfect model if the world was infinite. As we don’t seem about to colonise the univerese any time soon we need mechanisms to build these externalities into our day to day micro-economic decisions. That means (sadly) more regulation. To really get on top of climate change it may mean world government AND heavy handed regulation, however much you and I might dislike the idea.
On the other hand I really don’t see this happening. It is much more likely that we will consume all available resources, wreck the climate and enter the usual “die-off” phase reserved for species that get out of hand. One great example from nature is the fate of the deer introduced to St Matthew’s Island, where over 6000 deer was reduced to about 40 in a single season when their food supply ran out.
http://dieoff.com/page80.htm
Easter Island is an example of a civilisation collapsing when one critical resource becomes unavailable. Historians debate the details (did the humans cut down all the trees, or was it the rats that lived off their waste?), but the net result was a population crash around 1770 and a collapse into chaos and canabilism.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2007/april/easter.php
http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
My fear is that our complex, tightly interconected and interdependant world has become, in effect, an island. We all float or sink as one. Our civilisation risks collapse like Easter Island when critical resources dry up. Such a collapse would be on a massive and unprecedented scale.
Robert T,
You have it precisely backwards–a system of property rights and free exchange is the only tenable system for a finite world. Government regulations cannot solve the problem of the commons: governments ARE commons. Hence asking them to make sure that the long term costs of micro level decisions are minimised is absurd: the Kyoto protocol, for instance, if implemented in full would only put off the anticipated effects of global warming by four years.
The fallacy in your argument is assuming that private actors are necessarily short-sighted. But there are many private institutions with long-term interests. Most important among these is insurance companies, which have already altered their policies to take the anticipated effects of global warming into account. If enough areas of the earth are liberalized, insurance companies and other long-term institutions would doubtlessly penalize bad micro level practices with increased costs.
Furthermore, as the price of fossil fuels go up, which they surely will as reserves are depleted, the incentive for new technologies to fill the void will further increase. Solar technology is moving forward in leaps and bounds; nuclear power already generates a quarter of the US’s powewr with only 100 plants; and let’s not forget the prospect of fusion power, along with other improved means of accessing renewable sources of energy.
Also:
1) Your example of depleted fish stocks is a perfect example of the need for property rights in natural resources. The seas are currently a commons: in order to be managed properly, fishing rights need to go to homesteaders. For an excellent example of why, you should go to
http://www.freedomain.blogspot.com
and look up “cod” and “Newfoundland”. There you will find the story of how the Canadian government, through its environmental controls, managed to destroy the cod stocks off of the coast of Newfoundland.
Another example is private vs. government owned forests. The former are thriving throughout the world; the latter, such as in the Amazon, are being depleted at a massive rate.
2) Your deer example isn’t relevant to discussions of humans. Deer don’t exercise property rights or engage in exchange. Moreover they cannot understand complicated things like scarce resources or a die-off.
Humans are far more elastic than the small fossil-fuel box you put them into would suggest.
Robert T,
I find the Easter Island analogy to be a poor one. For one, we don’t know whether they exercised property rights in wood. Given their mystical culture and their use of wood in building their monuments, they probably didn’t. Second, Easter Island is extremely small and cut off from trade. History has shown that societies in which markets and trade were relatively free have been able to trade their way out of ecological shocks and have taken much better care of their environments and natural resources. It’s true that a great deal of the world does not have free markets, but there is quite enough freedom left in the world to produce tremendous technological innovations, particularly in solar power.
And to reiterate, your proposed solution to the problem of the Macro commons is inadequate, because governments themselves are commons.
Yancy Ward: If free-acting people can’t solve the problems, then they can’t be solved
My argument is that the problem of maintaining an uninterrupted, monotonically increasing energy supply (a precondition of capitalism) is insoluble. It is not necessary for me to contend with you over which agency finds it the most insoluble!
Ouch! Maybe Yancey Ward has hit a nail on the head. If there’s an obvious replacement to oil just around the corner then someone would have discovered it. So far there doesn’t seem to be any serious replacements for oil (maybe uranium?). Some places may be good for solar panels or wind mills but most aren’t. But it has been pointed out that in 200 years we’ll have definitively run of oil one way or another. So it is interesting if some new technology can’t come online in the not-too-distant future, then perhaps it’s time we all started reading books on what people in the Middle Ages did to put food on the table.
Ahhh – Easter island! I wondered when we would use Jared Diamond’s historically unreliable and logically unsupportable Just-So story to back up both our pessimism and our statism!==================================================
Firstly, even under his dubious telling wasn’t this a problem of a society in thrall to its leaders and visionaries, not one where individual choice was freely exercised? Score one for us!==================================================
Secondly, the ‘footprint’ of us humans is much smaller in relation to our environment and our combined, 6 1/2 billion-strong brain power and untapped entrepreneurialism is much greater than those of the tribesman marooned on their little pelagic rock. A caculation of the kind done by Lomborg, for example, shows that a Manhattan density city of c.600kms a side (say the size of New Zealand) could comfortably house ALL of humanity and another land area packed with even today’s inefficent solar cells could provide all its power needs. That leaves an AWFUL lot of planet earth untouched and economically unexploited. ==================================================
As others have pointed out, all we get from you Saint-Simonians are blunt assertions in place of facts or reasoning. MUST we have ‘monotonically increasing’ energy supplies to enjoy capitalism? And, as a follow up, have we actually not – ahem! – achieved whatever has been necessary so far; arguing that perhaps we poor, stupid humans might just triumph again if all you defeatists don’t deliver us to Moloch first. WILL the population inevitably expand to the the point of catastrophe (in many advanced societies, a major statist concern is rather that child-bearing has been voluntary limited to such an extent that Leviathan will soon not be able to man its armies or harvest enough tax fully to enjoy its rule)? ==================================================
Finally(!), if you really do wish to persuade us that only YOU sages know how we should govern our lives, trusting to your demonstrable lack of economic nous and your necessarily incomplete understanding of the scope of scientific possibility, you might start by showing us how you WON’T simply usher in another economic, ecological, and (often) energetic nonsense like the government-mandated, corruptly vote-grubbing lunacy that is biofuel!
Robert, the problem I have with your approach is basing the analysis on a ‘finite’ world. Yes, it is finite..but people are not. People change what they desire and why all the time. We are not static nor are our wants. This line of thinking relies on the concept of absolute limits to resource usage I simply do not agree with. Substitution of many resources has occurred countless times as as we gain technological prowess, this only increases. I have severe doubts about applying malthusian methodology to a system whose actors can change their usage of any given resource at will given sufficient price incentive, in whatever form that price takes. We’re not deer or rabbits who eat all the grass and then cannot change when it’s all gone, or do not note that the price of grass increases as shortages do.
Secondly, I’d like to put forth the idea that you are applying the tragedy of the commons in what I will claim is a missapplication..yes it occurs precisely *because* there is no clear ownership….but… Making this situation more widespread by declaring everything a commons is precisely the wrong action.
Making discrete ownership more widespread places the loss in usability and increased risk squarely on the owner. The methodology we see pushed forth is to increase ‘public’ ownership, which in effect means nobody owns it, because no one has specific rights they soley own or can transfer, thus there is no specific personal risk. We see this on a large scale where fishing is ‘owned’ by multiple nations instead of one…and they all attempt to get what they can while they can. We see it on a smaller scale where one nation owns a fishing ground, where smaller entities still attempt it. There is no benefit to not taking all you can when the risk is not solely borne by a discrete player who will then suffer the losses of doing so.
One problem I have with these ideas is they all wind up backing calls for top down planning, which inherently places people in power to impose their own value decisions on others via law. Now, in cases defending negative rights I’d make the case this is consistent and warranted when such decisions involve violations of same. But in all other cases it reduces those on the receiving end to supplicants under threat by those above, and as such elementally disrespects their minds and choices, as well as engendering the creation of a true upper class, one which can command actions and back them with the sole sanction of threats.
In any event, thanks for the detailed response.
Rich comments: “My argument is that the problem of maintaining an uninterrupted, monotonically increasing energy supply (a precondition of capitalism) is insoluble.”
I appreciate the argument, but I cannot for the life of me find that precondition in any capitalist material put forth by actual capitalists, including myself and all my reading. Capitalism says nothing at all about ever increasing energy use or even commerce. Others critique capitalism on this basis, but when the basis is not a precondition held by actual adherents, I cannot see it’s validity.
It may be that these are current features of capitalism with respect to the choices made by the individuals in a market, but these choices will necessarily change should conditions regarding this change..and no capitalists I am aware of would find anything wrong with this, if it occurred in concert with observation of negative rights.
Capitalism is simply a system based on respect of negative rights and individuals self ownership. It makes no presumptions concerning perpetual growth, in fact proper theory accounts for this every time the individuals in a market deal with shortage via means of price. We do not claim this is unjust, because shortage is by it’s nature the root problem driving all economics.
To sum up, I submit that the claim that capitalism ‘requires’ or is ‘based’ on monotonic increases in trade or energy, is not actually based on a solid understanding of capitalist principles as espoused by those who hold them. We are ready and willing to deal with changes and influences and shortages and surpluses in all conditions, so long as individuals rights to value these tradeoffs is preserved, we have no problem with these changes.
“The latest edition of the Top 10 “World’s Worst Polluted Places” was released this past week. And unsurprisingly all ten are in regions of the world where property rights are either non-existent or not respected.”…”Arguably, if the land had been owned by private companies capable of suing for restitution or damages, the dumping/toxifying would probably never have occurred in the first place.”
From:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007153.asp
by Tim Swanson 16 Sept 007
while Robert T goes with: “To really get on top of climate change it may mean world government AND heavy handed regulation, however much you and I might dislike the idea.”
(?)
The heavy hand of the state needed to ‘get on top of ‘climate change? But, of course – WHY ELSE DO YOU THINK ALL THE GOVERNING ELITE ARE SO KEEN TO PEDDLE THIS MYTH?!?
I am not a raving leftie, so my views stem from what I consider to be a logical analysis of the global economy as a system.
The last few replies display a real lack of understanding of “the tragedy of the commons”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
The atmosphere has become a critical commons and there will never be any way to carve it up piece by piece into private ownership (see the section “Modern solutions” in the wiki article). Individuals and companies are duty bound by their drive to act in the own interests and treat the atmosphere as a global dustbin for any gaseous waste that they don’t want over their land. Meanwhile global CO2 levels just keep rising faster every year:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Someone commented that governments are commons. This is true. It stems from the fact that governments are elected by people and would get rapidly kicked out of office if they took the drastic CO2 reduction measures that science is telling us are needed.
Just because the solutions are difficult (e.g. Kyoto didn’t work) does not mean that the problem does not exist, as some of you seem to imply.
As for solar energy. Great. But all the time it is even 1 cent more expensive than coal fired electricity your wonderful markets will not allow it to gain a foothold. But if we wait until every last lump of coal has been burned it will be way too late. Now do you see why some form of market intervention is needed to make fossil fuel more expensive and reflect its true (externalised) costs?
Another important point a intended to make:
Oil has become a “commons”. Oil is fungible – i.e. is traded freely and globally. It flows to whoever is prepared to pay for it without hinderance at a price determined by the markets.
The only rider to this is that supply is somewhat controlled by governments (particulraly non-democratic ones) and by OPEC. But in really the market gets pretty much all the oil it demands. Bush needed democracy in Iraq not because he was trying to steal the oil, but simply because a democratic system cannot easily prevent oil from getting to market.
The issue is that the markets take only an instantaneous view. They do not recognise that oil is a critical, irreplaceable non-substitutable resource and when its gone its gone, along with our ability to grow food at anything like the rate we need to.
If global oil reserves were neatly packaged up in a huge barrel about 1 cubic mile in volume for all the world to see people might be alarmed that we are burning it up at the astonishing rate of a 1000 barrels a second.
Still. The markets know best.
mtngoat comments: Capitalism is simply a system based on respect of negative rights and individuals self ownership.
With respect, there are a number of flavors of capitalism, and there is no statement beginning with the words “Capitalism is simply…” that is true. At the core of most, however, is the concept of the extraction of value from surpluses and shortages, mediated by a market economy.
A more precise question therefore is whether surpluses can arise, shortages can be met, value can be extracted and the market economy can continue to function in the absence of a continuously expanding energy supply.
The first and most obvious answer is – who knows? You will concede, at the very least, the necessity of an energy supply to animate the manufacture and trade of goods and services that capitalism depends on, and the historical correlation between the strength of capitalism and the consumption of energy. You will also concede that capitalism has never been tested under the conditions of a continuously shrinking energy supply, and that markets get very stressed under conditions even of zero energy growth (witness the current U.S./European financial crisis).
The possibility that it does depend on it seems to be worth further consideration.
A less obvious answer is to consider that the surpluses, shortages and the manufacturing capacity to address shortages all presuppose an increasing energy supply, whether capitalists specifically acknowledge it or simply take it as axiomatic. Without an incremental unit of energy there can be no surplus, no demand that creates a shortage, no manufactured commodity to fulfill a shortage and there is no price at which a shortage can be fulfilled and therefore no market.
Capitalists and economists can talk all day about the wonderful things that happen when shortages and surpluses arising *within* the matter/energy system from energy imbalances created by an expanding energy supply are mediated by a market economy under the unique condition that each incremental unit of energy to do so is available. They have nothing to say – and can have nothing to say, for lack of any experience – about what happens when the matter/energy system itself suffers an energy shortage.
(None of this addresses quite how the notions of rights, private ownership, financial markets and all the other apparatus of capitalism function once the rule of law upon which they depend breaks down, but that would be a different point entirely.)
Rich,
That was a nice strawman if I have ever seen one.
Capitalism is not based on the idea of perpetual growth. Where did you ever get such a silly idea?
Perpetual growth need not be based on monotonically increasing energy consumption. If you believe this, then prove it. And, while you are at it, prove that energy production/consumption will not increase monotonically.
Don’t you see it? This is the continual mistake that you and others are making- you claim foreknowledge of the future, while, at the same time, claiming to know a solution to the problems you foresee, and they are always solutions cannot be acted upon without resort to coercion.
And you have yet to even outline what the solution is other than to stop using the resource you claim is running out. An absurd solution.
In the example at hand, the issue is whether fossil fuels will run out, thus ending their contribution to the growth of energy consumption. Your contention, such that I can understand it, is that once this happens, we are in trouble- energy consumption will go down, and, along with it, prosperity. What, exactly, does state action do for this situation? What you seem to be proposing is that we “stretch” out the supply of fossil fuels, but what good does this do? The fossil fuels will still run out under either scenario, and their replacements will either be viable or not. You and I cannot know what will occur in either case, however, I am not the one with the hubris to claim to know the solution to the problem, a solution by which I violate the freedom of others to act.
A set of nice observations there Yancy. Since we are discussing ideas which essentially represent discussion of action at or beyond the supposed limits under discussion (oil in this case), this limit is not escapable.
That oil could run out does not actually tell us any particular way of managing it is necessary, because no matter who does it, the same limits apply (assuming these limits represent reality).
IF there is a replacement, and IF economic conditions make it viable, the massive parallel effort of billions of minds will find it. IF there is not, having govt plan the problem won’t solve it either.
I also note that oil will not just suddenly run dry. It will be preceeded by continual price rises over a long period of time. During this period food production for example will adapt, and if this means more of our economic energy goes to paying for higher food costs because of massive increases in labor and reduced trade, and this is a free market result, then it is what it is, with no rights violated. There is no reason to expect that the nature of food production will remain static or that the proportion of our efforts or scope of our trade will remain static. Or that changes which gradually accrue and are accounted for and adapted to as they occur will not simply take place gradually instead of in some massive shock.
Yancey – how entertaining to be accused of floating strawmen, before being accused of making so many other claims that I had to check if there was another Rich in the thread!
I claim no foreknowledge of the future other than that suggested to me by such silly fellows as oil company Chief Executives and senior Whitehouse advisors. I have proposed no solutions (were you perhaps thinking of some other meaning of the word “insoluble”?). I have made no speculation about whether we should or shouldn’t continue to use the resource, or whether the state should or shouldn’t intervene. I’ve made no comment that I recognise as a proposal to stretch anything.
Proof that perpetual growth necessitates an increasing energy consumption is trivial. Call the size of the matter/energy system M. Call its energy consumption E. Then M/E is the amount of matter/energy system supported by a unit of energy. Monotonically decreasing energy consumption E tends (by definition) to zero energy consumption. For rates of change of M greater than the rate of change of E, M/E tends to infinity i.e. you would have one AAA battery powering the U.S. Congratulations Yancey, you just proposed a perpetual motion machine.
On the other hand, I don’t need to prove that energy production/consumption will not increase monotonically. I only need to demonstrate the absurdity of the counter argument – that we can replace 80% of our current energy supply within 8 years, given that we have replaced not more than 20% of it in the last 10.
On your last point: The fossil fuels will still run out under either scenario, and their replacements will either be viable or not, we agree.
Rich,
Then explain to me the meaning of the following
as it applies to free market action vs coercive collective action? What I did not include in this quote is your assertion that the depletion of fossil fuels will impair the free market’s introduction of replacements. If the free-market is not a “secure platform” for the future, and my inference, from the above, of your support for more state action are incorrect, then what, exactly were you proposing as the right path? I am honestly confused since I see only two paths, one of which I am convinced is unoptimal.
As for your “proof”, perpetual growth need not mean growth without limits. Yes, one can always define a higher output that must be met with a greater energy input, but you have completely ignored increased efficiencies, and even worse, who says economic growth has to be matter based? I have no idea what future humans will consider value-added, nor do you. For all you and I know, they will be far wealthier and capable with fewer inputs of matter and energy.
Rich: “Capitalists and economists can talk all day about the wonderful things that happen when shortages and surpluses arising *within* the matter/energy system from energy imbalances created by an expanding energy supply are mediated by a market economy under the unique condition that each incremental unit of energy to do so is available.”
If you’re like other socialists I know, you’re probably so giddy about the prospect of the collapse of capitalism that you’ve wet your pants a couple of times. Most socialists today follow the neo-Marxism of Emanuel Wallerstein and define capitalism as that sector of the economy comprised of big corporations. They divide the economy into the “market†sector made up of small, competitive businesses on the one hand, and large, multinational corps (MNC) on the other. The MNC’s are capitalist because they are so large, and therefore so powerful, that only government can control them, but for the most part they control governments through bribes and campaign contributions. In a sense, the MNC’s are governments unto themselves. MNC’s don’t compete, they collude and fix prices. They aren’t subject to the discipline of the market because they dictate to the market what will happen, what we will buy from them, when and for how much.
So many socialists have popped up on this subject because they think the key to destroying capitalism is to end the supply of cheap oil. They think that without oil, the MNC’s will fail and capitalism as they define it will end. Without subscribing to your definition of capitalism, I suggest you visit the web sites of a few MNC oil companies. They have invested in every alternative to oil that anyone has thought of. If oil died tomorrow, you would be purchasing whatever alternative form of energy is available from Exxon, BP, Shell and the other evil, capitalist MNC’s you hate so much.
If you’ll stick around this web site a little, you’ll learn the Austrian, and the true definition of capitalism. As Yancey wrote, it has nothing to do with energy or growth. It’s a system of organizing society based on property rights and freedom. Capitalism started long before the use of coal or oil as energy sources and will last long after both are used up and we’re burning dirt.
BTW, did anyone see the story where the guy figured out how to burn salt water? Actually, he uses EMF to break the water into H2 and O and the H2 burns. Could be the break through that the hydrogen economy needs. Which companies are leading in the hydrogen race? Shell, BP, Exxon, all the great evil capitalists.
Yancey
This is an idea I have toyed with a lot. I can easily see a future in which our enormous population spends its life never moving from an armchair, conducting business, social life, attending to their medical needs and even going for holidays on a virtual basis. About the only physical need which won’t go away is food, but providing people can stand a boring vegatarian diet to get their calories we might still be able to cope as fossil fuels decline.
What an horrendous vision though. And it would only apply to the masses – the richer members of society will still be able to buy the old-style “real life experience” in their private jets. In fact it opens the question as to whether any conceivable capitalist system would support so many useless and powerless individuals. It might just prefer to let them starve.
I keep seeing comments in this thread such as “if oil peaks” or “if fossil fuels should run out”.
There is no “if” about it. They WILL run out. Its just a question of when, how suddenly and whether our civilisation can survive the trauma.
90% of global energy comes from fossil fuels. Renewables such as wind, wave and biofuel are heavily subsidised (in energy terms) by fossil fuel, so until fossil fuels start to become significantly scarce we don not even know whether these renewable energy sources are viable at all. For the benefit of all you economists, those that have a negative “energy profit” will suffer the same fate as a company that continually loses money.
In the 17th century the average European had less to eat than the average poor African today. That is because today, even in “darkest Africa” enough crumbs fall from the rich man’s table to make starvation unlikely. Back in the 17th century 90% of us were out in the fields growing our food.
We are like rich kids that have enjoyed daddy’s inheritance for so long that we have forgotten what a hard place the real world can be. When the flow from that cubic mile of oil slows to a trickle we will start to find out.
For all those posters who can’t wait for the end of oil to destroy the US economy and capitalism, you have a friend in Al Qaeda:
“From messages exchanged by jihadists online, it is evident that oil facilities inside and outside the Middle East have ranked high on their list of targets for quite some time. This strategy jibes with the Islamists’ belief that oil is the foundation of the U.S.’s worldwide hegemony – a belief that was stressed, for example, in Osama bin Laden’s video message of December 16, 2004, in which he called for attacking oil installations: “There is now a rare and golden opportunity to make America bleed in Iraq – both economically and in terms of [loss of] human life and [blows to its] morale. Do not miss this opportunity, for you will regret it. One of the primary [methods] by which our enemies have gained control over our land is by stealing our oil. Therefore, you should do everything in your power to stop the greatest theft in history: [the theft] of the natural resources of the present and future generations, which is being carried out by the foreigners in collaboration with [local] agents… Focus your operations [on oil installations], especially in Iraq and the Gulf region, since [lack of oil] will cause [the enemy] to perish.” [10] A similar call to attack oil facilities was made by Ayman Al-Zawahiri in his September 2005 interview with Al-Sahab TV on the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.”
Al Qaeda thinks that it will cripple the US by destroying Middle Eastern oil production, but it will hurt Arab Muslims far worse; they depend on the revenue from oil sales to buy food.
On the other hand, I can’t help but applaud Al Qaeda’s other effort to destroy the US:
“Citing an economic study allegedly conducted by Al-Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks, the writer states that undermining the American economy has always been Al-Qaeda’s number one goal. Before 9/11, he says, Al-Qaeda believed that the best way to weaken the American economy was to reinstate the gold standard in international monetary trade.”
Al Qaeda doesn’t understand that a world economy based on a gold standard will cause the US to thrive even more.
quotes are from
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA38707
Actually Yancey Ward and Fundamentalist I’d have thought many a Libertarian would likewise be wetting themselves at the thought that an increasing oil shortage would cripple modern society. As it’s been said if you want the laws and lifesytles of those simpler, gentler times you’d have to go back to the standards of living of those times. Hence the happiness could be American society get ‘rebooted’ to the small farmer scenario of the ‘Founding Fathers’ and a new chance to ‘take two’. After all, no Federal government, State government, Local government, no taxes, no rates, no OH&S laws, full gun rights, property rights, people having no choice but to trade in silver and gold. Why what’s there not to like? After all, isn’t this the scenario whereby Libertarians have been warning as to why you’re supposed to be stockpiling guns and gold? And isn’t this the necessary scenario as to why guns and gold will become mega-valuable and not Microsoft shares or dollars? But, of course, don’t forget to stockpile fertile land too and get that chook shed and veggie patch up and runnning!
Yancey,
[longish post - apologies if too long but interesting points raised]
Most of the arguments you have put to me are to points that have been of your own invention. (Fundamentalist, I have no way to answer your post. Since I’m not a socialist, I can’t be like other socialists you know. The prospect of the collapse of capitalism fills me with dismay. One of those evil, capitalist MNCs you mentions pays my mortgage and kids’ school fees).
I genuinely find your views interesting, but can’t help feeling we’d be more efficient if we confined ourselves to things we *actually* say.
My contribution so far has been: some counterfactual evidence to Mr Corrigan’s view; the unarguable observation that, whatever we do, we need to do it quickly and there isn’t a lot of evidence that says we can; and an equally unarguable observation that capitalism has never been tested under conditions other than an expanding energy supply.
In Ronald Reagan “Read My Lips” fashion: I make no proposal for the right path. I have no view on how the inadequacy of today’s technology applies to free market vs. coercive action. The issue from my perspective as a hydrocarbon industry technologist is the inadequacy of any technology we can conceivably develop in the next 8 years to replace the volumes of hydrocarbon we need to replace in the next 8 years, not which of free or coercive action is best positioned to develop it. (I think there are grounds for serious concerns about the ability of the free market to serve an industry that takes 10 years to respond to shortage signals in a situation in which serious shortage signals are emerging over 1 year time frames).
I see nothing more substantial than a belief in magic from free marketers (arising from a very poor understanding of industry fundamentals), and insurmountably conflicting agendas amongst the agents of coercive collective action. Where you see one suboptimal path, I see two.
The view I do have is about the irresponsibility on both sides of proposing that one path has the capacity to *prevent* peak induced collapse. Peak is locked in as a consequence of the way in which we have exploited the hydrocarbon resource base (easy first/hard last). Collapse is locked in because of the way in which we have hard wired our society to depend on hydrocarbon.
The game now is about mitigating the *consequences* of peak and collapse and longer we delay mitigation investments, the more expensive and less effective those mitigation investments will be. The effect of the sort of hubris contained in the entry that spawned this conversation, if more widely held, would be to add nothing to and subtract considerably from our prospects.
To turn to your thoughts on growth. There are three possible states: growth, steady state, and decline. There is no such thing as “growth with limits” – growth may be fast or slow, but it’s either growing, or steady state. Far from ignoring increased efficiencies, my proof explicitly models it and demonstrates, in the limit, for all states other than “steady state” and “decline”, arrival at a necessary level of efficiency equivalent to powering the U.S. on a AAA battery.
You may well have in your mind some concept of “limited growth” as representing “steady state way off in the future” – but that would be to concede my proof that growth without a continuously expanding energy supply cannot be perpetual.
I think we can take a guess at some of the things future humans will still value: shelter, heat, light, food, schools and hospitals – all of which are pretty rooted in matter.
The real point is not what humans in some weightless economy in the distant future may value. It is what current humans in this matter/energy economy will value in 8 years time, what the effects of any unfulfilled shortage will be, and the wisdom of any faith you may have in the free market’s capacity to avert that unfulfilled shortage.
The 80% that live in parts of the world that aren’t uniformly warm will value heating and cooling (10% will need it, or become refugees, or die). The 75% that depend on food obtained from the 300% yield increase achieved through (non fungible) hydrocarbon based fertiliser, pesticide, irrigation and transportation will definitely need it (or become refugees, or die). I’m sure the point is made.
Fundamentalist: “BTW, did anyone see the story where the guy figured out how to burn salt water? Actually, he uses EMF to break the water into H2 and O and the H2 burns.”
I made the point in the previous post that there is a seriously poor understanding of the fundamentals of the energy business. Excuse me if I use your comment as a text book example.
Assume we improve the efficiency to the stage where it doesn’t require more energy to drive the process than the process yields (as it currently does).
A process from which you derive 1 unit of energy for every 1 unit of energy you expend is not an energy source. It is an energy carrier. Shell, BP etc. are interested in hydrogen because it is a clean energy carrier, not because it is a clean energy source. Unless the world finds new energy sources, the cleanliness of the carrier is irrelevant.
Given time, we can possibly increase the efficiency of this method and/or invest at sufficient scale to substitute for hydrocarbon energy sources. What would it take?
Assume they could achieve 2 energy units out for every unit required i.e. a “profit” of one energy unit – a very substantial techological challenge. Assume that hydrocarbon sources yield 40 units of energy (compared to 100 units 80 years ago).
Then simply to replace the 1.53 million barrels per day by which world total liquids production had dropped in August 2007 against July 2006 output would require the input energy associated with the production of 30 million barrels per day of hydrocarbon. Industry currently produces 85 million barrels per day.
Treating energy consumption as a rough proxy for the size of the business, you’d need to reproduce about a third of the installed hydrocarbon production business just to keep energy levels at where they were fourteen months ago.
Once decline in conventional oil commences at the rate forecast by Exxon, you’ll have to add the same amount of capacity every year. According to Statoil’s forecast, you need to be ready to start doing this in 4 year’s time.
Most people, including I suspect many free market faithfuls, simply have no idea of the scale of the challenge they so complacently talk about, or the inadequacy of the solutions available to us.
Rich: “Since I’m not a socialist, I can’t be like other socialists you know.”
You may not like to call yourself a socialist, but your definition of capitalism betrays you; it’s a purely socialist, and wrong, definition. And your understanding of the market process is pure socialist. If you don’t want to be called a socialist, then learn Austrian econ.
Rich: “Excuse me if I use your comment as a text book example.”
I never claimed hydrogen is a source of energy. But it can be a good store of energy produced by wind, solar, methanol or nuclear power. It’s still the front runner for powering internal combustion engines in place of gasoline/diesel.
Rich: “Most people, including I suspect many free market faithfuls, simply have no idea of the scale of the challenge they so complacently talk about, or the inadequacy of the solutions available to us.”
I would guess we have a much better handle on it than you think. We have studied econ history and found that the market does a great job of making the transition fairly smooth. The whale oil to petroleum change in the 19th century is a good example. I would imagine that people like you claimed the world as they knew was ending when whale oil reached critical shortages.
Rich,
There is no “third” way. Either people are free to exhange and trade as they like, or they are not. Those are the two choices, and up to your last comment, you had basically dismissed the first of these as a non-”secure platform” for faith in the future. In your last comment, you claim that you find both inadequate, so I must conclude that you have no faith in the future, and there is little reason for discussion.
You may not be a socialist, but you mount all the same arguments against the free-market that socialists do. What else should I infer from this?
Fundamentalist: With respect, the definition of capitalism I use is not mine, it is a definition employed by other schools of capitalists with whom you disagree. I’ll leave you to squabble with them, it is not a topic that interests me.
Your choice of substitute is irrelevant. Each provides a derisory energy profit in comparison with the fuel they need to replace, and their introduction implies the creation of businesses in a few years that are major fractions of a business that took a century to establish. There is no historical precedent for that challenge.
And you choice of whale oil is indeed a good example. At the time it was waning there was a ready supply of an energy source with an even higher energy density available, in a world that could readily be adapted to that new source. All that is available now are a number of energy sources of substantially lower energy density and almost completely incompatible with most of our systems. There is no historical parallel.
TLWP Sam,
Libertarians don’t concede to you the ground you claim to take. Your claim is basically that the properity we enjoy today is the result of the state imposed limits on people’s freedom to act and interact with their fellow human beings. Libertarians hold that we have given up more prosperity for these reasons. Libertarians may be wrong, but there is no way you can prove it, and there is much evidence in history that the more free a people are, the more prosperous they are. Thus, libertarians stand on firmer ground in this respect. However, I would point out, that material prosperity is not necessarily the goal of libertarians, they just think it a happy byproduct of freedom to choose.
Rich: “it is a definition employed by other schools of capitalists with whom you disagree.”
The definition you used in your posts came from socialists; that much is clear from the history of economic thought. If other people who use that definition claim to be capitalists, then they’re as confused as you are.
Rich: “And you choice of whale oil is indeed a good example. At the time it was waning there was a ready supply of an energy source with an even higher energy density available…”
That’s not accurate. The price of whale oil rose dramatically because of severe shortages for a couple of decades before someone learned to refine kerosene from oil. Today nuclear energy can replace easily replace oil. We simply need to transform that energy into other substances like hydrogen for conenient use in cars/trucks/planes.
TLWP: “As it’s been said if you want the laws and lifesytles of those simpler, gentler times you’d have to go back to the standards of living of those times.”
From what I’ve read on this site, most libertarians are hoping for a collapse of the financial system, not the energy industry. I don’t hope for either, because history shows that crises cause people to beg for more government intervention, not less.
I argue that libertarians are failing to persuade the public because they spend too much time talking to each other and doing scholarly research. Most voters aren’t interested in scholarly research; they watch TV. Drew Carey (sp?) probably did more for liberty than a thousand scholarly papers when he ridiculed universal healthcare on his game show the other day. He mentioned universal care, then commented that it would be brought to you by the same people who rescued New Orleans from hurricane Katrina, and who gave us the Iraq war and the IRS. Those comments reached millions of voters.
Yancey: “There is no “third” way.”
People do advocate a “third way,” but it’s because socialists have given up on ending private property for now; they know it’s too unpopular. So they advocate the “third way” as a means of getting their foot in the door. The third way is just one step further down the line to full-blown socialism and socialists will take what they can get for the moment. You’ll also hear the “third way” called “communitarianism.” But all of the definitions and assumptions about capitalism are straight from the Uncle Karl.
Yancy: In your last comment, you claim that you find both inadequate, so I must conclude that you have no faith in the future, and there is little reason for discussion
On the contrary. In my last comment I claim that neither are capable of preventing peak induced collapse, but that the real challenge is in mitigating the effects that collapse.
Unless you can present some specific counter argument to the straightforward demonstrations of the impossibility of the task that faces us, it is reasonable to assert that this is is our future.
I have moderate faith in our capacity to manage that future, and there is much to discuss about which of private or public methods are best placed to do so.
As to the arguments I mount against the free market – my arguments are rooted in the laws of thermodynamics. It is hard to detect much overlap with the domain of the political sciences. Are you sure this isn’t just a convenient ad-hominem attack (i.e. “You sound like a socialist. Socialists are wrong. Therefore you are wrong”) to rescue you from having to deal with the substance of my posts?
This whole conversation was kicked off by criticism of assertions. Why not be specific. Set aside capitalism, negative rights and all the rest for a moment. Let’s get real. Do you dispute Statoil and Exxon’s forecasts? Do you have any concrete basis for your belief that the market can provide a solution of that magnitude in that timescale? I have provided a reasonably quantitative viewpoint, within the limitations of the format. Can you? If not, in what way would you say your views were different from, say, Christian belief i.e. requiring faith, and not amenable to proof?
Let’s get real by first setting aside capitalism and negative rights and then discussing what needs to be done about the future of energy.
LOL, now that is rich.
Rich,
I will give it one last try.
First, I don’t really buy the doomsday scenario of fossil fuel depletion that you and others have wrote of. Nuclear fission is perfectly capable of providing all the energy we consume today, and more depending on the needs and wishes of future human beings- how and whether to utilize this, or something else, is their decision. Losing the access to fossil fuels need not mean a reduction in material prosperity, but, then, that was never my focus on this thread. Solving the problems of future energy production is the task of future people. These people will include the future selves of you and I (hopefully for a good long time), but that is the nature of time.
My primary interest is that we don’t allow fears of doomsday be used to advance statist, freedom reducing policies. Whether or not the depletion of fossil fuels means a poorer world of tomorrow is irrelevant- a market of freely exchanging individuals will be better able to cope with whatever comes their way. I infer your statist tilt because of the language that you have used- such as calling the free market an “insecure platform”, or claiming that economic theory has nothing that can really address the issues that you think we face.
I will ask you straight out, since you have yet to make an explicit recommendation: what do you propose we do about about your concerns?
Fundamentalist,
Yes, I did carefully consider my phrasing, being aware of “third way” politics. At the risk of inciting confusion, I decided to say, “What the hell”, and outline how I think it should be viewed- as a dichotomy.
Yancy – My last try, too.
I agree nuclear fission is perfectly capable etc. However, it is a joke even amongst nuclear fission people that a solution to the nuclear fission problem has been just around the corner for the last 30 years. Times up. Total liquids fell 1.53 million barrels per day in the last 14 months at a time when demand increased 2.1%. Never mind solving the problems of future energy production – we have one now to deal with and nuclear fission is still filed under “magic”.
As it happens, we agree that a market of freely exchanging individual will be better able to cope with the ravages of depletion (we only disagree about its capacity to prevent depletion). I find it hard to imagine how that market will work under conditions of hyperinflation, massive unemployment and an economy in free fall but no harder than how any other mechanism could cope.
My proposals are fairly conventional. Price energy properly and expose individuals to the true cost of their energy decisions(hint: a cup of oil really should cost more than a cup of soda.) Remove all the tax distortions that prevent the market from working (happy with SUVs, happy with 747s, not happy with SUV and aviation fuel tax breaks, etc.). Provide fiscal incentives to establish markets for localised food production, micropower energy production and mass transit systems to eliminate transportation losses. Arrange for the sahara to get covered in solar panels. You don’t need a thesis here.
Yancey
“there is much evidence in history that the more free a people are, the more prosperous they are.”
Tell that to the people of Iraq or much of Africa. Weak or non-existant governance means no structure of any sort, so no way to trade.
You might not like tax and laws, but everything you do relies on having the sound infrastructure they provide.
I don’t hear much discussion of climate change in this thread. If we convert nature’s entire store of sequestered carbon into CO2 we are definitely an ex-species.
Robert T: “Tell that to the people of Iraq…”
The people of Iraq have the strongest government in the world taking care of them – the U.S. government.
Actually, if inconveniently timed Peak Oil does come true and if the underlying does come crumbing down then most of society is probably done for as most people rely on the underlying infrastructure. And if this scenario did come to pass then after the unplesent chaos part all people who remained would have to be living in some sort of self-supporting farming mode. But I did point though I did mention about ‘taking two’ in the sense that if Libertarians were the only who survived because they saved up the necessary bits then after the new Libertarian society rose up from the ashes then they could have a go to see whether they build a hi-tech happy-go-lucky society based on purely voluntary trade.
Rich: “I find it hard to imagine how that market will work under conditions of hyperinflation, massive unemployment and an economy in free fall but no harder than how any other mechanism could cope.”
How did we get from oil depletion to hyperinflation, massive unemployment and the economy in a free fall? All that oil depletion will cause is higher prices for oil and products made from oil. The price of oil today is eight times higher than it was just ten years ago, and we have witnesses very few problems. If it were to increase another eight fold it would cost $164/bll. I don’t expect that increase to cause any more problems for the economy than the last eight-fold increase did. Why should it?
Rich: “Price energy properly and expose individuals to the true cost of their energy decisions(hint: a cup of oil really should cost more than a cup of soda.) Remove all the tax distortions that prevent the market from working (happy with SUVs, happy with 747s, not happy with SUV and aviation fuel tax breaks, etc.). Provide fiscal incentives to establish markets for localised food production, micropower energy production and mass transit systems to eliminate transportation losses.”
In other words, have the government take over even more of the economy than it now controls. You have a the faith of a religious fanatic in the government. You want the government to rescue us from oil depletion; would that be the same government that rescued New Orleans from Katrina, brought us the Iraq war, OSHA, the IRS and all of the other ineffective, wasteful government programs?
Look at history. Better yet, read DiLorenzo’s book “How Capitalism Saved America.” History is chock full of hundreds of failed government programs to “rescue” us. I challenge you to provide one successful example.
I can anticipate once response to my challenge: this time it’s different. That’s always the socialist response. Socialists hate history lessons, so they always come up with reasons to believe the future will be nothing like the past, so even if markets worked in the past, the future will be so different that they can’t possibly work in it. I prefer an institution (free markets) that has worked well in the past when facing an uncertain future than one with a consistent track record of utter failure (the government).
Rich:”Total liquids fell 1.53 million barrels per day in the last 14 months at a time when demand increased 2.1%.”
Why do Chicken Littles talk only about the last few years? Why don’t you mention the 1990′s when the oil supply grew so much faster than demand that prices fell to records lows and stayed there for almost a decade?
KevinB
“The people of Iraq have the strongest government in the world taking care of them – the U.S. government.”
Just wondering whether that was meant as a serious comment. 150,000 US soldiers thinly dispersed round Iraq clearly is doing little more than winding the locals up and giving the hordes in all the surrounding countries a focus for their long-standing antipathy towards the US.
The US is rapidly turning into a fading empire, even if Bush hasn’t worked it out yet. US power has always been based on cheap and abundant domestic oil, something which is melting away faster than the arctic right now. A few years ago oil was $10 a barrel. Today it hit an all time high of $84. And there is no sign of the price rises slowing down any time soon.
With an ultra-weak dollar, high oil dependence, crashing house prices and the US-sourced credit crunch I don’t see the US as the place to have my pension. Look to Norway for an example of how to husband oil wealth for a long and secure future.
“The price of oil today is eight times higher than it was just ten years ago, and we have witnesses very few problems. If it were to increase another eight fold it would cost $164/bll.”
How’s your maths? $640/bbl WOULD be interesting.
“People do advocate a “third way,” but it’s because socialists have given up on ending private property for now; they know it’s too unpopular. So they advocate the “third way” as a means of getting their foot in the door. The third way is just one step further down the line to full-blown socialism and socialists will take what they can get for the moment. You’ll also hear the “third way” called “communitarianism.” But all of the definitions and assumptions about capitalism are straight from the Uncle Karl.”
Naturally. “Oh, but we already have universal healthcare, so nationalizing shoe industries really isn’t THAT much of a big step away from the market.” A couple of decades later: “The market, produce shoes? What folly!”
Robert T: “The US is rapidly turning into a fading empire…”
Good riddance.
Seriously.
Seriously.
Well, you never know the world probably won’t come to an end – again.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/18/driving.iceland/index.html
Fundamentalist: “Chicken Little”. “Religious fanatic”. “Socialist”. Evidently the request to post a civil comment largely passed you by.
Lets turn to the other request of a poster.
“How did we get from oil depletion to hyperinflation, massive unemployment and the economy in a free fall?”
For such an avowed student of history, I’m baffled at this apparent gap in your knowledge. The reductions during the 1973 oil embargo sent inflation and interest rates soaring and triggered a deep recession. If you don’t remember them, your father will. Those reductions were political and reversible. These reductions are physical and irreversible.
“All that oil depletion will cause is higher prices for oil and products made from oil”.
In other words – everything. Look around the place where you are sitting (oil powered electric light will help here, and indeed everything you do for the 50% it is dark). There is not a single thing that you can see that hasn’t *required* oil in its manufacture or transportation.
Every calorie of food you consumed at breakfast required 10 calories of hydrocarbon in its manufacture and transport. Oil based fertiliser, pesticide, irrigation and transportation costs have pushed grain prices up. The oil price rise has triggered a switch of grain from food into fuel production – causing world grain stocks to fall in six out of the last seven years to only 57 days supply, and grain prices to double. General Mills – the U.S. largest food manufacturer – reports that the energy cost of processing food, and the cost of raw materials have risen sharply and are still rising. As grain is the feedstock for the whole food industry, poultry and meat prices are also rising.
Meanwhile, the poor boobies that bought $500,000 homes on $50,000 dollar salaries can’t afford the mortgage, the commute (oil prices), the heating and air conditioning bills (oil price) AND the rising cost of living (oil price). The resulting rising slew of mortgage defaults is cascading through the global financial system triggering billions of central bank dollars and euros in rescue payments for bank failures in the U.S. and Europe – and central banks have only enough funds for two more rescues of this relatively small magnitude. And suddenly the peddlers of MBS, CDO, CLOs and half a dozen other types of securitized debt have woken up to the fact that when you hold a lot of paper that was got for nothing, and put it up for sale, nothing will be offered for it.
On the U.S. doorstep, riots in Mexico over rising food and energy prices, coupled with the unexpected collapse of the giant Canterell reservoir, is driving the country toward failed state status and triggering a flood of immigration into the U.S.
We are only at $80. There is no ceiling price.
When you say “We have witnessed very few problems”, should I take it that none of this has made it into the media you have available to you, or that you don’t regard any of this as problematic?
“In other words, have the government take over even more of the economy than it now controls”
I just don’t follow you, and would suggest that your strenuous efforts to paint me as a socialist in order to avoid substantive engagement is starting to show. The oil price is set – and can only be set – by the market. In so far as government intervention is required, it would be to break the stranglehold OPEC has on price setting. However, since it is now clear that OPEC has no swing production capacity any more, that is a problem that has gone away. All that is required is for governments to resist the urge to intervene to prevent the oil price rising to its necessary level. I am arguing for no state intervention in the market.
Your interpretation of my advocacy of tax removal and selected reduction as advocacy of state intervention is equally baffling.
“Why don’t you mention the 1990′s when the oil supply grew so much faster than demand”
Sure. The misforecast of 1990′s supply and demand is widely acknowledged as one of the great f*ck ups of the forecasting business. The oil supply in the 1990′s was over-estimated. Saudi was estimated to have 7 million barrels per day of shut in capacity. Saudi Aramco Executives acknowledge today that the figure was nearer 1 million. At the same time, North Sea activity growth that was only the development of small accumulations adjacent to hugh sunk cost infrastructure hubs with spare capacity created by decline in first-phase developments, got mistaken for sustainable technology driven recovery efficiency gains and led to a wholesale upward revision of supply forecasts that had no basis in reality. Meanwhile oil demand in the 1990′s fell back with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The gap was an illusion. Forecasts derived from it led to projections that non-OPEC supply would grow by 5.5 million barrels. This in turn caused OPEC to use the small swing capacity created by the removal of Soviet consumption to maintain the price low enough to make non-OPEC investment uneconomic.
…
Fundamental, I love history lessons, and enjoy giving you basic history lessons in my industry. However, your arguments seem crippled by a lack of the sort of mainstream, basic information that even a casual reader can pick up in that fine organ of liberal thought, “The Economist”. Might I suggest a slightly more inquiring approach to the subject, at least for a while?
Rich – good post. I think that those with an economics-centric worldview will never understand the how deeply dependant we are on oil (or more generally access to a huge store of free energy inputs).
Newton must have thought that Newtonian physics was the whole picture. He would have been shocked to realise that he was modelling only a small part of it. Outside of this range he would have needed relativity and quantum physics. Economists are the modern equivalent of Newton – their models work in a situation of cheap energy and they have felt no need to explore outside of this domain.
“For such an avowed student of history, I’m baffled at this apparent gap in your knowledge. The reductions during the 1973 oil embargo sent inflation and interest rates soaring and triggered a deep recession. If you don’t remember them, your father will. Those reductions were political and reversible. These reductions are physical and irreversible.”
Rich, it is obvious that you are very ignorant when it comes to economics and histoy. Please do not embarras yourself more talking about stuf you know nothing about like inflation and stuff here.
Inflation started in 1971 when Bretton Woods was shelved by Nixon, which actualy broke the tie between gold and US Dollar.
Actually US started inflating many years before 1971, that year was the year the FED couldnt fool anyone anymore so officially it had to break the tie and make the US Dollar the ultimate fiat currency backed with nothing.
Also the 1973 ambargo was much more related to this event than poitical Isreali situation.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
“As mentioned, the Arab-Israeli conflict triggered a crisis already in the making. The West could not continue to increase its energy use 5% annually, pay low oil prices, yet sell inflation-priced goods to the petroleum producers in the Third World. This was stressed by the Shah of Iran, whose nation was the world’s second-largest exporter of oil and the closest ally of the United States in the Middle East at the time. “Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise,” the Shah told the New York Times in 1973. “Certainly! And how…; You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300%, and the same for sugar and cement…; You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you’ve paid to us…; It’s only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let’s say ten times more.”[2]“
And Robert T,
Please look at the title of the post again. Do you know who Malthus is and what he said?
Your Malthusian cries has nothing to do with quantum physics improving on Newtonian physics. It is actually closer to stone age savages running scared on every thunder storm thinking the world is coming to an end.
ktibuk
If you are going to post Wiki references I think you should at least read them first. It says:
“Due to the dependence of the industrialized world on crude oil, and the predominant role of OPEC as a global supplier, these price increases were dramatically inflationary to the economies of the targeted countries, while at the same time suppressive of economic activity.”
To be fair, I have read this and other articles before and there is still a debate as to exactly how the Yom Kippur War, the oil embargo, inflation and the dropping of Bretton Woods are linked in terms of cause and effect. What is beyond doubt is that the world oil supply temporarily dived and a major world recession followed. How quickly we forget.
Yes. I know exactly who Malthus was. His warnings were issued well before the population exploded to its current level and his work seems more relevant today than ever. At a micro level we might be rational, but at a macro level we seem no more intelligent or in control of our destiny than the deer on St Matthew’s Island.
I also consider that the Club of Rome had it about right, although maybe a few decades out in the timing. One of the more weighty books I have waded through is Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” and he is able to list civilisation after civilisation (in fact all of them!) that has collapsed due to exhauhstion of resources and/or damage to their local environment. Our civilisation might be global but it will not protect us from the same fate – in fact it’s worse because this time we have nowhere to run.
Rich goes w/ “(A)Oil based fertiliser, pesticide, irrigation and transportation costs have pushed grain prices up. (B)The oil price rise has triggered a switch of grain from food into fuel production – causing world grain stocks to fall in six out of the last seven years to only 57 days supply, and grain prices to double. (C)General Mills – the U.S. largest food manufacturer – reports that the energy cost of processing food, and the cost of raw materials have risen sharply and are still rising. (D)As grain is the feedstock for the whole food industry, poultry and meat prices are also rising. ” (letters) mine.
Which of the 4 statements are True?
“All that is required is for governments to resist the urge to intervene to prevent the oil price rising to its necessary level. I am arguing for no state intervention in the market.”
I really don’t see why Fundamentalist and you are in such disagreement then.
M E Hoffer
Statement B is doubtful. The rest are true.
The switch to biofuels is driven by subsidy and regulation. Biofuels have very little, if any, energy profit, so a financial profit must be engineered by skewing the market.
Biofuels are beginning to get a very bad name from an environmental point of view, but they still hold some attraction to a US government seeking energy independence. Large scale solar, wind and wave are better prospects, but all find it hard to compete with coal for base load generation.
Rich: “I just don’t follow you, and would suggest that your strenuous efforts to paint me as a socialist in order to avoid substantive engagement is starting to show.”
I’m not trying to paint you as a socialist. I’m just pointing out that your ideas come from socialist thought. If you understood capitalist economics, particularly Austrian, but at least monetarist, you would realize that and how wrong socialist thinking is.
Rich: “I am arguing for no state intervention in the market.”
This is what you wrote: “Price energy properly and expose individuals to the true cost of their energy decisions(hint: a cup of oil really should cost more than a cup of soda.) Remove all the tax distortions that prevent the market from working (happy with SUVs, happy with 747s, not happy with SUV and aviation fuel tax breaks, etc.). Provide fiscal incentives to establish markets for localised food production, micropower energy production and mass transit systems to eliminate transportation losses.”
I don’t know how you would accomplish those without government intervention, except the part about ending subsidies. I don’t see how the government subsidizes oil when the largest increases in the price of gasoline have come from tax increases.
Rich: “The oil supply in the 1990′s was over-estimated.”
Forecasts are often wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that oil supply during the 90′s exceeded demand by a huge amount and drove the price of oil to historical lows, all while the world economy expanded at record rates. A large part of the recent price increase is due to the fact that oil companies quit investing in new production during the 90′s because of the unusually low prices. If oil supply has exceeded demand as recently as the last decade, why in the world do you insist that it’s impoossible for it to ever happen again?
Rich: “The reductions during the 1973 oil embargo sent inflation and interest rates soaring and triggered a deep recession.”
That’s standard econ theory. I’m very much aware of it. It’s what I was taught when I earned an MA in econ. Austrians, monetarists and many researchers at the BEA believe it’s wrong. ktibuk gave the proper explanation above. You’re an intelligent guy and I believe that if you would give monetarist or Austrian econ a chance, you would agree.
“Provide fiscal incentives to establish markets for localised food production, micropower energy production and mass transit systems to eliminate transportation losses.”
By fiscal incentives, what do you mean? Tax breaks?
Rich,
We can agree that all subsidies and tax breaks given to fossil fuel producers should be ended. However, you then immediately propose new subsidies for other energy producers and other producers of goods, assuming again a foreknowledge of the best course of action- the same mistake all statists make.
Rich,
Also, you have a lot to learn about what inflation is. The rise in price of a single commodity, due to supply/demand changes cannot cause general price inflation, or hyperinflation. If the prices paid for a certain bag of goods rises in a stable monetary environment, it will mean that that the demand for other goods must fall to compensate (income has not changed). In other words, general price inflation is a result of monetary policies of the central banks.
Robert T,
Unlike some here, I am not an anarchist. I do not believe that you can solve the problem of controlling the expansion of government power by defining it out of existence- but that is a debate for another day. Your examples of free peoples are not valid examples. Iraq is not free, nor are the poor of Africa. Capitalism depends upon the integrity of property rights. Your examples do not respect those.
Robert T
(B) is truly doubtful. (C) is true. Of course GIS is experiencing higher input costs, it’s why they’re trying to raise prices and/or shrink the size of their offered packages. If (A) & (D) weren’t patently absurd, you wouldn’t hear the first peep about input costs from GIS, they’d just raise prices and sail forth. Sadly, much to the dismay of many bankrupt, would-be, Tycoons, the market cares not about your input prices and doesn’t grant you profit-guaranteeing Revenues.
(D), as well, is almost completely backward, those higher grain prices are depressing Cattle prices as Farmers cull their herds of hungry mouths to Feed and Water, in an attempt to stay solvent.
Rich,
I almost forgot, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are two different things. You have them mixed up.
RobertT: “How’s your maths? $640/bbl WOULD be interesting.”
That’s embarassing! I’m hoping no one else noticed. I was half asleep when I posted that.
Fundamentalist,
I had noticed, but at first thought the right answer was $6400/bbl. It took me a few seconds of astonishment to realize that I had too many zeroes.
And I didn’t even have the excuse of being sleepy.
Robert T: “Economists are the modern equivalent of Newton – their models work in a situation of cheap energy and they have felt no need to explore outside of this domain.”
Haven’t read much economics, have you. Everyone is talking and writing about the end of cheap energy. The difference isn’t that economists ignore the issue; they clearly don’t. The issue is what will the impact be? At one extreme you have people like Robert and Rich who proclaim that the end of cheap energy equals the end of modern civilization. I know they don’t like to be called socialists, but that is the socialist position. (If you took a survey, you’d find that there are no socialists in the US because no one wants to be indentified as a socialist. But that doesn’t stop people from espousing socialist ideas.)
Socialists (those who think like socialists but don’t want to be called socialist) champion the “end of civilization” scenario because they want to provide government with an excuse to intervene in the marketplace even more than it does now. That’s how socialists work: they frighten the average citizen with doomsday scenarios so they will beg the government to rescue them. (They also want the energy crises to end capitalism) They promote their cause by twisting the facts about oil production in the same way they twist the facts about global warming. Keynesian (socialist) and neo-classical econ helps them because of their lack of a sound theory for business cycles. Both schools of econ have indicted oil as the main cause of inflation and recessions in the past.
But as Yancey pointed out above, a price increase of one commodity cannot cause a general price increase, which we call price inflation and which shows up as an increase in the official price indexes. There is some really good research that proves this point on the San Francisco Fed web site.
So our disagreement with the “sky is falling” crowd has nothing to do with ignorance, irrational faith in markets, or any of the other claims that socialists make. It’s a real disagreement about the facts of how the oil industry works and the facts of how economics works.
I have no doubt that if Robert and Rich would learn some Austrian econ with an open mind, they would change their minds, as I did. But if they do, they’ll lose a lot of their socialist friends.
M E Hoffer:
[A] Strictly, the main raw material for fertiliser is natural gas. Fertiliser price is a significant cost component of grain and has doubled since 2000 in response to soaring gas prices. The U.S. tranferred half of its fertiliser supply to south east asia following the permanent closure of 17 ammonia plants caused by U.S. gas scarcity. This exposes it both to rising gas prices in both regions and the risk of interruption of its fertiliser supply when south east asia requires the gas for its own consumption. (http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1130343281366.xml)
[B] Biofuel is expensive to manufacture. At low oil price it is only profitable when supported by government subsidy. The insignificance and high risk of withdrawal of government subsidy discourages private investment. Above a critical oil price biofuel becomes economic without subsidy, triggering private investment. Grain is a major feedstock. Strictly, there are other factors beside food/fuel switching contributing to grain stock falls, but fuel use is growing at 20 percent per year [http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Grain/2006.htm]
[C] “General Mills profit up on price hikes”, Reuters, September 19, 2007 [http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSWNAS435820070919]
[D] “Dash for green fuel pushes up price of meat in US”, The Times, April 12 2007 [http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article1642746.ece]
Anthony:
Fundamentalist is in the grip of a fully developed “People who think A often think B. B is wrong. So you are wrong” argument. On the A’s we are largely in agreement.
Fundamentalist:
I won’t debate with you whether there should or shouldn’t be tax, or what is an appropriate level of taxation. To the extent that there is tax, there is state intervention. Prohibiting the taxation of aviation fuel is a distortion. Proposing an equal tax treatment with other fuels is hardly Marxist. I concede I tread on thinner ice when proposing some limited tax concessions to catalyzs the development alternative energy technology. So be it.
The 90′s gap was as I described it. If you won’t accept data from a subject specialist (I contribute to a well known annual energy statistical review), or check basic references, then you have to acknowledge that your learning days are over. Meanwhile, have you ever actually *looked* at a graph of oil discovery over time? Do you realise that 80% of all production today comes from reservoirs that were discovered before the second world war, and that they are sick? Do you understand that oil discovery peaked in 1960? That the last giant discoveries were in the 70′s? That the last time we discovered more oil than we produced was 1980? That last year we replaced only 20% of what we consumed? Have you ever sat down with a pencil and paper and done the sums that show how quickly exponential things go to zero? times…” and seen how quickly it goes to zero? Do you feel you understand what the President of Exxon is telling you when he says (unlike the 90′s) we now have to replace 80% of current production just to stay flat? I don’t think you do.
Yancy:
re. fusion/fission, you are absolutely right and please accept my apology. I am so used to people harping on about fusion that I misread it in my haste to chortle, but writing it four times with out noticing is not slick. Mind you, the only thing that is more more loopy than fusion, in this world of suitcase sized bombs that can render cities uninhabitable for 10,000 years, is fission and the idea of replacing even a small fraction of 86 million barrels a day of hydrocarbon with it fills me with horror.
re. inflation. I can’t really put it better than Hubbert. The matter/energy system and the monetary system are universal, overlapping and incompatible. The monetary system must grow exponentially and can do so without any constraint. The matter/energy system can only sustain exponential growth for a few tens of doublings or, irrespective of the source of fuel, the earth will turn into a light bulb. Despite their incompatibilities, the two systems have grown exponentially and reasonably stably for nearly two centuries, creating amongst many the illusion that they are the same thing. However, the matter/energy system growth phase is now over. This disparity between a monetary system which continues to grow exponentially and a physical system which is unable to do so leads to an increase with time in the ratio of money to the output of the physical system. This manifests itself as price inflation. A monetary alternative corresponding to a zero physical growth rate would be a zero interest rate. The result in either case would be large-scale financial instability.
Fundamentalist: At one extreme you have people like Robert and Rich who proclaim that the end of cheap energy equals the end of modern civilization
No, I’m proclaiming the beginning of an era in which, each year, we have less energy available to us than the previous year. I can’t say whether it is the end of civilisation. I think it is reasonable to suppose that things will be very different.
Perhaps this misunderstanding explains why we appear to be having two entirely different conversations.
Rich,
It is not the case that the monetary “must grow exponentially” and “without…constraint”.
Again, inflation is caused by monetary policies, not by energy constraints.
Like I wrote, future humans will have to decide on the efficacy/desirability of whatever energy sources they wish to employ. Your worry about weapons of mass destruction is a valid one, but is one, I will point out, that already exists. We cannot uninvent stuff.
Rich,
I hear ya about (A) & (B), which really makes me wonder that : if Biofuels are really a cure for our “fossil-fuel based AGW nightmare to be/ Peak Oil is Now (and the end of the world as we know it)”– Why isn’t there a concerted push for the cultivation of Hemp- a drought-tolerant plant that has little need of fertilizers (?)
Though, with this: “The insignificance and high risk of withdrawal of government subsidy discourages private investment” while unclear, is not necessarily so…see this list: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/
There’s been a major costruction boom, and growing, in ethanol refineries.
Map, dated 3 APR 007, from data in above link:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/plantmap_040307.pdf
Yancey: Really? How would any positive interest rate not result in an exponentially growing system? How exactly would a zero interest rate financial system work, given that there would be no incentive to lend money? (I am not being snarkey)
Incidentally, the treatment of energy as a commodity is the economist’s greatest conceit. It is different from all other commodities in that it is the precondition for all other commodities. Since everything requires energy for its manufactor and transport, a rise in the price of energy must cause a rise in the price of everything.
Rich: “I think it is reasonable to suppose that things will be very different.”
You seem to be abandoning your earlier stance, when you wrote: “I find it hard to imagine how that market will work under conditions of hyperinflation, massive unemployment and an economy in free fall but no harder than how any other mechanism could cope.”
That’s not a “very different.” That’s a disaster.
Rich: “The 90′s gap was as I described it. If you won’t accept data from a subject specialist (I contribute to a well known annual energy statistical review), or check basic references, then you have to acknowledge that your learning days are over.”
There are many “specialists” out there to learn from, some reliable, others not so much. You didn’t describe a gap between demand and supply. You described a gap between forecasts and reality. The fact that you refuse to face is that real supply exceded real demand by a huge amount during the 90′s. I don’t care what the forecasts were. I’m talking about observable history.
“Do you realise that 80% of all production today comes from reservoirs that were discovered before the second world war, and that they are sick?”
What’s your point? I don’t think you’re saying we will not discover another barrel of oil in the future, but that we will not discover enough to replace our current usage and so will run out at some time. How do you know that to be true? History demonstrates the opposite is usually the case.
“Do you understand that oil discovery peaked in 1960?”
Again, what’s your point? Are you claiming that we have discovered all the oil to be discovered?
“That the last giant discoveries were in the 70′s? That the last time we discovered more oil than we produced was 1980? That last year we replaced only 20% of what we consumed?”
All you’re saying is that we haven’t replaced known reserves as fast as we consume oil. So how do you explain the record low prices of oil during the 90′s?
I know people claim they know how much oil reserves we have discovered, but I also know that the data for Iraq and Iran, two countries with the largest reserves behind Saudi Arabia, are 30 years old because no exploration has taken place in those two countries for 30 years. Also, drilling in the Caspian Sea and ‘Stans in Central Asia has just begun. No one knows how much oil is there.
Your forecasts of disaster are based on the idea that the future will be very different from the past. But people like you have predicted similar disasters continously since the 1920′s. Keep up making those predictions and you’ll eventually be right, though it may take another century or two. The real history of the oil industry is that improvements in technology allows us to find more oil every time we think we have run out. The 1970′s is a perfect example. Those of us who think the future will resemble the past have a lot of evidence on our side. The distaster-peddlers have just their imaginations.
Yancey: Really? How would any positive interest rate not result in an exponentially growing system? How exactly would a zero interest rate financial system work, given that there would be no incentive to lend money? (I am not being snarkey)
Incidentally, the treatment of energy as a commodity is the economist’s greatest conceit. It is different from all other commodities in that it is the precondition for all other commodities. Since everything requires energy for its manufactor and transport, a rise in the price of energy must cause a rise in the price of everything.
————————————————–
I don’t recall seeing Yancey saying anything about zero interest rates.However government can create an artificial incentive to lend by imposing a tax on cash holdings that lenders would be exempt from.(ugh!)Keynes advocated this.
Energy is a commodity like any other, it obeys the same economic laws.One could equally say that water was the one indispensible commodity, without
it workers would die of thirst and nothing could be produced.
Rich,
Mikey has already answered it, but I will elaborate the last point a bit:
The price of everything would not rise. The price of some commodities/products would rise while the demand for and prices of others would fall. The rising price of energy would force the elimination of the least profitable endeavors using energy- in effect, the prices paid for those items would fall to zero. What production remained would be purchased with the previous, aggregate income, everything else being equal.
Your saying that energy is a prerequisite for production makes it different is ridiculous. Matter is a prerequisite to production, but we treat its different forms as commodities just as successfully as we do energy.
Rich: “The matter/energy system and the monetary system are universal, overlapping and incompatible. The monetary system must grow exponentially and can do so without any constraint. The matter/energy system can only sustain exponential growth for a few tens of doublings…â€
The growth in the money supply does not cause the economy to grow; if anything, it hinders long term growth. Only population growth, savings and productivity growth cause economies to grow. Only savings and productivity growth cause our standards of living to increase.
I’ll grant that we have not replaced reserves as fast as we use them. That’s been happening since the early 1980′s when I worked in the oil industry. So why is oil so cheap today? And it is cheap if you adjust for inflation and tax increases. Adjusted for inflation, oil is about the same price as the early 1980′s. And the gov doesn’t subsidize oil; it taxes it at the well head and as imports; next it taxes the transportation; then it taxes gasoline and everything product made from oil at very high rates.
The problem with predicting disaster if we continue using more than we find in new oil is that it is simple linear forecasting. Simple linear forecasting is why most forecasts are so bad. We’ve only been producing oil for little more than a century. We’ve mined gold for millennia, but we still find new sources. What’s likely to happen in the future is that the price of oil will increase. As the price increases, oil producers will invest more in searching for new sources and they may or may not find a lot, but they will find some. At the same time, consumers will reduce consumption and new technology will make equipment more energy efficient, all of which reduce demand. The process is highly nonlinear and far more complex than you are willing to admit. Because it’s impossible to predict how much new oil producers will discover in the future, it’s impossible to say how long an oil-based economy will last. It could be 50 years, or 500 years.
Rich: “…a rise in the price of energy must cause a rise in the price of everythingj.”
I’ll add my two cents, too. Just check out the research on the SF Fed web site. Just google “price of oil” with “inflation.” You’ll find their research proves you wrong. The historical data and research is difficult to argue against. It also violates Austrian and monetarist theory.
Fundamentalist: You didn’t describe a gap between demand and supply. You described a gap between forecasts and reality
I’m going to say this once more, because I enjoy a challenge. An Aramco Executive – the head of Aramco’s exploration during the period you refer to – is on record as confessing that the “huge” gap to which you refer did not exist. A production capacity surplus they claimed at the time to be 7 million barrels was only 1 million barrels. The only forecast I mention was the estimate of *future* capacity based on that surplus, which caused OPEC to use the 1 million surplus to keep the price low. It just isn’t that complicated, and it is very easily checked.
Are you claiming that we have discovered all the oil to be discovered?
I am claiming we have discovered all the material volumes there are to be discovered. To have oil in commercial volumes you need source rock, reservoir rock, sealing rock and some form of trap. If any one of those things is missing, then you cannot have oil. We know the geographical distribution of all of those features with a high degree of accuracy. In particular, we know the locations of all the source rock because it formed under very particular conditions that make it easy to identify.
So the reason there are large reservoirs with seals and traps that we haven’t drilled is because they aren’t near any source rock. Even if there were, we would need reservoirs the size of the original reservoirs we found 60 years ago to replace the decline rates in the existing reservoirs and even the most deranged optimists do not claim there are reservoirs there of that magnitude.
Not only that, but we haven’t even discovered a large fraction of the oil you think we’ve discovered. Kuwait reduced its reserves this year by 50% – 50 billion barrels. That’s because in the period 1984-1988, Kuwait, Venezuela, Iran, UAE, Iraq and Saudi added 264 billion barrels of reserves to their accounts without drilling a single well. And they did that because in 1983 they changed OPEC membership rules so that the share each country got from OPEC revenues was in proportion to the reserves they had. The more reserves – the greater the share. So they added paper barrels. The reserves calculations themselves are state secret and have never been audited. Kuwait is the first to crack under the strain of maintaining production against these fictitious barrels. So we need to discover a greater volume of oil than we have discovered in the last 20 years – just to get us to the volumes we think we have today!
drilling in the Caspian Sea and ‘Stans in Central Asia has just begun
I am writing this in Baku, on the Caspian. Exxon – the worlds most profitable hydrocarbon company – closed its office here in November 2006 after investing $3 billion in Caspian oil projects, including $150 million on one exploration well that discovered nothing [“Caspian oil myth crashes as Exxon shuts Baku office”, http://www.un-az.org/undp/bulnews44/oil3.php. A decade ago, as part of the same hype that overestimated the supply/demand gap of which you are so fond, Caspian reserves were estimated by the U.S. Government to be 178 billion barrels. They are now estimated to be 7 billion barrels i.e. about 3 months of world supply.
Fundamentalist: the historical data and research is trivial to argue against. It has only been gathered under conditions of generally increasing energy supply. It has nothing whatsoever to tell us about conditions of generally decreasing energy supply.
Yancey – I’m off to bed, but I look forward to a tutorial on how infintite, exponential growth of the monetary system is not an inevitable consequence of one of its fundamental principles, and therefore what protects us from the inflation arising from the diverging monetary/physical ratio.
Fundamentalist
You wrote: “Haven’t read much economics, have you. Everyone is talking and writing about the end of cheap energy. The difference isn’t that economists ignore the issue; they clearly don’t. The issue is what will the impact be? ”
You’re right. I am not an economist, but I have a level of education in it and understand enough about the subject to have developed some ideas about its potential shortcomings.
OK. The “Newton” analogy missed the mark (clearly you didn’t study physics!). Lets try something simpler:
I see the modern global economy as similar to an engine in a car. Each year the engine (economy) gets more complex and efficient as designers (economists) develop ever more exotic electronic control systems (methods of trading).
The question no-one asks is how do you keep the engine running when the fuel tank runs dry?
Look at wind turbine technology. Absent all fossil fuel, it may be possible to gather the construction resources, design, build, transport, install and maintain a wind turbine and all its distribution infrastructure (and eevn generate some useful net energy) using ONLY THE ENERGY THAT WIND TURBINE WILL GENERATE IN ITS LIFETIME but no-one has ever proved it is possible. If it is not possible then our civilisation cannot continue in anything like its current form and we would be forced to read the history books and see how they used to do it in the 17th century.
No economic theory in the world is going to rescue you from that one.
Robert T
try: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pyrolysis.html
think Carbohydrates, as well as Hydrocarbons, as Feedstocks.
And, the only way this: “The question no-one asks is how do you keep the engine running when the fuel tank runs dry?” could be relevant, in any way, is for John Galt to leave the room(again).
Also, for the timid, read about Hemp, here:
http://thehia.org/
Plenty of energy is available at competitive prices. The problem is political, not technological. All the wailing is pointless. Breeder reactors can be rapidly built and easily fit into the existing electrical infrastructure. That energy can be used to liquify hugh reserves of coal. “We” are hardly near an energy problem unless “we” self-impose it. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=breeder+reactor
Rich said:
I’m fearful of jumping into the midst of this brouhaha, but I will try to answer your question Rich.
You are entirely correct that the inevitable outcome of the current monentary system (a fiat currency based, fractional-reserve cartel with a central bank at is hub) is the exponential growth of the money supply. This is what Austrians define as inflation.
However, this is an entirely unnatural monetary system, as it is by maintained government decree, i.e. coercive command. Such a system is not a natural outcome of a voluntary market process.
Money arises naturally out of a barter economy and must be a physical commodity. Such a physical commodity must initially have some value in use to the individuals in the society. Over time it becomes used more and more as a medium of exchange, and solves the problem of coincidence of wants. Eventually this commodity becomes almost exclusively desired, i.e valued, due to its ability to facilitate trade. It is at this point that it could be a called a money.
In the past the most commonly used media of exchange have been gold and silver. These physical commodities were not used as money because of state decree, but because they were naturally selected by the individuals participating in the market process over a long period of time.
In a natural commodity based monetary system there is no “diverging monetary/physical ratio” since the money is a physical commodity.
I hope that you can see the difference between this and what we have now. The fractional-reserve fiat monetary system is inherently unstable and unsustainable. Its very existence encourages unsustainable growth/development of the real economy.
This turned into a much longer post than originally intended, however I hope that I have shed some light at least the money matters.
Are you familiar with this website and its publications, or were you drawn here from an external link to this article?
Robert T said:
The economy is NOT “designed” by economists. The “economy” is simply that vast network of exchanges/interactions between individual human beings. The patterns that emerge from these interactions are natural phenomena.
Different patterns arise depending on the nature of the interactions between members of society. An “economy” consisting of purely voluntary interactions would be defined as a free market economy.
The role of economics (at least as it is understood here) is a descriptive one. It seeks to understand the emergent patterns of interactions between individuals that we describe as “economies”.
If you are not familiar with economics as it is developed here, then you maybe surprised. It is radically different than the “economics” spewed out of most schools and media channels.
brian – thank you for a very clear explanation, with which I agree. I’m not familiar with the website and its publications and linked here from EnergyBulletin [http://www.energybulletin.net/34778.html] (it follows an entry logging Shell chairman’s warning about having our heads in the sand about depletion – Fundamentalist you may care to check it out).
I’ll confess that I am familiar with the concept of fiat currency – and debt, fractional reserve banking and derivative financing which, taken together, constitute the major apparatus of our economic system. I was just trying to take a walk up Yancey’s ladder of inferences to see how far we could get before we fell off.
This economic system – the only one we have available to us to deal with this issue – is rigged to explode once the oil demand exceeds supply (or, more specifically, once the market senses that oil demand will soon exceed supply, which of course is sooner).
The possibility that there are other systems including the one championed by this website is, of course, interesting – but irrelevant under the circumstances. Unless we can some how pull off the equivalent trick of changing the aircraft engines in flight – perhaps there is a theory for that.
The “brouhaha” as you describe it is simply cognitive dissonance. As humans (and particularly as Westerners), we have very little ability to cope with upsetting information. The geological reality of our oil supply position, the thermodynamic reality of our energy substitute options, and the incompatible reality of our economic and physical systems is truly terrifying. Denial, arbitrary belief systems and faith in happier times to come are entirely understandable responses that have served terrified humans in desperate circumstances well for millennia.
Rich: “An Aramco Executive – the head of Aramco’s exploration during the period you refer to – is on record as confessing that the “huge” gap to which you refer did not exist. A production capacity surplus they claimed at the time to be 7 million barrels was only 1 million barrels.”
I’ll repeat for the fourth time: why were oil prices at historical lows throughout the 1990′s if supply wasn’t greater than demand? Econ 101 teaches that prices fall when supply is greater than demand for a product, all other things being equal. Today, what we consider high oil prices are equal to oil prices in the early 1980′s when adjusted for inflation. I don’t care how wrong the Saudi’s were about guesstimating their reserves. The question you have avoided completely is why were oil prices so low in the 90′s if supply did not meet demand?
Rich:”I am claiming we have discovered all the material volumes there are to be discovered.”
So you are saying that we won’t discover any more significant oil deposits. I understand your reasoning: the rock formations don’t exist that would contain the oil. You may be right. But I’ve heard it before. In the 1970′s the limit was depth. Every expert said we couldn’t drill any deeper. There were limits to seismic technology, too. Most experts loudly proclaimed that we had found all the oil that could be found. Experts may be right this time, though the odds are against them, based on their history of failed forecasts for the end of oil.
Robert: “The “Newton” analogy missed the mark (clearly you didn’t study physics!).
The Newton analogy missed the mark because it was stupid, not because I haven’t read any physics.
Robert: “I see the modern global economy as similar to an engine in a car.”
As Brian responded, the global economy is not anything at all like an engine in a car. That’s a very poor analogy, because the economy is driven by human decision and action, not fixed laws like those in physics. Humans are intelligent, rational, and can adapt to change. Car engines can’t.
Oil is currently the main source of energy, but it’s not the fuel of the world economy. Should the supply of oil run out tomorrow, the world economy would run through a rough patch but would switch eventually to other sources of energy and reduce energy consumption.
The “fuel” of the modern economy is human ingenuity coupled with savings in a free market environment. Oil has little to do with it. You may have mistaken oil as the economy’s “fuel” because you probably picked up some Keynesian economics along the way that insists that consumer demand drives the economy. Austrian econ is the opposite of Keynesian econ. You’re obviously influenced by socialists, because they’re the ones who are giddy over the “end of oil” which they hope will destroy capitalism.
Robert: “The question no-one asks is how do you keep the engine running when the fuel tank runs dry?”
Few economists talk about that because it’s a worst-case scenario, like what do we do if a meteor strikes the earth. Everyone acknowledges that a finite amount of oil exists because the universe is finite. That’s trivial. The interesting question, and the one which economists discuss constantly, is when will oil run out? 5 years or 500 years? The real answer is that no one knows. Historically, experts have predicted that we have found all the oil possible since the 1920′s. They’ve been proven wrong each time.
Rich: “Denial, arbitrary belief systems and faith in happier times to come are entirely understandable responses that have served terrified humans in desperate circumstances well for millennia.”
I agree, and hope some day you find a cure for your habit of denial, arbitrary beliefs and religious faith in a catastrophic future.
The catastrophic “end of oil” scenario is part of an old trick that socialists have used since the Great Depression to frighten people into surrendering their freedoms to an all-knowing, all-caring government that promises to rescue them. Not everyone who subscribes to frightening futures is a socialist. They may just enjoy being frightened and frightening others. But they certainly assist the socialist cause. I’m sad to say that it has worked very well.
It is clear to me that this discussion is going nowhere. It has been an education for me to see how a group of libertarian economists have developed a belief system that works, apparently, by excluding any facts that do not fit comfortably with their religion.
In an earlier post I mentioned “the tragedy of the commons”. This is one of the most fundamental reasons why completely unfettered trade between individuals eventually hits the barriers. Yes, private ownership helps, but it cannot be applied to our most critical commons – the atmosphere and (arguably) fossil fuel reserves. No-one has countered this argument or tried to convince me it is wrong.
In my view we are in the process of being caught in a pincer movement between climate change and depleting fossil fuel. Neither have become critical yet, but both are expected to become critical withing the next few decades. Richard Heinberg describes it as the Universal Ecological Dilemma – basically an updated version of the problems Malthus identified 200 years ago. It is a fantastic leap of faith to believe that technology is somehow going to rescue us from this situation, if only we can trade freely…
http://www.energybulletin.net/34357.html
I can only assume that economists are hard wired to blank out such information.
p.s. I think this may be my last post on this board.
Robert T.,
The problem is that you think there is some solution that you or some government officials can identify and implement that will lead to a better outcome than that to be found by the collective action all humans interacting freely, without coercion. Based on your philosophy of inescapable limits, we may as well commit suicide en masse since those limits exits regardless of whether we are free or we submit to some self-proclaimed omniscient state. This is the absurdity of your position, most clearly seen your calling of fossil fuels a “commons”. They will run out in any case, if what you believe is true, and declaring them a commons to be controlled by government will only hasten and deepen the pain that this causes our civilization.
Yes, I imagine that it is always an education for fearmongerers to encounter people who cannot be intimidated into surrendering to calls for benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent government.
Nor, even on the narrowest terms, are you guys right about ‘all’ the big sources of fossil energy being discovered (assuming they are ‘fossils’ and the abiotic oil theory is not, in fact correct). Exploratory surveys are being undertaken currently to explore the potential of methane hydrates on the sea bed, as well as the immense mineralogy of, eg, copper and gold down there. ======================================
You might also be aware of the political scramble going on as Russia, Autralia, India, etc., stake out claims for exclusive exploration rights in the Arctic, the Western Atlantic, and Pacific. ========================================
As just a minor example, the UK Guardian wrote this weekend that: “geologists are optimistic that a large area of seabed running from the Bay of Biscay past the west coast of Ireland and into the Atlantic could be hiding a massive new oilfield.” ============================
Recently, I also read an article by a senior mining engineer from South Africa who said that even that country (where you’d think every last square centimeter had been probed for minerals and diamonds) was ‘underexplored’ and that those areas whcih had been surveyed had not been examined using the latest, much-improved methods and so had probably had their potential drastically underestimated. ===================================
All in all, you Peak Oilers’ statism is naive, your assertions dubious, your defeatism dangerous, but your devotion to your cult is unshakeable (‘Peak Oil’ and AGW as the opium of the people?) =================================================
A friend asked me why I wasted time on this debate, knowing that to open your minds was a hopeless task. I said, I did it in the hope that by provoking you to respond, all these failings would quickly be made obvious and that you would quickly discredit yourselves. =======================================
============ Thanks, for a job well done!==========
Those are good summations by Yancey and corrigan.
It’s interesting that Robert calls the oil industry a commons, wants to end private enterprise in it, but wants the government to control it. He is right that the oil industry is a commons, but not because it’s privately owned; that’s the opposite of a commons. The oil industry is a commons because most oil is owned by governments. Government owned stuff is by definition a commons, because if the government owns it, every citizens owns it and has a right to use it. So Robert wants to do what? Increase the commons by having the US government take over what little amount of oil is in private hands?
I often wonder what the motivation is for people who cling stubbornly to “end-of-the-world” scenarios and refuse to even consider another side, especially when such scenarios are as common as dirt and always, always fail.
I read some research a few years ago about which emotional hooks work the best in advertising. They considered fear, love, sex, friendship and about a dozen more. The results showed that fear, and only fear, grab viewers’ emotions. The rest were a waste of time. Maybe people such as Rich and Robert are addicted to fear. Or maybe they really are closet socialists. I don’t know.
corrigan: “A friend asked me why I wasted time on this debate, knowing that to open your minds was a hopeless task.”
I didn’t have much hope of changing Rich or Robert’s minds. The reason I post is that I know there are a lot of readers who rarely post, but many of those readers will be undecided about an issue and open to changing their minds. Remember Bastiat’s seen and unseen and keep up the good work.
Yancey, Fundamentalist and others,
I make statements about oil and the climate in an effort to define the problem. I have also made suggestions about how we might tackle them. You need to distinguish between the two, rather than writing me off as some sort of red-under-the-bed.
The atmosphere is the ultimate “commons”. I cannot conceive of a way it could be partitioned up into private ownership. I would also argue that coal, oil and gas have become, in effect, commons, by virtue of the global market. After all, if I own an oil well my only options are to sell the oil now, or hold on to it and sell it later. It will not benefit from careful husbanding as, say, fishing grounds might. The global market gives anyone the right to buy my oil if they can pay the market price.
Our global market is therefore one huge mechanism for depleting reserves and polluting the atmosphere at the fastest rate possible.
OK. That’s the problem. It is a problem that is guaranteed to get progressively worse in a market of free individuals making rational individual decisions. You tell me what the solution is. Start by reading this for some ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Robert T.,
The fuels will be depleted no matter what we do, if you are correct. I refuse to let the state have any more control over them because the state is, in fact, one of the major problems in the business today. You seem to be advocating some kind of rationing initiated by more government control. Correct or not?
As for the atmosphere, it is not true that it cannot be assigned as property. Each person could be assigned ownership of equal portions of the atmosphere that he/she could sell rights to, could leave their heirs, etc. However, this is never what statists want because such ownership implies the right to sell to the highest bidder.
As a practical matter, we will have to live with a warmer world, if that is what is coming. Any global solution will have to come from a global state, and that is not going to happen in my, or your lifetime.
Yancey
Lets talk about the atmosphere, because that is the simplest and potentially most extreme example of a critical commons. There is definitely no substitute for it(!) and I would argue that it can not be assigned ownership in any way that will help the problem.
Assigning ownership of so many cubic km of air is not enough. For ownership to work you must be able to fence it off. “Consumption” of this particular common is really measured by the amount of pollution (particularly CO2) we emit, so without regulation how can I control what others are doing to “my” air?
Some commons are self regulating (e.g. the roads, a market exists where people pay a price (in time) to use a part of it. People adust their routes to minimise this cost, thus ensuring the commons are used efficiently. The same is not true of the atmosphere, where the marginal utility to the individual far outweighs the cost to that same individual of emitting polution. Rational individual behavour adds up to highly irrational behaviour at a macro level.
There is some hope that enough people will wake up to the threat of climate change and that a real sense of fear will make them demand solutions from their political representatives. There is also some hope that this will be co-ordinated at a global level by the UN. In practice such action is likely to be too late and no-where near drastic enough to make any difference, particularly as your views represent the majority at the moment.
Recent reports from the polar regions suggest that they are disintegrating far, far faster that the consensus science thought even a couple of years ago. This will continue for the next 40 years even if we were to cut emissions to zero immediately.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2987778.ece
Global warming is not just a case of living “with a warmer world”. There is a good chance that the major ecosystems that we rely on will break down in an extremely non-linear way, drastically reducing the human carrying capacity of the planet.
Robert: “I would also argue that coal, oil and gas have become, in effect, commons, by virtue of the global market. After all, if I own an oil well my only options are to sell the oil now, or hold on to it and sell it later. It will not benefit from careful husbanding as, say, fishing grounds might. The global market gives anyone the right to buy my oil if they can pay the market price.”
That’s the opposite of a commons.
Robert T.,
Then it is something you can’t assign ownership over, if you believe this. Yet, are you trying to assign ownership to the state as a response? This is an absurdity, though I am sure you won’t recognize it as such.
Fundamentalist,
Yes, what he defined as a commons is actually it’s complete opposite. I was just as flabbergastered.
“There is some hope that enough people will wake up to the threat of climate change and that a real sense of fear will make them demand solutions from their political representatives….”
“Recent reports from the polar regions suggest that they are disintegrating far, far faster that the consensus science, etc etc …”
=====================================================
Oh Dear! Here we go… having made all manner of unsubstantiated dire assertions in favour of ‘Peak Oil’ – and having offered on our behalf what remains of our liberty to Moloch as long as he keeps the lights on in the Gulag – we are now on to that other canard (or, to mix my animal metaphors, that Trojan Horse) of ‘Climate change’! ===================================================
Some people just can’t get a big enough dose of fear to get them through the day. No wonder all those poor women at Salem were so shamefully mistreated. ========================================
As you inadvertently admit in the first paragraph, the supposed evidence for (a) an unsual degree of change in a constantly varying environment is so slim and (b) the evidence that we puny Men have seriously slighted Mother Gaia by thoughtlessly leaving our TVs on standby is so paltry and so unconvincing to the objective observer that the only way to promote the idea is through inculcating fear (to revert to the provocative title of this thread, we are here again back to Mein Kampf). ==================================================
Secondly, you have rather holed your own already leaky boat with your second inaccurate assertion. ===================================================
Even if the ice really WAS melting as never before (rather than as ‘never’ – and then in the Arctic alone – in the mere half century of satellite surveillance and even if you weren’t totally disregarding a similar but converse record being set for a new MAXIMUM in Antarctic ice), you have just said that ‘consensus science’ (is truth a rude democracy, then?) got this all horribly wrong a few short years ago, but, in the same breath, you want to submit uncritically to the grant-funded, career-furthering alarmism of that same ‘consensus’ when it proceeds on its wearisome way, with each hack computer modeller, anti-capitalist, and misanthropic elitist competing to see who can issue the shrillest and most extreme ‘forecast’ of impending doom and so provide our overlords with yet more reasons to grind us down with taxation and to oppress yet further. ==================================================
As I have already said, your eager credulity, your ignorance of economics, your holier-than-thou zeal, and your lack of awareness of what the political classes stand for make YOU the real threat to humanity, not that harmless old gas, CO2
Fundamentalist
You are either being deliberately obtuse, or you really are obtuse. I explained the reasoning for thinking of fossil fuel resources + global trade creates a situation with all the characteristics of a commons. If you read the wiki article they agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
In the section at the end, “Modern commons”, they cite the following 5 examples:
Planet Earth
- Uncontrolled human population growth leading to overpopulation
Air – Air pollution
Water – Water pollution, Water crisis of over-extraction of groundwater and wasting water due to overirrigation[12]
Soil – Soil contamination
Forests – Frontier logging of old growth forest and slash and burn[13]
Energy resources and climate – Burning of fossil fuels and consequential global warming
Please note the last item in the list. Please also note that I came to this conclusion PRIOR to reading the Wiki article.
If you want a simple analogy (to oil), think of it as a large barrel of beer at a party. Every individual knows that their best strategy is to drink as much of it as fast as possible!
Corrigan
That was the biggest pile of horse manure I ever read. It is such a tange os misquotes, stange assertions about my political leanings and general waffle I can’t really be bothered to dissect it and respond.
If you have something intelligent to say which actually addresses any of the points I make then let’s hear it.
Yancey
****************************************
Then it is something you can’t assign ownership over, if you believe this. Yet, are you trying to assign ownership to the state as a response? This is an absurdity, though I am sure you won’t recognize it as such.
****************************************
If you read the Wiki article, the 2 most likely solutions are cited as:
1. The most common solution is regulation by an authority.
2. Another solution for certain resources is to convert common good into private property
In the case of climate change option 2 is not available. That leaves us with option 1.
seemingly apt, from the right-hand margin:
Ludwig von Mises: “The professors did not instill a scientific spirit into the bureaus. But the bureaus gave them the mentality of authoritarianism. They distrust the populace and consider the State (with a capital S) as the God-sent guardian of the wretched underlings.” – Planning for Freedom
Robert T.,
How convenient that is.
On the commons issue:
A finite resource is a finite resource. Turning it into common ownership does not change this. Indeed, history is replete in examples where common ownership led to faster, more damaging depletions than would have otherwise occurred. Though you will, no doubt, deny it, it is seen in the fisheries off the coasts, and it is seen in those countrie with public ownership of resources like oil.
By your obvious philosophy of limits as justification for public ownership, then every resource on the planet must be under public control. And to think you denied being a socialist.
Yancey,
I would agree that I find myself in bed with some strange bedfellows, seeing as I have voted Conservative all my life (at least until recently, when I have voted for the Green party through sheer frustration at the inability of the main UK parties to address environmental issues!). Both I and my wife are Directors of our own, modestly successful companies, so by rights I should champion Libertarian values.
The problem I have is that I have a science education and I analyse data for a living. I have spent many 1000′s of hours reading round the issues of climate change, resource depletion and environmental destruction and have come to the conclusion that we are heading over a cliff if we do nothing about it. Quite what we should do I am still wrestling with, but “business as usual” is what got us into this mess, so is unlikely to be the solution.
If you had the same conversation 10 years ago I would have been firmly in your camp.
I guess you guys are all US based.
What is it like, knowing that the whole world thinks the leader that YOU elected is a complete idiot?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/23/tech/main3289202.shtml
We are all just looking forward to the day his term of office ends. The wold has lost 8 precious years as a result of his efforts.
Robert T,
He isn’t idiot enough IMHO. I’d applaud putting in a straight monkey next term.
Lobbyist: Sign here, Sir.
President: *throws feces*
Robert: “You are either being deliberately obtuse, or you really are obtuse.”
I plead guilty on both counts. The strange thing is, I agree completely with you that the world oi industry operates as a commons and suffers from the tragedy of the commons. And I agree with your beer keg at the frat house analogy. But you threw me with you definition of the commons, which wasn’t.
So let’s try to untangle this a bit. The world oil is a tragedy of the commons because most of the world’s oil is owned by governments. US oil is privately owned, so it does not take part in the commons. You clearly see the problems with a commons, yet you want US oil to join the commons? Help me out here; I’m too obtuse to get my head around both.
Robert: “I have… come to the conclusion that we are heading over a cliff if we do nothing about it.”
You’re going to have to work pretty hard to compete with TokyoTom, a frequent poster on this site, when it comes to the science about global warming. Thanks to TT, no one who reads this site regularly is ignorant of the science. Not that TT has convinced everyone that we’re “heading over a cliff.” Many of us don’t see a problem at all, but it’s not because we’re not aware of the science; it’s because we place different weights on the evidence. Some evidence TT finds compelling that we discount, and vice versa.
I don’t want to start another long thread on global warming, but here in a nutshell is why I don’t think it’s a problem:
1. The earth has been warmer in the past and recovered just fine. The most recent episode being the medieval warming.
2. The GW models have been validated against temp only once, and that was in the late 1980′s. They failed miserably and the creators have never allowed them to be validated again.
3. I’m not convinced that CO2 causes GW. The data indicate that CO2 levels and temp coincide, which to a statistician indicates that both are effects of another cause.
4. The latest evidence suggests that the sun is the prime cause of GW.
You can attack those points if you want, but I’ve already been several rounds with TT on them and probably won’t respond.
Robert: “I find myself in bed with some strange bedfellows, seeing as I have voted Conservative all my life…”
You wouldn’t beleive how many times I’ve heard something similar. I rarely hear of a socialist that wasn’t a conservative to start with and the “scientific evidence” forced him into socialism. Forgive me if I’m skeptical.
Robert: “What is it like, knowing that the whole world thinks the leader that YOU elected is a complete idiot?”
The whole world? Including Sarkozy, Blair, Merkel?
You claim to have been a conservative at one time, but one way I can tell a socialist is that they always define conservatives as stupid and socialists as brilliant.
On the so-called consensus and AGW:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966
http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2007_05/jason-warming.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
http://www.coyoteblog.com/Skeptics_Guide_to_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_v1.0.pdf
Fundamentalist
****************************************
The world oil is a tragedy of the commons because most of the world’s oil is owned by governments. US oil is privately owned, so it does not take part in the commons. You clearly see the problems with a commons, yet you want US oil to join the commons?
****************************************
The vast majority of world oil is owned by governments, some of which in the past have restricted its flow on to world markets to keep the price up (i.e. OPEC). In the last few years OPEC has become irrelevant because everyone is producing flat out to keep up with demand and prices are increasing at a fair clip without any help from OPEC. OPEC still make noises about increasing quotas but it is pretty meaningless these days and they only do it to sound “responsible” to the consuming nations.
Almost all of the remaining oil is controlled by the oil majors, although rights get snatched away quite often by governments (e.g. Russia) or by sudden higher taxation (e.g. the UK). Very little is in private hands, but I guess you are thinking of the millions of wells drilled round Texas which produce just a few barrels a day, having peaked back in 1970.
I would conclude from this that all oil is being brought to market just as fast as it can be drilled, irrespective of who owns it. But if anything the governments have more success in restricting supplies than the oil companies or private wells.
Governments tend to look no further ahead than the next election and companies no further than the next shareholders meeting. Neither tend to see it as important to conserve oil for future generations.
Oddly enough, Saddam Hussain did a fantastic job of choking off production. Despite having the 3rd largest (after Saudi and Russia) reserves in the world he somehow kep production down to about 2 million bpd. What lesson to you draw from that???! And lets not forget that Bush went into Iraq to establish democracy. In other words to bring Iraq’s oil into the global oil commons so the stuff could flow freely at 8 mbpd. It hasn’t worked (yet) but that must have been the plan.
Anthony
I’m not going to do the GW skeptic debunking thing. Been there. Got the T-shirt. But please spare me any more links to Senator Inhofe. If he knew anything about climate science I expect he would have become a climate scientist not a politician in the pay of the US fossil fuel industry – thanks.
Bravo! Perhaps you should be awarded for your efforts. Regardless, the “consensus” argument is brought up all the time. I am dubious of its veracity.
Anthony, I don’t think you should take too much notice of Senator Inhofe if you want to find out more about climate change or gain a balanced view of the subject. His views are well known and mostly discredited. There is a discussion here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=97
My main concern with the consensus view as documented in the 4th IPCC report is that it is too concerbative (optimistic). It represents the lowest common denominator that everyone is prepared to sign up to without fear of being labelled alarmist. Measurements are already proving worse than the worst case scenario from the TAR.
Hansen (of NASA) has published papers recently suggesting that the rapid breakup in the arctic is far faster than anyone predicted and that the models do not take account of the positive feedback effects. Ice build up is a dry process, whereas ice breakup is a we process which happens thousands of times faster.
Finally, there was a certain boring predictablity that a bunch of right wing US-based libertarians would turn out to firmly entrenched in the climate skeptic camp. Even Bush accepts the science these days – even if he is fighting a rearguard action to prevent any action being taken to reduce emissions.
Bush in the media today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/27/climatechange1
Anthony
You are very much in the minority:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7010522.stm#map
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_09_07climatepoll.pdf
I do not care about being in the “minority”. The public-at-large’s opinion does not interest me one bit. Nor do I care about what Bush does to look good. I am only interested in the views of scientists on the matter.
I’ll give the first link a look though.
From Robert T.:
If oil is a finite resource, then conserving oil for future generations is a pointless pursuit, in and of itself, since the oil will be depleted anyway- some generation is going to use the last of it, now or in the future.
As Fundamentalist took the pain to point out, you deride the present public ownership of the resource, and, in the next breath, call for more of the same. It is small wonder that we seem obtuse to us.
As for your derogatory comments about Bush, it is clear to me that you are a new visitor to this site since you just assumed that such a comment would raise hackles. Just read some of the entries in the last 2 months, and you will see what I mean.
Hmmm, that should have read “obtuse to you“.
It is obviously time for a cup of coffee.
Right, Yancey, that one perplexed me as well. I almost posed the question whether Robert T. was drunk when he had written that, given how irrelevant and misplaced it was.
Take Bush’s already dismal approval rating and divide it by 100. That’s about the level of the collective regard in which the users of this site hold the current U.S. president. It is also disengenuous to suggest that “we” or “I” elected Bush. Given what I saw as equally distasteful choices, I abstained from voting in each of the last two presidential elections.
“Tyranny of the majority” indeed.
I’m horrified by Bush’s handling of the Iraq war and his spending like a socialist. But regardless, Robert seems to be just as ignorant of European politics as he is of econ and oil. The French just elected Sarkozy, who ran on a Bush-friendly platform. Some one in the UK elected Tony Blair, who was also pro-Bush. And Angela Merkel of Germany is clearly pro-Bush, and someone had to elect her.
I guess if you never read anything but socialist rags and watch the tube you can be forgiven for thinking you’re in the majority.
This thread seems to be heading off in several different directions at once. Let me make my views clear on oil and climate change.
The problem with oil is the rate at which our consumption has increased over the last 50 years or so. It has left the world with a very large population (I take it that people accept that one has led to the other) which is extremely dependent oil. Oil is set to peak and start declining within a few years (2012 seems to be the figure now agreed by both ASPO and the EIA). Its a bit late in the day, but a lower peak with a longer, flatter consumption curve would have been a good deal easier to deal with.
How will the world respond to declining oil supplies in the face of a growing climate change threat? It is most likely to respond by building coal-to-liquids plants to make up the shortfall. For those of you unfamiliar with the technology these generate 2 or 3x as much CO2 as plain old crude, as does oil sands. Just wait and watch the annual rises in atmospheric CO2 continue their exponential curve upwards. Is this what you want? Because with BAU its what you’re going to get.
People keep accusing me of wanting to put oil in government control. Not true. My position is that some form of central regulation or taxation scheme is needed in order to tip the playing field against any fuel that generates CO2 and towards those that don’t. Personally I would advocate a carbon tax levied on all primary fossil fuels in proportion to the CO2 generated when burned (then leave the market to work out the rest, in terms of renewables, nuclear, etc). For a taxation scheme to have the desired global effect it would need to be administered by the UN (or an equivalent body with global span).
What I have said over and over again is that an unregulated fossil fuel market simply ignores climate change and always will. It is simply an externality that the market does not recognise. You know it as well as I do.
I brought Bush into this debate because he has a long history of ignoring and/or undermining global climate change talks and agreements. Hardly surprising, seeing as the US is the most fossil fuel (not just oil) addicted country in the world and he has made his name and his money with oil. On the other hand I can’t think of any politician who has acheived anything on climate change – Blair and Brown talk about it, then press on regardless with an aviation plan that will see UK air miles triple over the next 30 years (er, if there is any oil left of course…)
Robert T: “For those of you unfamiliar with the technology these generate 2 or 3x as much CO2 as…”
Don’t worry about it. When the world begins running out of oil and orbiting solar platforms become economically viable, their shade will head off excessive global warming.
Is that the same Hansen who, 30 years ago, was telling us the next ice age was upon us? Is that the same Hansen who has just had to admit he fiddled the data so that when we last had a local maximum warm year (almost a decade ago now), it was actually cooler than the local peak in 1930 (even setting aside the many serious concerns about how we actually measure temperatures, or even, methodologically, whether a ‘global average’ makes any sense as a scientific concept)? Some objective source that severely compromised, serial alarmist is! =====================================================
Again, another rote regurgitation of a climate scaremonger’s canard – Oh No! Give Al Gore complete power over my neighbours’ lives because the ice MIGHT melt even quicker than we think due to an unobserved, hypothetical, unproven, unprecedented positive feedback. Yes and pigs might fly and politicians might vote to abolish themselves! ======================================================
If the earth had such a predilection for positive, rather than negative, feedbacks we wouldn’t be here today wasting time trying to convince an undiscerning devourer of propagandist twaddle to open his mind and think for himself instead of believing everything the Independent and the BBC spoon feed him. ===========================================
As for CO2, three cheers for the gas – many experiments show that plant growth is often just as constrained by a lack of it, as by any shortage of water or other nutrients, so our struggle to give an increasing population an increased standard of nutrition may well be being facilitated by the measurable increase we have had to date. ==============================================
Otherwise, leave it alone: there are serious disputes about what the coefficient of its supposed impact is, whether the ‘greenhouse’ hypothesis itself makes any thermodynamic sense, and whether CO2 can be causally linked to warmer climes (the micro record of the last century is decidely unsupportive, while the ice core/proxy data suggest it is an effect, not a driver) =================================================
Oh, and one last thing: there are no ‘right wing’ libertarians here – if you understood the terms you were bandying about you would realise that is as complete an oxymoron as a ‘left-wing’ libertarian. We take pride in despising right and left just about equally – we are far above that whole charade of caring just which cast of robbers-in-charge is threatening our freedoms at any given time.
To be honest I’ve just about given up trying to figure out where any of you are coming from. There seems to be a distinct lack of continuity or original analytical thinking from any of you.
Exactly what does a libertarian believe in? From your comments it seems to be a belief in complete freedom from the rule of law. Perhaps a close cousin to an anarchist?
Many laws exist to because there are times when the common good must take priority over individual freedom, and because certain interactions between individuals (e.g. murder) prevent a free market from functioning.
Global climate change laws will eventually be the largest scale example of this principle.
To answer my own question, this site says about itself:
“The core conviction is what matters: peaceful exchange makes everyone better off; private property is the first principle of liberty; intervention destroys wealth; society and economy need no central management to achieve orderliness.”
And this must have made a lot of sense in Ludwig von Mises’ (1881-1973) formative years, but in the dacades following his death the finite limits of our planet and its resources are becoming painfully apparent.
The game has changed. As we hit planetary limits it is no longer in our best interests to follow von Mises’ laissez faire approach. The market will NOT make everyone better off. It will simply consume itself and leave us with nothing, not even the ability to feed out huge numbers.
Robert T.,
I think the last thing you wrote is wrong. Nothing of significance will be done about global warming because there isn’t much than can be done in the near term, and when I write near term, I mean in the next 50 years. We will learn the effects of carbon dioxide increases first hand. The alarmists may be correct today, but it is mostly irrelevant to how events will unfold. The transition from fossil fuels will occur as they are depleted, not because of their carbon content.
Things go off in tangents when people fail to clearly articulate their arguments. It has been quite a task at times to figure out exactly what you and a few others were arguing for.
Robert T.,
Do you really have faith that governments will feed our “huge numbers”?
Robert T.,
Do you really have faith that governments will feed our “huge numbers”?
Robert T,
“The market will NOT make everyone better off.”
And you will be the judge of whether or not they are better off.
Who are they to say they wish to comsume their resources now? They should be saving and investing more, damnit! They are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. I’ll be the judge of their happiness, and I’ll tell them what to do to achieve it.
*Sigh* These monkeys are so much trouble. I wish they could understand that their lives are only their own as much as I permit.
And, we have come full circle from the very first comment.
Yancey – you wrote
“The transition from fossil fuels will occur as they are depleted, not because of their carbon content.”
I agree, but only because we can’t get our act together. The poll I linked to earlier indicated that the majority are in favour of urgent action on climate change (even in the US), but that does not mean it is likely to happen any more than a smoker can give up smoking or a dieter lose weight.
The only possible route to a solution, however unlikely, is through intergovernmental agreement. In the case of climate change it is the only way to counter the “tragedy of the commons”.
Your derogatory comments about governments rather neglect the fact that they, in theory, represent YOU and YOUR interests although practical examples of democratic government, particularly in the US, leave a lot to be desired. In the US they appear to represent corporate America more than the electorate.
The other point to remember is how powerless democratic governments are at the moment against climate change. Drastic action would curtail personal consumption so much that a government would be thrown out and unelectable. There is a long and painful period of popular education underway which may eventually turn this situation round and give polititians the mandate they need to take action. Guys like you don’t help though.
@Robert T
What do you mean by “The global market gives anyone the right to buy my oil if they can pay the market price.”?
This seems to be the biggest flaw in your understanding of how markets actually work. In a free market, if I don’t want to sell MY oil, nobody is going to get it. Period.
Trust me, I am a professional thermodynamicist, and an amateur Austrian economist; I have read a lot on Peak Oil, and I have no problem reconciling these approaches. Here is my brief thesis:
A- Peak oil is real and may be sooner than later
B- Under a pure free market, peak oil is a non-event. It is a non-event because each individual can still choose when HIS oil will peak. HE can decide if having 2 extra cylinders on his next car is valuable enough to HIM to work several overtime hours per week in order to pay for it. As long as HE values food more than travel, he will let the farmer overbid him for the diesel needed by the farm tractor. And if people were really obsessed with oil (they are not) then eventually all 7 billion people will be in the oil industry and a lot of oil will be found. Peak oil timing is not determined so much by geology as by expectations of the future demand for oil versus alternatives, including voluntary powerdown.
C- The oil market is far from free. In particular, there are some entry barriers to drilling and especially, hoarding underground oil, in several countries if not every one of them.
D- To convince an Austrian economist Peak Oil is an issue, you NECESSARILY have to show that the current oil price is LOWER than it would be in a pure free market. You can argue that OPEC countries have unstable regimes and therefore an incentive to dump oil on the market *faster* than a capitalist owner would. However, the overwhelming evidence is that the price is HIGHER than it would be in a pure free market.
E- If Peak Oil is indeed an issue, the most intelligent way to coordinate the planning of a solution by 7 billion potential inventors is still the free-market solution. Some will succeed, and the others will imitate them. Governments have a much smaller number of brains, and just can’t do that.
F- Under a free market, the absolute worst case scenario is when no new energy source can be shown to have a net return on investment. Then, you can expect an exponentially decreasing depletion of the remaining stocks, at a rate roughly equal to originary interest, which is a matter of individual preference (you will have to read von Mises to get that one). People would simply find it a bit expensive to feed children, and would choose to have less. Economic growth would still occur because it is a subjective concept. If I telecommute by choice, I am not a “Peak Oil refugee”, but actually switching from a less desirable to a more desirable living arrangement, therefore increasing my standard of living.
“I guess you guys are all US based.”
Nope, I live in England.
“The game has changed. As we hit planetary limits it is no longer in our best interests to follow von Mises’ laissez faire approach. The market will NOT make everyone better off. It will simply consume itself and leave us with nothing, not even the ability to feed out huge numbers.”
Yes, instead the government with its stunning abilities of economic calculation will make everyone better off.
Robert T.,
Glad to be of no help. You and those like you have a shockingly naive faith in the capabilities of government officials to coordinate the actions across the globe without just trampeling over the rights of individuals to live their lives free of oppression. However, in your case, I am detecting something more insidious. You really should reread the last comment you made about the how democratic governments appear to be ineffective to deal with the problems you foresee. Are you actually calling for some other form of government? Or was that another example of you not clearly writing what you meant to express?
Robert: “”The game has changed.”
If only I had a nickle for every time I’ve read something like that from a socialist.
Governments, and socialism, have failed miserably at controlling markets and economies for centuries, so the only way socialists can convince anyone that this time around they won’t fail is to argue that “the game has changed.”
Even if it’s true that “the game has changed,” that means nothing more than that the future is uncertain. (Of course, socialists want to convince us that the future is certain and disastrous unless we surrender to them.) Heading into an uncertain future, on who’s team would you prefer to play the game: the one that has failed miserably for 200 years (socialism), or the once that has succeeded beyond anyone’s imagination (capitalism)?
The “fatal conceit” in Hayeks book by that name was that socialists believe they can know everything necessary for controlling an economy perfectly. Hayek argued that only God has that extensive and kind of knowledge. With peak oil and GW socialists have added another conceit to their repertoire: they believe they can predict the future with complete accuracy. If socialists were religious, I would suggest that they are being blaphemous in taking for themselves an attribute reserved exclusively for God.
The insistance that they know the future perfectly (that’s it’s a disaster) is one reason Austrians are skeptical of GW and peak oil. We’ve learned a healthy disrespect for most forecasts.
Yancey:
“However, in your case, I am detecting something more insidious. You really should reread the last comment you made about the how democratic governments appear to be ineffective to deal with the problems you foresee. Are you actually calling for some other form of government?”
Down, boy. It’s not only a bad habit, but undermines your own crediblity, when you allow your exasperation (with those who have been earnest, patient and intelligent enough to merit several rounds of posts with you) to accuse others of bad faith, rather than simply being stubborn. Robert deserves better and this is below you.
Regards,
TT
Sean, Yancey says that what you are “attacking, aggressively so I will admit, is the idea that there is no solution other than putting the state in control of economics.”
But I’m afraid I don’t see that. Rather, at a conference that appears will be largely devoted to a discussion among academics, entrepreneurs and others about a transition away from oil to other energy sources and what the consequences may be, it seems that you see a whole bunch of enviro hobgloblins: “a gang of anti-capitalist activists, a squawk of sensescent members of the political elite, and a whole Bronze Age roundhouse of associated Gaia worshippers”.
As you note down-thread, this energy transition is happening and will continue. So why the need to make fun of what appears to be a largely harmless group of people who want to talk about it, and maybe profit from it? Isn’t this type of private gathering precisely the type of thing that Miseseans favor – and a whole LOT better than the ongoing governmental planning and worrying about energy, that has in part fuelled and justified our $500 billion and counting venture in Iraq and a whole host of other interferences in the market that both waste our money and hinder changes to our energy system, while aggrandizing the pork handlers? So what, exactly justifies your “Malthus and Mein Kampf” rhetoric in connection with this group, who as you note largely are outsiders?
It is only in response to a comment that you then seem to find the straw the you are grasping, which is to conclude that those who repeat “Al Gore/Sierra Club/WWF nonsense about us human cancer cells using up the bounty of three planets” and thus “open[ly] invit[e] … collectivist control”, which you then parade as the point you intended to make, though only weakly supported by the ASPO conference.
But do you not make the mistake of simply failing to address the question of whether there any systemic problems relating to open-access resources for which there are no clear or enforceable property rights – in favor of simply flinging poo at those who would say there are such problems?
Well, I for one am tired of this sh**. Are you familiar at all with Misesean approaches to environmental issues? Here are a few thoughts that Cordato has cogently laid out in summarizinf his views and the work of his colleagues: http://mises.org/daily/1760
“Humans cannot harm the environment. Instead, they can change the environment in such a way that it harms others who might be planning to use it for conflicting purposes.â€
“The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to identify possible ways of resolving it.â€
“The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute plans within the context of their goals. Furthermore, in all three approaches, social welfare or efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. … A theory of environmental economics and pollution that evolves from problems associated with human conflict then would be a natural implication of each of these welfare standards. [I]rresolvable inefficiencies, i.e., inefficiencies that cannot find a solution in the entrepreneurial workings of the market process, arise because of institutional defects associated with the lack of clearly defined or well enforced property rights. In a setting where rights are clearly defined and strictly enforced, plans may conflict but the resolution to that conflict is embedded in the exchange process. … In the absence of clearly defined and strictly enforced property rights this process breaks down and the conflict becomes irresolvable through the market process. Under … Austrian approaches to welfare economics, therefore, the solution to pollution problems, defined as a conflict over the use of resources, is to be found in either clearly defining or more diligently enforcing property rights.â€
“[W]e have integrated the Austrian focus on the actor’s means-ends framework, including its emphasis on the subjective nature of value and therefore costs, with the definition of what constitutes an environmental problem. By defining such problems in these terms, both the nature of pollution and the definition of a polluter take on new meaning. Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal plan formulation and execution.â€
“[T]he Austrian approach to solving pollution problems may face implementation problems at the margin, i.e., with certain “tough cases,” defining and enforcing property rights already stands as the fundamental way in which interpersonal conflicts of all kinds are avoided or dealt with. … The challenge for Austrians is to explain how we apply the theory in certain tough cases ….â€
Pardon if I say that you don’t at all appear, on this thread at least, to be an Austrian.
By the way, did you note that Dan McLaughlin has a post up on Malthusian issues? http://mises.org/daily/2718 He seems a little more interested in actually discussing. I have posted on my own blog (new!) my reactions. http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/09/28/too-many-or-too-few-people-does-the-market-provide-an-answer.aspx.
But perhaps, as you say, it is better not to discuss some of these issues at all, since they may simply “invite collectivist control”. Better to simply to throw ad hominens and to question motives, rather than to seek to explain, much less seek solutions?
TT
Fundamentalist:
Did I hear you call my name?
You posted a few thoughts on why you don’t think global warming is a problem, but then say you’ve “already been several rounds with TT on them”. I may indeed have had that pleasure, but I certainly don’t recall it. Were you writing under a different nom d’plume?
However, not to disappoint others, allow me a few brief notes on my view of the climate science:
1. The earth has been warmer in the past and recovered just fine. The most recent episode being the medieval warming.
We are conducting an uncontrolled experiment with the climate, and history shows that the road in various times was quite bumpy in the past. And having us in the front seat with our foot pressing ever harder on the pedal, but no steering wheel, brake or safety belt is supposed to be reassuring how?
2. The GW models have been validated against temp only once, and that was in the late 1980′s. They failed miserably and the creators have never allowed them to be validated again.
Haven’t heard this one before, but there is a growing pile of empirical data that climate changes of the types expected from the physics of GHGs, humidity, and albedo are increasing – temps, melting, ocean rises and extreme events – even faster than mdel predictions. Clearly the models are not and will never be perfect, but do they tell us nothing? Maybe the problem is simply that governments are doing the modelling rather than private firms, but eventually a market will develop – if there is a demand.
3. I’m not convinced that CO2 causes GW. The data indicate that CO2 levels and temp coincide, which to a statistician indicates that both are effects of another cause.
No one’s saying that CO2 is the only influence on climate and certainly not that it has been the most important factor prior to industrial man, but it is a GHG and has been a factor and we are rapidly levering. What was that Archimedes said about a lever again? “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.”
4. The latest evidence suggests that the sun is the prime cause of GW.
Not. Our relationship with the sun is of course the chief reason why the Earth is warm, and why climate has varied in the past (Milankovich cycles, cosmic rays and clouds etc.). But there is little evidence that there are recent changes in the sun that correlate to climate – and even those scientists who argue that changes in the sun are contributing to climate change all accept CO2 and other anthropogenic GHGs as factors in ongoing climate change.
Regards,
TT
Firstly, a little retaliatory ad hominem against the Torquemada of AGW himself. It seems he may not be such a disinterested little maverick, bravely fighting oil-funded liars as is widely believed: =================================================
QUOTE:How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely “NASA whistleblower” standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute , which gave him “legal and media advice”?
That’s right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship “philanthropy,” by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s “politicization of science” program.
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly “censored” spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.
Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen’s OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.
================================================
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836 =================================================
On a different tack, here’s yet another ‘scientific consensus in trouble (neatly on another “Silly, bad humans v good government, ‘global commons’ success story”)
=================================================
QUOTE: Sep 27, 2007
Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Ozone Hole May Be Coming Apart
Nature:
As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,†Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.†What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,†says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,†agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.â€
==================================================
QUOTE:
By: University of Leeds Published: Jul 26, 2007:
Large quantities of ozone-depleting chemicals have been discovered in the Antarctic atmosphere by researchers from the University of Leeds, the University of East Anglia, and the British Antarctic Survey.
The team of atmospheric chemists carried out an 18-month study of the make-up of the lowest part of the earth’s atmosphere on the Brunt Ice Shelf, about 20 km from the Weddell Sea. They found high concentrations of halogens – bromine and iodine oxides – which persist throughout the period when there is sunlight in Antarctica (August through May). A big surprise to the science team was the large quantities of iodine oxide, since this chemical has not been detected in the Arctic.
The source of the halogens is natural – sea-salt in the case of bromine, and in the case of iodine, almost certainly bright orange algae that coat the underside of the sea ice around the continent.
These halogens cause a substantial depletion in ozone above the ice surface. This affects the so-called oxidising capacity of the atmosphere – its ability to “clean itself” by removing certain – often man-made – chemical compounds. The iodine oxides also form tiny particles (a few nanometres in size), which can grow to form ice clouds, with a consequent impact on the local climate.
Scientists now plan to carry out further research to assess what impact this may be having on the local environment. Very recent satellite observations by one of the team, Dr Alfonso Saiz-Lopez, have confirmed that iodine oxides are widespread throughout coastal Antarctica
=================================================
We could go on like this for years, but solar theories are getting more powerful and do not revolve exclusively and convincing around Milankovich cycles – eg Landscheidt, Svensmark, Fairbridge and many others – most more mainstream than these three – which suggest mechanisms for solar influence, as well as proposing ideas to explain what might be making that highly variable, but still poorly understood star, the Sun’s, behaviour change. ===============================================
Further, there is increasing evidence to doubt that the late 20th C is exceptional at all in terms of either level or rate of change (I’m not going to provide a bibliography here, a simple web search will throw up dozens of such cases), as well as casting serious doubt on the integrity of the ballyhooed data widely disseminated in order to pretend the converse. ================================================
We won’t go through the role of CO2 yet again, but credible evidence of culpability, rather than blind dogma, is distinctly lacking!
Sean, the attack against Jim Hansen is – of course – nonsense. In lieu of innuendo and false assertions by one class on disinformation, here is more information directly from the horse’s mouth:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf
It seems that the worst that can be drawn from this is that The Government Accountability Project – which is a respected, long-standing organization with bi-partisan support dedicated to government transparency and accountability (and along with 30 other conservative, libertarian and liberal groups is a member of The Liberty Coalition, a transpartisan public policy group dedicated to preserving the Bill of Rights, personal autonomy and individual privacy) – wrote a letter to the NASA administrator on Hansens’s behalf, detailing how NASA’s attempts to muzzle Hansen were contrary to current law and the Constitution, which are designed to ensure the flow of information, however much bureaucrats might wish to stifle it. That’s it. There were no payments to Hansen, or funds to help him publicize his views.
Where do you stand on that issue, Sean? If a scientist is not an official spokesman for the current political dogma, does he have no right to speak, and do American taxpayers have no rights to hear what he has to say? Do we not want greater transparency and taxpayer control over government?
Someone I know, “BlindSight”, has made a few remarks about this on a site dedicated to Republican control over the Great Federal Pork Machine: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report#comment-441907.
Why do you call your complicity in libel “retaliatory ad hominem”? Has Hansen directed any towards you or others?
Gotta go; the pipes are calling.
Yancey, I wrote what I meant to write. You may have skimmed through it, picked out a few trigger words and jumped to your own conclusions. I wrote:
************************************************
The other point to remember is how powerless democratic governments are at the moment against climate change. Drastic action would curtail personal consumption so much that a government would be thrown out and unelectable. There is a long and painful period of popular education underway which may eventually turn this situation round and give polititians the mandate they need to take action.
************************************************
From which you concluded:
************************************************
However, in your case, I am detecting something more insidious. You really should reread the last comment you made about the how democratic governments appear to be ineffective to deal with the problems you foresee. Are you actually calling for some other form of government? Or was that another example of you not clearly writing what you meant to express?
************************************************
Take my posts at face value and don’t read into them things which I didn’t say. I am NOT advocating undemocratic government. I AM suggesting that a better informed and educated electorate will eventually demand responsible action from its representatives through the ballot box. This type of thing actually happens amongst some of the more sophisticated electorates you know…
For better or for worse, I have refrained from further commentary regarding the types of issues covered in this thread. I believe that concentrating on reading and studying the wonderful books that the Mises Institute has recently published will help me become a more knowledgeable person.
However, I do have one comment to make regarding education. The educational system in the U.S. (and virtually all countries) is essentially monopolized by government through both the public school system and the tremendous government funding of elementary/secondary and higher education. A system so corrupted by monopolization that is enforced at the point of a gun will be extremely hard-pressed to yield an accurate description of reality and pursue truth. Education under this institutional arrangement is more accurately characterized as, to one degree or another, indoctrination.
As far as these things can be won and lost, I feel that the usual inhabitants of this site have lost this debate.
From a little research about von Mises http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises and linertarian ways of thinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism it seems that their principles simply do not address major “commons” issues, notably the atmosphere and oceans i.e. climate change. The nearest the second Wiki article comes is to say:
“Some libertarian thinkers believe that this evolution can define away various “commons” such as pollution or other interactions viewed by some as externalities. “A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility.”"
This statement is meaningless. It sidesteps the very real problem of the commons – which is exactly what the people in this thread have been doing. Their answers have oscillated between the climate skeptic “denial of the problem” and the libertarian “the atmosphere must be put into private ownership”. Neither have any connection with reality.
It seems that libertarian principles do not describe how the real world works, any more than communism did. The real world includes big government, taxes, laws, infringements of personal freedoms, dictatorships, wars, assasinations, global corporations accountable to nobody.
For the sake of our grandchildren I hope this unholy mix has enough sense to figure out a way to de-carbonise the global economy, and that this happens before we have transferred all of the sequestered carbon in the earth’s crust into the fragile atmosphere on which we depend so heavily.
“It seems that libertarian principles do not describe how the real world works, any more than communism did. The real world includes big government, taxes, laws, infringements of personal freedoms, dictatorships, wars, assasinations, global corporations accountable to nobody.”
If all you have read on libertarianism is a couple of wiki articles, sure, they cannot.
Robert: “For the sake of our grandchildren I hope this unholy mix has enough sense to figure out a way to de-carbonise the global economy…”
Robert reads a couple of Wikipedia articles and thinks he’s an expert on libertarians! The arrogance of socialists knows no bounds. That’s really good.
Our grandchildren will be just fine. Within a few years, GW and peak oil will go the way of the Y2K scare and all but a few die-hards will be glad we didn’t destroy our economies and societies because of a scare tactics worthy of only a cheap disaster movie.
Fundamentalist (what values does that name confer*)
Funny. The link I clicked said “Post an intelligent and civil comment.” You fail on both counts.
*************************************
The arrogance of socialists knows no bounds.
*************************************
I am neither arrogant or a socialist.
*************************************
GW and peak oil will go the way of the Y2K scare
*************************************
How is that going to work exactly? Is some jolly green giant going to come over the hill and give us a limitless supply of easy-to-get oil, coal and gas? When this happens is he also going to give us a new atmosphere every 50 years to burn it in?
You keep sticking your head in the sand. Maybe your plan is to expire before things get too bad and sod everyone else. That is the libertarian way, isn’t it?
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
Fundamentalist – if we were talking about goods and resources that were owned, I agree with you. But because they are NOT effectivley owned, your optimisim and summary dismissal are simply unjustified.
What does economic theory and history tell us about how man treats resources that are not owned? What can we expect will continue to happen to our great open-access resources – atmosphere, oceans and forests – until such time as property rights are extended to them?
Can we not expect that their condition WILL degrade as they receive increasingly intense use? And that our granchildren will NOT thank us for the condition in which we`ve passed them on?
Regards,
TT
TT – Exactly. If the granularity of access is global then ownership has to be global. Otherwise it doesn’t work. But whenever I suggest this in this discussion I’m accused of having a much wider socialist agenda.
I would only propose central intergovernmental control of key global commons (atmosphere, oceans, maybe forests…). This is just to ensure some sort of sustainable environment in which everything else can continue.
I do not include fossil fuel in the above list because fossil fuels are going to either run out of their usage be curtailed by climate change measures, whoever “owns” them. If there is a way through this problem the market will find it, but it is not a problem that central government can fix.
Everyone on both sides runs to mother science in these discussions.
If the science can convincingly persuade all who argue, then it can certainly persuade a court.
Let the injured party or parties draw up their scientifically supported case, and seek justice for their proven damages in court.
Which court would that be then?
Actually, there is some legal action on climate change going on but it has gained little traction to date.
http://www.climatelaw.org/media/canada.sued.over.kyoto.breach
*************************************************
Canada is second only to Austria , worldwide, in the staggering size of its failure to meet its Kyoto target, with its greenhouse gas emissions more than 34% above its 6% reduction target. Last month, the Canadian government set greenhouse reduction targets of 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, which would leave Canada about 39% above the Kyoto target for 2008-2012.
*************************************************
That’s Austria for you…
If you are interested in CO2 emission trends country by country, check this site out:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm
The US and Canada are bad, but the trend from China is staggering:
US http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/usa.htm
Canada http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/can.htm
China http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/prc.htm
Jean Paul: Is quoting Cordato “running to science”? Although I am late to the thread, it seems pretty clear that people have been largely discussing economic principles, with a few straw bogeymen thrown in for measure.
Lawsuits – Hmm. Where do I sue China? And whom do I sue there, exactly? What damages can I win, and how do I collect them? Is it a worthwhile investment? Would I be wiser to try to coordinate with others – say through consumer/industry groups or my government – to seek to persuade China? And how do others sue us, if they think we have some measure of responsibility?
You beg all of these questions, while missing the obvious and most significant – the atmosphere is a global open-access commons, unowned and unregulated except to limited degrees locally. So as far as global aspects go, we are all entitled to use and dump into it as we please, but no one has any “rights” to protect a particular quality of the atmosphere.
But by all means, feel free to clean it up for all of us, if you please.
Until users agree on appplicable terms of use/property rights of the atmosphere (or similar resources), the free for all to use while ignoring external costs it will contiune unabated.
Thimk!
TT
Robert: “I would only propose central intergovernmental control of key global commons (atmosphere, oceans, maybe forests…)”
That would be something like the UN, wouldn’t it? So let’s see, would such an intergovernmental effort work as well as it did preventing genocide in Rwanda, or in Darfur? Or how about the intergovernmental effort to rescue Bosnians? Intergovernmental efforts are no more successful than intra-governmental ones; they fail at just about everything they do. So by all means, let’s reward their constant failure with greater responsibility and more control over our lives! In fact, let’s use the governments of SE Asia as prototypes, where wealthy businessmen bribe government officials to look the other way while they cut down all of their nations forests; or better yet, the UN food-for-oil program for Iraq, where wealthy businessmen bribed UN officials at all high levels to allow them to loot Iraq’s oil?
TT: “What can we expect will continue to happen to our great open-access resources – atmosphere, oceans and forests – until such time as property rights are extended to them?”
In the first place, I don’t think the problems with the atmosphere, oceans and forests are any where near as bad as many environmentalists suggest. But even if they were, the main problems exist in places with corrupt, dictatorial governments, such as China, Africa, SE Asia and S. America, not the US. Business destroys the environment in those areas by bribing corrupt government officials to look the other way. Adding more layers of government through organizations like the UN only increases the level of corruption and accomplished nothing. So how are you going to prevent corrupt dictators from selling their nations resources to the highest bidders and destroying their environments? Their isn’t anything the US can do without invading them and making them colonies.
All we can do is take care of our own. The handful of civilized nations in the world might be able to divide up the oceans between them, then auction fishing rights as we do offshore oil drilling and the radio/tv spectrum. But there is nothing we can do about the de-forestation of SE Asia or Latin America; we have no control over those people or any influence with them. The UN can’t even stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons. How is it going to stop corrupt government officials in Indonesia or Thailand from selling off the nation’s forests?
The UN allowed China to murder close to 100 million of its own people over 50 years. How is it going to control what that country does to the environment? International treaties, such as Kyoto? Only the US has qualms about signing treaties it has no intention of keeping. Look at all of the European countries who signed Kyoto. Has a single one even tried to live up to its commitments? No, not one! Yet they consider themselves superior for having signed the paper.
I think global warming is a hoax, junk science at its worst, but I don’t worry at all about treaties and legislation to stop it. I won’t even try to prevent such legislation and treaties from being signed into law, because I’m confident no one has any intention of following any of them. Pass all the laws you want and write dozens of treaties with the strictest regulations on the environment you can imagine. Who will enforce them? The UN? Did you know the UN has had a peace keeping force in Lebanon on the Israeli border for over 30 years? That’s a great example of how well the UN works.
When there are no property rights in something, it will be abused – as with forests. Could anyone point to privately-owned forests that have been entirely destroyed?
Fundamentalist, you didn’t even bring up its failures in Sierra Leone and Somalia.
Funda…
*********************************************
I think global warming is a hoax, junk science at its worst,
*********************************************
From a purely common sense point of view, if a civilisation goes out its way to extract most of the oil, coal and gas from the earth’s crust, oxide it and leave the result in the atmsosphere, you might reasonably expect problems to follow.
The earth’s atmosphere is about the same thickness (to scale) as the film on a soap bubble. It might seem large to you and me, but in terms of the geometry of the planet it is miniscule. We know that the natural level of CO2 (just 280ppm) that existed pre-industrial revolution gave a temperature boost of some 30 deg C. Our climate is very sensitive to this parameter.
I share your reservations about the UN but we have no other route available to us. I am surprised that the US (or Bush to be more exact) does not realise he is batting for the wrong side in undermining climate talks. China’s emissions are going to be massive within a few years, dwarfing anything the west emits. I will post this link again in case you missed it.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/prc.htm
We have to keep trying, even if it seems futile. This issue will only get worse.
Robert, for your information, Autrian economics gets its name from the school that was active there from before the turn-of-the-twentieth-century until World War II, and the many prominent economists associated with it. The Austrian school ceased to exist in Austria after Hitler’s rise to power.
Following on the heels of your earlier comment on Bush, I suggest you try to avoid ad hominem and stick to the discussion.
I think that there are a lot of good arguments being presented to you, but you don’t necessarily have the background in “economics” (why the quotation marks?) to evaluate them fully. I think that you disdain economics because you don’t like the answer to the question: what happens when the oil supply starts to contract?
The answer is this: production will shift to substitutes and existing production will be rationed to the most urgent needs.
But HOW?! you insist. How is that possible? How can we know that the market can solve this problem? Quite simple. The market utilizes the calculating power of every person who participates in it. No one person (or group of people, for that matter) could possibly comprehend the market in its entirety. It consists of so many billions of simple interactions that the end result is enormously complex.
As shortages occur, the market supplies only those uses that are the most important and prices the item out of reach of those that could do without or switch to a substitute. IF a solution to peak oil exists, the market will find it. IF a solution does not exist, the market will allocate resources to the most urgent uses during the decline, minimizing the impact of the loss of energy on life and prosperity.
Robert, the fact is that you or I could never understand or predict the market. It is smarter than any computer and certainly more effective than any government. “Economics” will never solve the problem of peak oil, only the market can do that.
Scott D – Yes. Thank you for the economics lesson, but I’m not stupid and I already understand the principles of market forces.
I do take issue with your statement “IF a solution does not exist, the market will allocate resources to the most urgent uses during the decline, minimizing the impact of the loss of energy on life and prosperity.”. Why would the market care about minimising these impacts? Global wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few and I think it unlikely that they will give up their cars and planes so that the less well of can survive. I don’t have the stats to hand, but I believe that 50% of the world’s wealth is held by some 2% of the population.
The point the PO people make is that our population was only ever able to get to its current size because of cheap fossil fuel. It is a prerequisite for almost everything we do. The so-called green revolution of the ’60s was mostly to do with the emerging technologies of converting oil into food, thus tripling yields.
But at the end of the day I agree that we will have to rely on the market to find a way through PO and hope for the best. As far as I know I have not suggested anything else during this discussion.
Climate change is a quite different issue and can only be addressed by intergovernmental agreement, action and policing. That is what the latter part of the discussion has focussed on.
“Why would the market care about minimising these impacts?”
You answered this question yourself.
“I don’t have the stats to hand, but I believe that 50% of the world’s wealth is held by some 2% of the population.”
What do you think the rest of the people, 98% want?
They want to be as whealthy as the 2%. And in the market if they want to be as wealthy they need to find new and more effective ways of using resources.
What do you think will happen to the person that discovers a lubricant that helps the efficiency of any engine?
He will be filthy rich thats what.
You dont know history and economics and you underestimate the human race. So did Malthus, hence the title of the post.
Robert: “We know that the natural level of CO2 (just 280ppm) that existed pre-industrial revolution gave a temperature boost of some 30 deg C. Our climate is very sensitive to this parameter.”
Well that’s what the debate is about, isn’t it? Whether or not you know what you claim to know. I don’t think your statement is accurate for several reasons. We don’t know that CO2 governs the earth’s temp. That’s the assumption of all of the climate models but I don’t think anyone has bothered to prove it. It seemed obvious to me back in the mid-80′s when GW got started that variations in the sun’s energy and volcanic activity were the most likely sources of climate change. But few scientists were interested in those factors until recently. Charts of past CO2 levels and temps demonstrate quite a large variance in both and it doesn’t seem that the climate is very sensitive. Before I’ll sign on to CO2 as the cause of GW, you’ll have to explain to me the cause of the variations in CO2 in the past, for millenia before the industrial revolution, and you’ll have to explain the previous periods of serious warming, such as that of the middle ages.
Robert: “We have to keep trying, even if it seems futile.”
Well, as it wrote, I really don’t mind if you try. I don’t think you’ll do much harm, but I’m sure you won’t change anything. If the problems existed in Japan, the US, or Europe, I could see you as being dangerous.
The key to saving the world’s forests is to extend private property rights over the 90% of the world that lack them. The same is true of the oceans. How you accomplish that, I don’t know.
Funda
You really don’t know anything about the science do you? The theory behind the inaccurately named “greenhouse effect” was fisrt laid out by Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century. Even at that time he speculated that human emissions might cause global warming. Here is a short history if you are interested.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
The greenhouse effect is not disputed by anybody (except you). Outside of blogs such as this neither is the concept and scale of MMGW.
Robert, as for oil, markets have always allocated it and other products to the most urgent uses first – demonstrated by a willingness to pay.
Fundamentalist – can you help me figure out when we discussed the science before? I think it`s rather clear that you`re wrong, and notice you haven`t engaged on my specific responses. It`s you`re choice, but if you choose not to then you should stop throwing out lines like “I think global warming is a hoax, junk science at its worst”. Either argue the science or drop it.
YOU don`t think things are bad with the oceans, tropical forests or atmosphere? Haven`t noticed any little things like fisheries collapsing (Nat. Geo had a recent special on it, and even Bush has gotten into the act by declaring a sanctuary on the Hawaiian chain)? Haven`t noticed how rapidly the Amazon is being converted to soybeans and Indonesia to palm oil? Haven`t noticed the craqp that China and India are putting into the air, much less climate change?
Well, you can have your own facts, but as an Austrian you must acknoledge that things will improve only when there are effective property rights – private or common – in these resources. So tell me what`s going to happen in the meanwhile – is that a book you can read for us?
As for what we can do about it, I think you are being too pessimistic. Do the Western economies have no leverage over China, India, Brazil or Indonesia? No carrots or sticks? Can we avoid subsidizing rain forest destruction through biofuel mandates? Can we pay them to preserve some? We certainly can whack out property rights in ocean fisheries.
We just have decide that these issues are important enough to do something effective about them.
TT
Tom, I can certainly try to restate my comment on courts better for you. It was somewhat ‘tip of the iceberg’ as stated the first time.
I’d rather see the conclusions of fallible human science put under scrutiny in a fallible human courtroom, in the context of injury or threat thereof toward an individual or group of fallible human plaintiffs, rather than put heavily armed yet unaccountable fallible human overlords in charge of deciding anything.
You say I beg the question of ‘how’ to choose the court option – In other words, you conclude “courts aren’t an option, so the violent means of government is the only option.”
The (paraphrased, inferred by me, possibly wrong) reason you conclude this appears to be: “the air is a commons and (not stated but implied) courts can’t handle a commons. Also all these national borders cause jurisdiction issues, so I can never accomplish anything on the global stage where these problems manifest.”
I dispute this. It was actually my point.
Commons or not, a court can hear the evidence just as well as the state; a court can determine guilt or innocence just as well as the state; and a court can schedule restitution to the injured parties just as well as the state.
The difference is, a court has to work hard getting the story exactly and unassailably right. The court works hard, because it must.
Whereas, the state skips that part, sticks a pistol in your face, and dares you to refuse its judgement. The state takes a violent shortcut, because it can.
—
How does a court deal with a commons? It’s an irrelevant question; the only things that need to be demonstrated are harm caused, and the cause of harm.
If I fire a bullet through the global commons and it hits you, your job is an easy one. If I fire a CO2 molecule through the global commons, and it causes your drought, your job is a harder one – but presumably you’ve already done that hard work, since you are ready to use the violence of the state to achieve your means, and as a rational, peaceful person, you wouldn’t dare do that unless you knew you had your story right.
—
As for jurisdictional issues – if you can’t penetrate a border to resolve a complaint, then you address your complaint to the border. If you alone are too small a voice, then form a voluntary collective of like-minded complainants, until your peaceful economic power is worthy of note, and then raise your voice.
—
Peaceful means aren’t hopeless. They are the only way. And government is never a peaceful way, by definition. My goal here is merely to persuade that point specifically. Whoever is right and whoever is wrong, where ever the singular and value-free science ends up, it shall be revealed peacefully, or not at all.
I don’t want to see the world a ruined desert a couple generations from now, but I also don’t want to bloody my hands with murder to feed my children.
Robert:
Your protests to the contrary, you do not understand the market. Why would the market care whether or not there is food for you to buy? Or clothing, or anything?
The market is not some toy that those with money can wield for fun. Those who have money are the people who are most adept at serving the market’s demand (or just as often, the best at corrupting the state apparatus). They are the people who make sure that there is food and other goods for you to buy. The market is the source of their wealth. They retain their wealth only as long as they serve the market.
Everything is different this time, the rich dominate the poor…you’ve said you aren’t a socialist. You do realize that these are core socialist ideas?
Robert: “The greenhouse effect is not disputed by anybody…”
Oh, well, gee, that convinces me!
TT: “I think it`s rather clear that you`re wrong, and notice you haven`t engaged on my specific responses.”
I posted before are RogerM. The problem is that I have found no answers to the problems I have with the GW theory that I mentioned above. GW supporters offer plenty of “appeals-to-authority defenses, which I’m not interested in and don’t influence me at all. Take the issue of the validation of GCC models. It wouldn’t matter to me, and to most Austrians, if every scientist in the world had the ultimate confidence in the GCC models. If they haven’t been properly validated, you can’t trust them. And the fact is that they have never been successfully validated. You can search as long as you want and you won’t find any successful validation of any GCC model. The last attempt at validation took place in the late 1980′s and all models failed miserably. A few years ago, they began validating the models on obscure climate phenomena, which is a step in the right direction, but no one cares about those validations because the issue is temperature. When they validate their models against temperature, some of us will begin to take them seriously. Since the late 1980′s, the creators of the GCC models have flatly refused to validate their models against temperature. Why is that?
I don’t know if what fundamentalist claims is true – that no model has been validated against the record – you’d think that’s the first thing they’d do – but his reasoning is beyond criticism.
The models must be validated if their predictions are to be taken seriously.
I too would very much like to see evidence that this has been done – just for the sake of the checkmark.
Scott D
*************************************************
The market is not some toy that those with money can wield for fun. Those who have money are the people who are most adept at serving the market’s demand (or just as often, the best at corrupting the state apparatus). They are the people who make sure that there is food and other goods for you to buy. The market is the source of their wealth. They retain their wealth only as long as they serve the market.
*************************************************
I understand the argument, but you have to ask who the winners and losers will be in an overpopulated world undergoing an energy descent, coupled with increasing effects of climate change. As the means to do the basics such as growing food and providing potable water reduce then the market would not automatically distribute food and water to all at a subsistence level. That would be a very socialist concept which I am sure you would disapprove of greatly.
It is basic economics that the market will only provide for people who are able to contribute in some useful way and thereby earn the means to buy goods. It seems very plausible to me that a good proportion of the 10 billion or so people that may be living as this process unfolds will cease to be players in the market as either workers or consumers and will therefore starve. The market will always find a way to match supply and demand but there is no guarantee that the results will be pretty. There is also a good chance of market failure of one type or another as social order breaks down.
Ever since the start of the ind rev the consumption of fossil fuel has increased year on year. We are very used to this situation and tend to take it for granted. However, fossil fuel WILL peak and decline, as surely as night follows day. I see huge problems not at the peak, but on the steepest part of the downslope as global energy declines by maybe 8% per year. The human carrying capacity of our world WILL reduce drastically as it does so (however the market distributes the proceeeds).
I am not proposing any particular solutions to this but if you don’t see it as a problem then you have spent too much time studying money and not enough studying energy. If you have the time these articles may give you an idea of what I am talking about.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000E5878-3E45-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF
http://www.energybulletin.net/6069.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/5874.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
Jean Paul: “I too would very much like to see evidence that this has been done – just for the sake of the checkmark.”
Good luck. I spent several hours searching the internet for such validation. As I wrote, a group did perform some validation in 2004 or 2005 against some obscure climate phenomena, but not against temp.
Robert T,
You’re just so pessimistic. You don’t need to be.
Energy literally rains down upon us from the sun. You know this. Our energy wealth is greater than any of us can imagine.
People just need to be given PERMISSION to harvest it. That’s all. Right now, thousands of government-created obstacles sum to cripple that effort. Clear the obstacles and watch us flourish. It’s that simple.
No, really, I must insist, it is that simple. Gov is like an enormous boulder tied to your ankle – an unwanted and unproductive encumberance at the best of times, but inescapably lethal when the river starts to rise.
Whether the dangers you identify are exactly on the money, or somewhat overstated, or far worse than anyone’s most morbid imaginings – neither a bigger boulder, a heavier boulder, nor a differently shaped boulder is going to help. Hollowing out the boulder into a boat isn’t going to help. Hiding underneath the boulder isn’t going to help. And smashing each others’ brains out with our boulders isn’t going to help.
You gotta get rid of the boulder. That’s the only thing that’s gonna get you out of this.
It’s that simple.
Jean Paul:
I think you’ve as much as acknowledged that courts just won’t work on climate change issues. Aside from a nmumber of complex and difficult issues, the global atmosphere is essentially an unregulated open-access resource. As I previously noted, we are all pretty much entitled to use and dump into it as we please, and no one has any “rights” to protect a particular quality of the atmosphere. Common and regulatory law relate only to particular substances and local effects – and there are no global rules, much less enforcement mechanisms.
Like other common pool resources, behavior is regulated by self-interest, moderated only by agreed rules, norms and social pressure. You say that internationally, I can only act through a voluntary collective of like-minded complainants, but since international discussions are all voluntary, why can’t I ask my government to negotiate on my behalf? Am I required to reconstitute a substitute for the state on every occasion?
And just to confirm, is moral suasion an acceptable implement domestically?
Regards,
Tom
Tom,
I’m speaking in the hypothetical realm of solutions.
You’re speaking in the empirical realm of problems.
Just a bit of imagination, to move from the one to the other, please.
You say we are all entitled to use and dump into the commons as we please, and that no one has any particular right to demand it be maintained to, say, the precise quality that Tokyo Tom desires. That is true!
What is not true, is that this somehow absolves us of responsibility for harm proven – nor does it absolve anyone of responsibility for proving harm.
When you, Tom, or anyone else, can show that harm has been done or is being threatened, strictly conditional on the prior act of another, then you will have the justification you need to enforce restitution, either by your own fists, or with the impassioned casting of a democratic vote, or maybe to be on the safe side you might want to get your story fact-checked by a court, etcetera.
How do you show harm? Up to you, but here’s my suggestion:
It is the marginal actions of the users of the commons which accrue responsibility for the marginal effect the jointly-owned commons has on others.
If you have been damaged, the historical users of the commons owe you. If you want to chase this one down, good luck. Crack out the science book and show how the integral of each person’s output contributed blah blah blah, doesn’t matter, this isn’t the important one. The important one is:
If you are under threat of damage, the present users of the commons must withdraw the threat immediately. Crack open the science textbook again, but this time you don’t need to reconstruct a crime scene, you just have to show that current output constitutes a trespass against you if not reduced by, say, 83% averaged over the 200km2 upstream area.
Having justly proven it, you are free to enforce this against anyone who qualifies. Be a vigilante, use moral persuasion, get your state-as-agent to do it on your behalf, or – still my favorite option today – take the bastards to court. Whatever you want. The important thing is to prove it.
Fundamentalist:
Can you clarify further what your point is about validation of the models?
The models of course are only that. Although they cannot be crystal balls, they are still useful in helping us prepare for the future.
I just lost a longer post so let me try again briefly. Don’t get hung up on the faults of the models and pay attention to factual evidence of which the follwoing may be relevant:
- the present change in climate is unique and distinguishabe from other changes in the paleo record.
- the paleo record is consistent with a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C or more to a doubling of CO2.
- the present change in climate is outpacing the models.
Links and quotes below:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf
“A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature
changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect the global mean temperature.
“Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.”
http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/lea/pdfs/Lea%20JCLI%202004.pdf
“Two recent advances, the development and application of proxy recorders of tropical sea surface temperature (SST) and the synchronization of the deep-sea and Antarctic ice-core time scales, make it possible to directly relate past changes in tropical SST to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The strong correspondence of a proxy SST record from the eastern equatorial Pacific and the Vostok CO2 record suggests that varying atmospheric carbon dioxide is the dominant control on tropical climate on orbital time scales. This effect is especially pronounced at the 100,000-yr cycle. Calibration of the CO2 influence via tropical SST variability indicates a tropical climate sensitivity of 4.4°-5.6°C (errors estimated at ± 1.0°C) for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. This result suggests that the equilibrium response of tropical climate to atmospheric CO2 changes is likely to be similar to the upper end of available global predictions from coupled models.â€
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf
[Vol 446|29 March 2007| doi:10.1038/nature05699]
“A recent comparison of climate models to the CO2 proxy record over the past 420 million years concluded that a long-term equilibrium climate “sensitivity” to CO2 increases (temperature changes accompanying a doubling of CO2) of greater than 1.5 degrees C “has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years” – with a best fit of 2.8 degrees C [5.0 degrees F]. This is “broadly consistent with estimates based on short-term climate records”, and “indicate[s] that a weak radiative forcing by carbon dioxide is highly unlikely on multi-million-year timescales. We conclude that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 degree C [2.7 degreees F] has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years”.
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pittock.pdf
The climate is actually changing more quickly that indicated by the models. An important aspect of this is that Greenland and West Antarctica are melting much more rapidly than expected, as indicated by satellites precisely measure mass changes. This is appears to be the major factor in an accelerating rise in sea levels, also as precisely measured by satellite:
Ross McKittrick and the Frasier Insitite, “Independent Summary for Policymakers”
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf
“While global sea level rose by approximately 120 metres during the several millennia that followed the end of the last glacial maximum, the level stabilized between 3000 and 2000 years ago. Since then, paleo sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly: the average rate of change from 2000 years ago to about 100 years ago is near zero. The instrumentally-based estimates of modern sea level change provide evidence for an onset of acceleration at the end of the 19th century. Recent estimates for the last half of the 20th century (1950.2000) give approximately 2 mm/year global mean sea level rise. New satellite observations show that since 1993 sea level has been rising at a rate of 3.1 mm/year.”
See also http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.030707.Oppenheimer-Testimony.pdf
Regards,
Tokyo Tecumseh
Jean Paul
*************************************************
Energy literally rains down upon us from the sun. You know this. Our energy wealth is greater than any of us can imagine.
People just need to be given PERMISSION to harvest it. That’s all. Right now, thousands of government-created obstacles sum to cripple that effort. Clear the obstacles and watch us flourish. It’s that simple.
No, really, I must insist, it is that simple. Gov is like an enormous boulder tied to your ankle – an unwanted and unproductive encumberance at the best of times, but inescapably lethal when the river starts to rise.
*************************************************
Your post lacks any form of objective thinking. My only take-away is that you have a deep, religeous fervour against any form of government. Do you do hand springs and singing in the isles when you meet like minded individuals?
There is very little stopping companies from generating renewable energy right now. In fact in many parts of the world there is positive discrimination in the form of subsidies. In the UK there is even an statutary “renewables obligation” obliging power companies to generate a proportion of their power this way.
No. The real reason that most energy is generated from fossil fuel is economic. The cheapest way to make electricity is to blow the top off a mountain and shovel the black stuff into an old fashioned heat engine. The economics does of course conveniently externalise most of the real cost of doing this.
Longer term, it remains an open question as to whether we could keep going in the same way if all we had was a daily ration of wind and sun. We simply don’t know, nor are we likely to find out until fossil fuel runs out. We will also know by then just how much damage we did to the climate and the environment in the process of using up all that lovely fossil fuel.
Oh, and the “boulder” thing. Don’t you realise that nature abhors a vacuum? If you could magically get rid of the boulder of government another one would magically appear whether you liked it or not. At least most Western govenments are moderately effective and uncorrupt – if you had an Africal-style government you really would have something to whinge about.
Robert – what’s your stance on someone swallowing a handful of cyanide pills? Do you have fairly cast-in-stone expectations of what the outcome will be if someone does this? In trying to persuade a friend to please not eat the handful of pills, would you describe your ‘fervor’ in that situation as ‘deep and religious’ (thus worthy of scorn – that is your angle, yes?)?
Or are you simply at the point in your understanding of cyanide pills that the informed, objective move at this point is to insist your idiot friend put the damn poison down before he kills himself?
—
My post is absolutely objective, and rooted in ample evidence of the effects of state rule.
You have a warm fuzzy place in your heart for the state, and you can’t be faulted for that because we’ve all been brainwashed by the bastards. And you don’t want to let go the safety blanket, and I get that, because changing your fundamental worldview is a scary thing to go through. It takes years and a dedication to the honest study of this stuff.
But it is what it is. This site has hundreds of articles explaining why, which I encourage you to invest your due years explore. My post is just a succinct – and I say again, perfectly objective – summary of a position that is well defended elsewhere.
—
You are right about the economics being central in people’s decisionmaking, as there is no separating action from economics. This is of course my position also.
The key point here, remaining within the strict realm of economics, is that government will torture, imprison, or kill you if you don’t fall in line with its desires (be they right or wrong). Shall we debate whether this ever-present threat to life and health is an overwhelmingly powerful economic incentive?
How the state’s perversion of natural incentives leads to horrifying outcomes will have to be an exercise for the reader. I’ll try to connect some of the dots for you, since you seem to think I’m spouting dogma with nothing to back it up, but please understand these examples are to illustrate the PATTERN, not to give a complete list of the every single problem the state causes. You’ll have to supply some of your own imagination to see the interconnectedness of all things, and how each of these government interventions has a compounding effect on the others.
My challenge to you is to observe the pattern, and suggest how an overlord decider can EVER do anything that doesn’t fit this mold.
—
The state taxes and builds roads, which it offers free for all to use. Transportation is thus subsidized by the tax base. Instead of communities internalizing and economizing their shipping costs, the decision is made for them (you WILL be taxed, you WILL be serviced with a govermnemt road). Road construction, plus zoning laws, lead to urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is a huge contributor to oil addiction – suburban communities need their cars, by design – by GOVERNMENT design.
Now, shall you blame the economizing homeowners, developers, and businesses for the sprawl – or will you blame the state that perverted the incentives?
—
At least where I live, home energy is heavily subsidized. Heat and hydro are propped up by tax revenues. If people had to pay the REAL cost at the meter, and had those taxes back in their pocket with which to pursue alternatives, geothermal suddenly becomes the only home heating/cooling technology that makes sense. And it makes a TON of sense in any climate, not just northern. But at ten grand up-front cost (ten grand that the gov took to buy coal / oil / natural gas on your behalf), what do you think people will choose?
Government perverts things again, making the bad choice feel good, and putting the good choice out of reach.
—
Certainly there is no question that global superpowers are willing to kill for oil. Do I even need to explain how much energy is wasted in the manufacture and delivery of death machines? What’s the EROEI on attacking a country to take their stuff, versus just buying it in peaceful trade? And when was the last time you saw a company conduct warfare against anything? This is the unique provice of states.
You can talk all you like about corruption and corporate influence, but the armed thug is, was, and always will be the state. For all the fingerpointing at ‘evil’ giants like Halliburton, can you honestly claim they were ever going to raise a private, shareholder funded army, and go it alone on their own violent oil adventure?
Adam and Eve bit the forbidden apple – but in every story I’ve been told, the devil was always the serpent that tempted them. In the parable as in life, the blame again must fall to the real villain: the state.
—
Have you seen “who killed the electric car”? See that movie, it’s good. The movie concludes that the state was to blame on several counts. Surprisingly, the technology was absolved of any fault. If not for state-created obstacles, people would still be driving these today. In this one story alone, there are hundreds of examples of state interference steering the outcome away from what you presumably would desire – clean electric vehicles one step removed from oil dependency with immediate infrastructure convertibility (power grid is everywhere), versus zero infrastructure for the state’s golden child, hydrogen.
Such incompetence – yet you still applaud the state?
—
Patents and other IP. Here we go. Persons like yourself and others in this discussion (I might humbly include myself in this list) are clearly more interested in saving the planet for its own sake, versus collecting profits for your efforts. This group’s incentive for developing clean, renewable technologies is clearly not provided by the patent system. Any one of us would desire to see the proliferation of these technologies to the greatest extent possible, and if that means copying then so be it.
Unfortunately, the IP regime stifles innovation by imposing strict monetary costs (licensing, litigation, etc.) on new development. Technologies which are psychically profitable (“I took a monetary loss, but I saved the planet”) are economic impossibilities at a certain level of imposed cost.
Thanks again, government.
—
Agriculture subsidies. Instead of preserving the future, sustainable value of the valuable farmland (an economic rent on the output of the hydro-solar engine), farm owners take the better deal on offer – the government-provided rent, this one with immediate payoff, on the backs of taxpayers. All the farm has to do is meet the state-decreed eligibility requirements – which sadly encourage uneconomic farming practices, including massive energy expenditures, groundwater depletion, soil erosion, deforestation, and monoculture, with all their attendant problems.
—
I am sure I can go on. Must I? Or do you begin to see how every action of government creates a cage in which we all suffer, the wardens slightly less so?
In general, the state destroys existing wealth and destroys opportunities to create new wealth. This leaves people desperate and in pain, and unable to cope with disaster. The state always does this, no matter how good the intentions, no matter how smart the think tanks – it’s the unavoidable nature of it.
And so I finish with more dogma for you. I would love to back it up, but there’s an entire site here that does a much better job of it, so you’ll have to settle for the handful of imperfect examples given above.
I’ll end with the simplest, and most constructive summary I have:
How do we save the world? We let ourselves. Just get the state out of the way.
JP, I understand where you are coming from, but you sidestep some important issues.
1. You can’t get rid of the state. If you did then another one would form, possibly worse than the first. That is a real world fact I’m afraid. It was always the fly in the ointment when I had similar discussions with anarchists at uni many years ago.
2. If nothing else the state is a necessity in order to maintain a framework for all you little individuals to ply your trade. Internal and external security, markets, currency, laws and so on. Without these it would be the law of the jungle and people would just murder each other…
3. What happens to people who can’t fend for themselves in your society. e.g. old people with no family or friends. I assume you just let them die or something.
4. Modern complex industrial society requires complex laws and regulations to ensure products are safe. Without this you are back in the 19 century with consumers and workers dying of god knows what.
5. Your argument about renewable enrgy being cheaper is pure fantasy. If this was really the case someone somewhere in the world would be making billions out of (perhaps massive solar arrays in the Sahara for example). The reality is that coal is the cheapest way to make electricity, but only by externalising the environmental costs. Big government has so far failed to rectify this situation, but private individuals, acting rationally, would be guaranteed never to do so.
I think you are living in a fantasy world. It doesn’t exist, can never exist and would be a really bad idea if it could. You also seem highly unreceptive to new ideas or critisism o your own. Did you read the links I posted, particularly this one?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000E5878-3E45-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF
JP, One further thought. You should go and live with a remote tribe in the hills, or maybe in the outback of Uganda or somewhere. There are plenty of places in the world with relatively non-existant government, if that’s what you want.
The problem is this. There is little to choose between Africa and the US in terms of natural resources. So why is the US rich and most of Arica very poor? Answer – the US built itself a society with a strong governmental framework, whereas in Africa it is a chaotic mixture of corrupt government, local warlords and general anarchy.
CO2 emissions correlate well with affluence. Compare Sudan (0.075 tonnes/person) with the USA (5.5 tonnes/person):
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/sud.htm
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/usa.htm
Poverty is easy. If that’s what you want go for it. You’ll be doing the planet a favour as well!
Robert,
1 & 2. Agree to disagree.
Security arises from wealth. Wealth arises from the division of labor and respect for private property. A society which institutionalizes violence and aggression (this is the singular role of every state; this is what sets the state apart from the rotary club and greenpeace and unicef; the state alone can threaten violence and death to achieve its goals) will grow at a retarded pace relative to a society that embraces individual freedom, both civil and economic.
The ability of the wealthy and growing society to defend itself vastly outpaces the ability of an impoverished and shrinking society to attack it. Empirical evidence for this abounds; consider the roman empire absorbing its barbarian enemies; the similar story of China’s history of barbarian invasion and cultural assimilation; and the modern day example of the world’s most complete capitalist experiment ever attempted, versus the worlds’s most complete socialist experiment ever attempted; all of these exactly fit the theory.
To the extent that the ‘victorious’ society later failed, as we see modern society now failing in many ways, not the least of which are the topical environmental and resource crises, it was government, and not the lack, which was in every case to blame.
The social determinism of Marx was exactly backwards. The victim proles do not rise in bloody revolution. They evolve and cooperate, and eventually everyone becomes a strong, wealthy, contented, peaceful member of the bourgeois.
Free societies prosper and become unassailable on every level of granularity – individuals, families, organizations, geographic regions, and the sum total of all these as connected by the market.
3. Similar argument to the above. The state has largely created the disenfranchised class, on an unprecedented scale. The state comandeers the wealth of its subjects, takes its cut (some at least goes toward consumption, most is pure waste), then trickles it back to them piecemeal. No one can truly secure their own future or the future of their loved ones, because the state is always standing ready and greedy to confiscate and then maybe give some back in a half-ass way. That’s the ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ argument which you certainly know. Surprise, it’s not just capitalist bullshit – it really is true.
The other argument is the moral one. If you value the welfare of the poor, you just might be morally compelled to halp them – BUT FIRST DO NO HARM – not to them, nor to anyone else. The poor cannot be fed by stealing from your neighbor. The poor cannot be fed through the threat of murder and prison. Theft and slavery are expedient means to get things done, and to some they even seem just – but in the long term you shall reap as you sow. A society built on even the most benign acts of theft and slavery is on a weak foundation indeed.
4. Agree to disagree. Voluntary association is more effective than fiat regulation. The only thing fiat regulation can do is remove desirable means (clean, efficient, profitable, harmless) from consideration, and force sub-optimal means (dirty, inefficient, lossy, injurious) to be chosen instead.
People are not stupid. They do not willingly do stupid things. People do not obey the rules of the road because the government told them to and they are scared of their punishmen; people obey the rules of the road because at 130km/h, there’s too much on the line not to be careful.
Companies have a self-interest in customer satisfaction. This includes safety, among other reasons.
5. People boycotted Nike for using ‘sweatshops’. This was not by government decree, but by public education. Ignorant but well-meaning actors applied individual value judgements and decided not to buy what they found to be a morally distasteful product. There were reasonable substitutes available, so this was easily achieved.
Provided reasonable substitutes are available; provided the market in not hampered in providing for consumer wants; provided public education is honest and convincing; then consumption will shift the the more desired good.
Now, for an objection many in this thread have raised, and I will raise it again – you can’t argue that an energy crisis is impending on the one hand, yet insist that dirt-cheap coal is abundant for the entire timescale under discussion. As the resource is depleted its economic cost will rise. At some crossing point, carefully anticipated by entrepreneurs well in advance, renewable energy will be on par with fossil fuels.
The point is, eventually the substitutes WILL be economical, long before the crisis hits any kind of point of no return. Not just cost economical, but whole-value-scale economical. This is the LEAST of the worries. The market just needs to be allowed to price things according to uncoerced individual self interest.
Now if your concern is the AGW from the coal, I say again: internalize the cost to the coal plant by suing them. If they are hurting you or threatening to hurt you, SUE THEM! If your case is airtight enough to demand the government step in and regulate using threat of violence, then WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR, YOU FOOL, YOU COULD BE A RICH MAN! SUE THOSE BASTARDS FOR DAMAGES! DO IT NOW!!!
You won’t, because your case can’t be argued in court – yet. But you are so impassioned about it that you want the state thugs to step in sans-trial, and break some knees.
Well, anyway, I tried. You’ll either see the truth in this or you won’t.
Robert,
My question to you is: assuming this worst-case scenario, how could you expect or engineer a solution that does not, in effect, guarantee the survival of those who are most able, through the market, to provide the means for other human beings to survive? Why would such an outcome be desirable? You can’t outlaw starvation. If it’s going to happen, let the market provide for the greatest number of people possible. Let people do their best and, collectively, they will.
Or the human race will find new ways of doing things, as they have for millenia. It seems to be very popular lately to view the global market as being ever more fragile, the more people who participate. The inverse is actually the truth. The more people involved in the world market, the more dynamic and adaptable it is. We’re talking about an immense amount of labor and ingenuity being channeled through a market with incredible calculating power. Where you see a crumbling foundation, I see ever greater power to reach down and shape that foundation to our mutual benefit.
Robert, I think that your problem is that you see “energy” as the driver behind the market, instead of human beings. Oil does nothing on its own but sit in the ground. Two hundred years ago, oil was no more use as energy to the people of the time than hydrogen is to us now. It requires human knowledge and labor to find, extract and refine it. These are the true drivers of the market.
Nice link. It nicely demonstrates why you disdain economists. Unfortunately, for your arguments at least, it is a straw man. The market is not here to provide more and more of the things we need or want. It is here to allocate scarce resources where they are most needed. The “Economist’s” viewpoint in this article is really just those people who, in the author’s opinion, are too stupid to look beyond their own noses.
Notice how the (smart) “Environmentalist” is given about 3 times as much space to talk about the Earth’s various problems. Here, we have the usual suspects: deforestation, topsoil depletion, water depletion. Nevertheless the words “tragedy of the commons” somehow never makes it onto the page.
I could go on (loved the “humans are bacteria” comparison–nice!), but the gist of it is that the “Environmentalist” sees humanity as a destructive force making war on peaceful mother Earth. To them, the market is just that silly little thing that helps us organize our destruction more efficiently.
However, I thought I would mention this little gem, to reinforce my opinion that the author is a complete numbskull on economic matters:
Notice how the market never enters the discussion. It was (of course!) Gaia herself, mystical goddess of nature, who bestowed such incentives on mothers. It just couldn’t be the fact that technological progress provided birth control, lower infant mortality, greater productivity and longer lifespans, giving people a myriad of new incentives and means to not have children. No, surely it was “mother nature”.
Robert, there was a time when I held much the same view of economists that you do. Then I began to read and it changed my whole outlook. Please stop believing this tripe and start studying. Economics is not what you think it is. Neither is the market. All of the problems outlined in this market assume “business as usual” meaning that human activity continues to increase, unfettered, in exactly the ways it is currently progressing. Such a view is preposterous. The market is nothing if not dynamic. If disaster is on the horizon, the market will shift to avoid it or soften the blow.
Yes, because there is also no market for the government to prey on, parasitically. If there is no market, there is no government. The market leads supports government, not the other way around, and we want more of the former and less of the latter.
This argument is so tired that it has long since slipped into a coma. No points for you.
Correction: “The market supports government, not the other way around”
My post button got ahead of my backspace key.
Scott D,
I’m glad you are at least investing time and effort to understand the arguments I put forward, rather than dismissing them in a torrent of dogma as Jean Paul does.
“the market is just that silly little thing that helps us organize our destruction more efficiently” – yes, definitely.
“you see “energy” as the driver behind the market, instead of human beings.” – yes, definitely.
I think YOUR problem is that you think man is somehow different from every other species. He isn’t. We follow our own selfish drives to compete and consume just the way every other animal does. We will continue this process until something stops us. The market on which you place so much faith simply lubricates and accelerates the process; it does not redirect it in a way that will change the outcome in any way or create a force for social good. A market works because it is modelled on our primitive drive to compete and consume, selfishly and with no thought for tomorrow.
Species thrive when usable energy increases. Man’s success is directly attributable to his ability to find and utilize sources of energy which were unavailable to other species or earlier generations. We have done this very successfully and have been able to artificially expand human carrying capacity by at least a factor of 10 in the last 200 years, although most probably on a very temporary basis. This article terms it “phantom carrying capacity”:
http://www.energybulletin.net/6069.html
I am sure that you will continue to think of us as a very clever and unique species. Personally I prefer to think of us as yeast in a barrel – we multiply uncontrollably until our food supply is exhausted and we have poisoned our environment. This will not become obvious to most people until we get much closer to the end game.
Robert T: “2. If nothing else the state is a necessity in order to maintain a framework for all you little individuals to ply your trade. Internal and external security, markets, currency, laws and so on. Without these it would be the law of the jungle and people would just murder each other…”
All you little individuals? :S
Nearly every single objection you brought up against markets in response to JP have been dealt with by various economists and other social scientists (for instance, check up Hayek’s “Capitalism and the Historians” for an accurate history of the Industrial Revolution.) Richard Epstein’s massive compilation “Anarchy and the Law” contains many instructive essays on the matter.
TT:”Can you clarify further what your point is about validation of the models?”
In validating a model, modelers divide the data into two parts and use one part as input to predict the second part. In the first attempt to validate GCC models, they used data from the early 1900′s to predict temps in the later 1900′s. The margin of error was pretty bad, though I can’t remember exactly what it was. It was so bad that modelers haven’t attempted it again.
But even if the models worked fairly well, they could still be wrong. I’m not trying to hedge my bets; if the models were validated, I would have to change my mind on a few things. But another issue exists besides validation–specification. In specification, you make sure you have all of the relevant variables. Why is specification so important? Because the effects of some variables disappears when others with a greater correlation to the dependent variable are introduced. For example, in the book “Freakonomics” the author found a correlation between rates of abortion and a falling crime rate, so he concluded that a cause/effect relationship exists. But if he had included other causes for the decline of crime, such as the aging of the population, increased use of private security, increased use of guns for self-defense, he might have discovered that the correlation between abortion and crime disappeared.
This may be hard for non-statisticians to accept, but correlations aren’t absolutes. Using historical data, correlations can be strong between two variables and then disappear when other variables are added. That’s one way of telling how important an independent variable is as a cause of the dependent variable.
Now the validation issue applies to all kinds of models. The specification issue applies only to statistical models, particularly regression, and to data mining models. The GCC models are neither. They’re physics models, or what’s called deterministic models. Deterministic models don’t tell you which variables are more important to the dependent variable the way statistical/machine learning ones do. The modeler has to tell the model which variables are important and how important they are by assigning weights to each variable.
In the GCC models, the assumption of importance for CO2 was determined by the modeler, not the model. Now if the sun is the prime cause of temp variation as well as the variation in CO2, the GCC models might be somewhat accurate in predicting temp, but still be wrong because they leave out the sun as a variable. The sun could be causing both GW and CO2 increases and the models wouldn’t know the difference. However, if the modelers were using statistical/machine learning models, they could add the sun as a variable and the model would tell us which was of the greater importance. I’m surprised no one has tried a statistical/machine learning model.
TT: ” the present change in climate is unique and distinguishabe from other changes in the paleo record.”
That may be so with the paleo records, but the records sets are manipulated to average out over very long periods of time because they’re dealing with millions of years and can’t handle that level of granularity. If you use time periods no smaller than a century, you’ll average out a lot of the warm periods within that century. Also, what about the medieval warm period? It was just as warm as today.
Besides, I find that hard to believe when the South Pole clearly had vegetation at one time.
“- the paleo record is consistent with a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C or more to a doubling of CO2.”
That assumes that CO2 is the cause. CO2 and temp may both be effects of the sun. The data that I’ve seen suggest just that scenario because almost no lag exists in the CO2 and temp data. Cause/effect relationships usually involve a lag. In addition, what caused the huge variations in CO2 throughout history before the 1900′s?
“- the present change in climate is outpacing the models.”
Only isolated cases and anecdotal evidence. The north pole and surroundings are melting, but the south pole is getting colder. I recenlty read once climatologist who complained that no one has taken consistent temperatures of the Himalayas where some of the world’s largest glaciers are.
We could go on swapping evidence like this forever. The reason we can’t convince each other is that we place different weights on the available evidence. You discount mine and I discount yours.
Robert: “You can’t get rid of the state. If you did then another one would form, possibly worse than the first.”
The state must be like the blob that comes from outer space. It can’t be killed!
Robert: “Without these it would be the law of the jungle and people would just murder each other…”
Yep, it’s socialism or cannibalism. There’s nothing in between.
Robert: “What happens to people who can’t fend for themselves in your society. e.g. old people with no family or friends.”
That’s true! If the government won’t take care of us, who will? I know my neighbors and family would let me starve.
Robert: “Modern complex industrial society requires complex laws and regulations to ensure products are safe. Without this you are back in the 19 century with consumers and workers dying of god knows what.”
Whew! I so glad the government saved us from those evil capitalists bent on murdering us all with their foul products! I’m just curious, why was the gov so effective in the 19th century and so imcompetent in the 20th?
I’m sure glad Robert ain’t a socialist. I’d hate to hear his ideas if he was.
And here is why you and I could never agree on this issue, or most any other that involves the market, or philosophy for that matter. I believe that human beings have a wide range of subjecive values beyond population growth and consumption. I believe that they have the capacity to plan far ahead and that economic incentives exist for them to conserve resources in the face of future shortages.
I did look at the article you linked about “phantom carrying capacity” and the other chapters you linked. I’m not sure why it should be so profound that some nations must import food to supplement their own production. If we look at cities, wouldn’t we find that all of them have to import food to survive? Aren’t you and I importers of food (assuming that you do not farm). A nation does not participate in the market as a unit, any more than cities do.
Another major point of the chapter, overfishing, is certainly a problem, but one that the market could rectify. The oceans are a huge commons and will continue to be abused as long as they remain so.
Anyhow, as I said, I think you are wrong, but I don’t think I’ll ever persuade you differently. If you truly have such a dim view of the human race, I wonder why you even consider us worth saving. Why, if it is in our nature to inflict suffering upon ourselves and other species, should we be spared our own inevitable extinction?
Robert T,
Arent you leaving yourself open to accusations of hypocracy? If humans are really are bacteria with no conception or ability to take meaningful long term action, then what makes you different?
Despite your protestations to the contrary, are you really any different from a socialist? Dont be afraid of the word. You display all the tendencies – you believe that the state should meddle and plan economic affairs, and you display that (somewhat aggravating) tendency to dismiss the ability of individuals to make intelligent decisions, with the exception of yourself.
You are the obviously the bacteria of yeast that has risen to the top! I would like to thank you on behalf of the rest of us plankton for attempting to illuminate us on these weighty topics that we are too dense to otherwise understand.
Until bacteria develop philosophy, science, industrialization and all the other trappings of human civilization, I will continue to indulge myself in the fantasy that we are more than a little unique.
Robert,
I’m sorry after taking the time to respond, my words are dismissed as a torrent of dogma. I did try to provide as much concrete, non-dogmatic content in as I could.
Perhaps baby steps are in order.
Can we agree that what the state achieves, it achieves with money it took, from people who didn’t want it taken; and with the threat of lethal force for noncompliance with its rules and regulations.
Can we first agree on that?
Fundamentalist: “I’m sure glad Robert ain’t a socialist. I’d hate to hear his ideas if he was.”
I’m beginning to think you were right about Robert.
The difference between TT and Robert is that the latter seems to think markets are a failed concept altogether, whereas the former states that they function sub-optimally when property rights are not clearly defined (indeed, Mises would concur.) I agree with TT of course – the issue now is to find ways to eliminate the problem of the commons, which libertarians should devote their efforts to. I can find no agreement whatsoever with Robert, who is apparently not a socialist.
Peak Oilers have been very keen of late to tell us that last year’s American Association of Petroleum Geologists’ Hedelberg conference came to the conclusion that the USGS projections for recoverable oil reserves were too high (Not that they realized the paradox that, if true, this means that the very same benign government which is to rescue us from our myopia, got it wrong again). =================================================
Conversely, I wonder how much noise they will make about a session at this year’s meeting in November which will be devoted to the possibility that the supposedly finite reserve is in fact one which replenishes itself due to deep-earth chemical reactions.
=================================================
For example: “Modern Theory of Abiotic Deep Genesis of Hydrocarbons: Challenge for Petroleum Industry ”
“Vladimir G. Kutcherov, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm Sweden: Modern scientific consideration about genesis of hydrocarbons, and practical results of geological investigations, provide the understanding of the presence of enormous, inexhaustible resources of hydrocarbons. The concept of the abiotic deep genesis of hydrocarbons, which has been developed during the last 50 years in Russia, recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth. Up to now this concept was a geologists’ hypothesis. Recently, theoretical arguments and experimental results place this hypothesis in the mainstream of modern thermodynamics and physical chemistry. It has been shown that the spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons, heavier than methane, under crustal conditions is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics. Recent experimental results confirm the possibility of hydrocarbons synthesis in the Earth under upper mantle conditions. The mixture of the initial members of alkans, alkens and arens in distribution characteristic of natural petroleum has been obtained as a result of chemical reactions in the system CaCO3 – H2O – FeO at pressures of 2.5-5.0 GPa and at temperatures of 1200-1500 K. High-pressure equipment used gave us the possibility to reach a chemical equilibrium in the experimental camera. Two different mechanisms of hydrocarbon synthesis were detected. This experimental demonstration of the spontaneous, high-pressure genesis of hydrocarbons can be accepted as support for the modern theory of abiotic deep genesis of hydrocarbons. This theory allows us to apply a new approach to methods for petroleum exploration, oil and gas formation and to reexamine the world’s hydrocarbons reserves. ”
=================================================
Not part of the scientific ‘consensus’, obviously (ironical quotation marks deliberate), but not the fevered imaginings of what Peakers call ‘cornucopians’, either, rather a presentation by a serious researcher of serious work in the field.
=================================================
Peakers’ inability (or perverse negelect) of economic and politic verities in the service of their latter-day mystery religion is one thing, but, just imagine if they were not only wrong on climate change (as they undoubtedly are), but on the very hydrocarbon science of which they claim such exclusive knowledge!
Anthony, Jean Paul, Baniel, Scott D and others:
I think of myself primarily as an observer trying to make sense of a slightly mad world. The most obvious explanation for mankind’s behaviour is that we are simply a “plague species” and will go the way of all plague species.
Over the last couple of hundred years we have eliminated all predators, conquered most diseases, massively expanded our food supply and extended life spans. As a result global population has expanded 10x in that time. We are adding over 200,000 net people per day and the rate is still increasing. If we were any other species we would have organised a cull long ago.
At the same time we are depleting those resources which allowed us to expand our food supply (by drawing down fossil fuel reserves, fish stocks, soil quality, potable water, etc.) and polluting our environment, particularly atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels.
What surprises me is that you are all so resistant to recognising the reality of the situation. It isn’t going to be fixed by clever economics or far-sighted individuals acting in their own best interests. It probably isn’t going to be fixed by governments or large corporations either – they seem to be as short sighted as the individuals who work in them. In theory governments have the span of control to address such problems, but there is precious little historical evidence of them actually doing so (there is always that upcoming election and those fickle voters to worry about…).
That is my view of our species. We are heading off a cliff, so perhaps the rational strategy to do is party on and enjoy it.
Jean Paul:
1. Thanks for your further comments to me about filing lawsuits to stop AGW. I hope you can realize that they are not but platitudes?
You would have me sue the whole world, when I can get jurisdiction over no one outside the US and even in the US the latest court decision states that climate change is a political question to be decided by the federal government.
2. I also have to say that I am enjoying your extremely patient and good-humored resonses to Robert, even if he may find them difficult to grok.
However, let me present a different view on these remarks: “You can talk all you like about corruption and corporate influence, but the armed thug is, was, and always will be the state. …
Adam and Eve bit the forbidden apple – but in every story I’ve been told, the devil was always the serpent that tempted them. In the parable as in life, the blame again must fall to the real villain: the state.”
In this, the state is not some nameless, shapeless monster, but always short-hand for the elites of society who are best able to grasp control over it. In other words, the state is NOT an enticing serpent; rather, the devil is ourselves, in the form of various groups who wrestle over and from time to time gain control over the state, and use it for the ends that best suit us at the expense of others.
The founding fathers were very concerned about the misuse of the state and sought to employ various devices – “checks and balances” – which they thought would be sufficient to minimize the the sizeof the state and the risk that rent-seekers could do much damage. But they did believe that the state could repreesent the interests of citizens and that its actions could benefit the common weal. Whether they were wrong is another matter.
Regards,
TT
Sean, the possible abiogenic origin of some hydrocarbons has been a topic of discussion for decades. No one, however, is suggesting that the Earth is generating hydrocarbons at anywhere near the rate that we are using them up.
Hasn’t been already pointed out that Peak Oil doesn’t mean running of oil but rather when the economics of oil are such that it’s not longer worth producing oil. Similarly ’tis nice hearing of increased oil production and discoveries, however what of increasing demand especially from China? Does new demand cancel out new supply? Of course the problem is will happy new technologies come online in time or not? If not it may not be a pretty sight as most of us I don’t think want to go back to horses & buggies. And how would we maintain our happy modern standards of living with yesterday’s transport? I’d personally rather hear how/when new happy technology is improving to the point that we won’t eventually care how much oil is left. Anyway talking of people chemically creating oil begs the question what are the economics of such a thing? Does it inevitably cost just as much energy to make oil as it will provide (meaning it’s not profitable)? Oh well, twas nonetheless interesting hearing about how synthetic gems have entered the jewellery market for considerably less than their naturally formed cousins. So who knows . . .
Fundamentalist/Roger:
1. Thanks for the further note on validation of climate models. Just as I would not expect a weather model to correctly forecast today`s weather based on yesterday`s weather, it is surely a fantasy to expect that a climate model will correctly forecast change in climate – though the models are still useful even as one may certainly hope for continuing improvement. Unfortunatley, we cannot keep
However, I`m sure that you are aware that, as the the Summary for Policymakers from the new IPCC Working Group II report notes, “there have been several modelling studies that have linked responses in some physical and biological systems to anthropogenic warming by comparing observed responses in these systems with modelled responses in which the natural forcings (solar activity and volcanoes) and anthropogenic forcings (greenhouse gases and aerosols) are explicitly separated. Models with combined natural and anthropogenic forcings simulate observed responses significantly better than models with natural forcing only.
” … [T]he consistency between observed and modelled changes in several studies and the spatial agreement between significant regional warming and consistent impacts at the global scale is sufficient to conclude with high confidence that anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems.”
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ipcc_wg2_release/
More charts comparing actual changes against modelled one are on page 11 of the Summary for Policymakers or the Contribution of Working Group I, which is here, for those interested:http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
One such comparison of modelled and observed climate change is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
2. On the specification issue, yeah, mattters that are unknown or not known well are not well-handled by the models – this parallel my point about how our global pricing systems completely leave out various unowned resources. But none of us is God, and unfortunately we only have one crack at running the global climate experiment now underway, so it behooves us to pay attnetion to the information that we can discern.
3. Your other comments make it clear that you have not looked at the links I`ve provided. Your choice, but be honest that your dismissal is a refusal to consider. What we are doing to the climate (CO2, other GHGs, particulates, albedo) is unique, and the climate responses are quite noticeable.
TT
Robert T:
With some nitpicks/caveats, I share many of the very serious concerns that you have so persistently expressed on this thread.
Man is clever but not wise (“homo sapiens” is a misnomer) and we remain very much a part of the ecosystems that we pretend to master even as we swamp them with the growing demands that our rapidly improving technology and burgeoning populations impose.
While our demands on the natural environment is much tempered in the developed economies by the feedback mechanisms of property rights, markets and pricing signals, those signals are flawed in our own economies as a result of government interference, and in any event are not working well with respect to many resources and products acquired from developing economies – due to the interwined problems of a lack of clear and enforceable property rights, government ownership and regulation/fiat, and kleptocracy and corruption for the benefit of elites.
For other shared resources/ecosystems – the atmosphere and oceans – the lack of property rights or other accepted management regime is leading to clear stresses, as we wipe out one fish stock after another and continue to unintentionally modify our global climate by various economic behavior for which actors have no liability to others.
An in the developing world, our improving technology and growing market demands are devasting tropical forests – which indigenous inhabitants are hapless to defend against theft by governments and elites – and leading to severe environmental problems in places where there are no effective ownership rights or liability rules.
As a result, despite a fair degree of property-rights-based managment in the developed economies, it does rather seem that mankind is eating itself out of house and home, and leaving less and less to our coinhabitants – other than those we`ve made expressly a part of our food chain.
These are very difficult problems that will not go away. My own view is that the reticence with with others here approach these issues is informed by the rather glaring truth – especially in the US – that the government is always susceptible to rent-seeking by parties looking for a handout or special treatment at the cost of others, hopelessly incompetent and always subject to corruption and self-aggrandizement by bureaucrats and power-broking politicians.
The concern about “socialism” is a code for the very worst excesses of government (particularly war and genocide) that we saw in the last century and are still evident today.
Libertarians have been preoccupied with trying to fight government and restore greater human dignity and freedom, and have tended (as the Western environmental crises have been largely resolved) to overlook – as largely out of view – problems of the type that you have been pointing out, while seeing those with environmental concerns as merely another set of obnoxious people trying to get what they want not through the marketplace but by pushing greater governmental involvement. Besides, they are in principle opposed to governments acting, and so find themselves at a loss to address problems that arise are a result of ineffective governance elsewhere.
So they tend to prefer to argue with you over ways in which YOU misunderstand markets (such as correctly explaining that peak oil is not a real problem as it will be handled by the markets as it involves owned resources) rather than how THEY are ignoring the significant cases where the markets are functioning very poorly due to a lack of clear and enforceable property rights.
But I think the fact that so many decided to join this discussion with you for such a long time to be a sign that they are considerate and caring people of good will.
I appreciate your contribution here and hope that you will continue to post.
Sincerely,
Tom
TT: “I would not expect a weather model to correctly forecast today`s weather based on yesterday`s weather…”
Isn’t that what got the whole debate started in the 1980′s? The GCC models were predicting, and still do predict, disaster in the future. The whole point of the IPCC is that the models predict rising temps and seas in the future? How can they do that except by projecting existing conditions and trends into the future?
Thanks for the links. This gets a little technical, but there is a difference between what the links show and what validation is. The results in the links show what is known in statistics as the “fit” of the model; in stats it’s called the R-square. In stats, the modeling process attempts to fit the model to the data as well as it can. Then the R-square tells you how well the technique did at creating a model to fit the data. Unfortunately, a model with a good fit for the data may forecast poorly. That’s the case with exchange rates, for example.
Another difference between the GCC determinist models and stats models is that stats models tell you how important the variables are, that is, the fitting process itself provides the weights for the various models. In the GCC models, the modeler determines the weights for variables beforehand based on his own assumptions of how things work. In the IPCC graphs that compare models with and without man-made causes (essentially CO2), the modeler could have made the models without man-made causes fit better by giving more weight to those variables. A growing number of scientists think that those variables should have greater weight; that’s the whole point of the debate.
An IPCC web site has some info on the latest attempt at validating the GCC models. I found it last year and lost it. I’ll try again later when I have time. Or you might find it if you google for “Global Climate Change Models and validation.” That’s how I found it.
PS: When a stats model fits the data well but forecasts poorly, that is a major flag telling the modeler that he has some spurious correlations going on. That’s why validation is so important. If the GCC models fit the data well but forecast poorly in validation, that means they have rounded up the wrong suspects.
Tom says: “In this, the state is not some nameless, shapeless monster, but always short-hand for the elites of society who are best able to grasp control over it. In other words, the state is NOT an enticing serpent; rather, the devil is ourselves, in the form of various groups who wrestle over and from time to time gain control over the state, and use it for the ends that best suit us at the expense of others.”
All analogies wear thin at some level. Perhaps it is better to say: adam and eve are oursleves, and sin we do, as you allude; the apple is the means of violence, which taken, dispels eden; and the serpent? Let the serpent be just as the story told it: your own inner demons for the conquering, that tempt you to do wrong though you know what is right.
Or whatever. Anyways of course the state is not some shapeless monster set apart from individuals, any more than the ‘society’ that the state supposedly protects. Society is first and foremost acting individuals, and the state is just that part of society which by nature and design is ‘permitted’ to act with aggression.
So who is the prime aggressor? Is it the man who buys a loaf of bread? Is it the migrant workers who tend the farms? Is it the CEO of the agribusiness giant? Is it the congress that votes for import tarriffs? Is it the state accountant who pays those congressman? Is it the shopkeeper who collects the tax from the first man? Is it the armed policeman who makes sure he either pays it, or dies resisting?
You can say it’s all just connected and we’re all complicit, so pick your link anywhere in the circle that suits your perception… which seems to be what you were getting at…
Or you can assign guilt strictly to the act and threat of aggression itself – in which case I quite easily point to the cops and the congress. Everyone else is acting peacefully, or complying with a threat.
(So, as an aside, why always the particular focus on the big corporations, instead of the other shady characters in the circus of aggression?)
As for the court thing, my answer is as practical as you choose it to be – not as a course of action but as a guide to your actions. If your case is convincing enough for any just court (it is open for debate whether such exists on earth), then you may command just restitution be paid, by any means (and sure, let your government do the shooting if that’s what it calls for)… but then if your case is convincing enough, why must the means be violent?
What you are saying, I suppose, is that your case is airtight enough to justify violence, and what you are asking, I suppose, is why then would I insist on using the courts when the justification for violence is already in hand?
… my answer is simply because I think the case is too weak for the violence it seeks to justify.
TT – Thanks for your comments. You seem to be one of the few posters on this board who are familiar with the concepts of overshoot and environmental destuction. The dark shadow it casts over everything we do can be quite demotivating and depressing to dwell on for too long. Perhaps that is why people prefer to squabble over more containable issues!
Richard Hinberg and others have pointed out that our population growth is absolutely typical of a species in gross overshoot. When this happens in nature the second half of the curve is never a symetrical mirror of the up-slope, but rather an abrupt crash. We cope easily with the concept of 200,000+ net people being added each day but are horrified when we lose that many in a single day, as happened in the Tsunami a couple of years ago. It does make you wonder how we will react to the sort of global population crash that I am predicting.
The issues that press the hot buttons for many of the people on this site – property rights, government interference, individual freedom and so on – do not have any real relevance to this much wider issue. “Homo industrialis” is the problem and how he goes about organising this endeavour is fairly irrelevant. After experimenting with communism the world now recognises that basic old western-style capitalism is the most efficient way to grow an economy, or as I prefer to think of it, convert fossil fuel and raw materials into pollution and landfill as efficiently as possible.
China and India are frightening. Their massive populations (1.3bn and 1.1bn) have their sights firmly set on the American Way of Life and with sustained double-digit growth little is going to stand in the way.
I’m still looking for the info I found last year on the latest attempts to validate GW models, but while searching I ran across this from the MIT site:
“Current concerns about future climate change are driven in large part by the observational evidence that several long-lived greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O) are presently increasing at significant rates (0.4, 0.5 and 0.25% per year respectively). However, the detailed biogeochemical and physical knowledge of individual sources and sinks needed to explain quantitatively the greenhouse gas trends, and to project them accurately into the future, is lacking. For this reason, the sources and sinks of the greenhouse gases, and the potential feedbacks involving changes in these sources and sinks in response to changes in climate, are either ignored or oversimplified in current general circulation models used for climate prediction. Similarly, the complexity of the physics and chemistry of atmospheric aerosols, and the lack of observations of them over the globe, has meant that aerosols, which can cool the Earth by reflection of sunlight, are also poorly simulated in climate models.”
I can’t find the site I found last year that details the 2004-2005 validation attempts. But I found a summary from the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project, the official org for analyzing GC models. The whole summary is at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/amip/ABSTRACTS/Gates98.html. But it’s from 1998. That’s the most recent info I could find. Unfortunately, the summary doesn’t provide actual measures of error, just adjectives of how the author thinks the models did.
I can’t find the site I found last year that details the 2004-2005 validation attempts. But I found a summary from the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project, the official org for analyzing GC models. The whole summary is at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/amip/ABSTRACTS/Gates98.html. But it’s from 1998. That’s the most recent info I could find. Unfortunately, the summary doesn’t provide actual measures of error, just adjectives of how the author thinks the models did.
I give up for now. Life calls. But here is one last link. This one is from climatescience.gov by Bob Livezey, Climate Services/NWS/NOAA. Here is the link: http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/posters/P-GC2.10_Livezey.pdf
Here are some excerpts:
“Model validation needs greater research attention, both to meet user needs above and to sensitize modelers to deficiencies. Currently model validation is grossly inadequate.”
“Existing climate models cannot credibly
produce future weather scenarios of other
than the gross geographic and seasonal
distribution of mean surface temperature.”
“No existing climate model has been shown to
collectively or correctly treat more than half of the critical controls on North American weather.”
Of course, the Holocene Optimum was nice and all…
Jean Paul, why “always the particular focus on the big corporations, instead of the other shady characters in the circus of aggression?” you ask.
I prefer to focus to the tool-wielder, though of course the tool itself is important. The state is the tool for which all wrestle for control. Elites grasp it more readily, and corporations are the potent vehicle they most frequently use to grab it. This was pretty clear 200 years ago:
“I hope we shall crush … in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.â€
–Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff5.htm
We need to think more about the role of corporations in expanding the state.
As for “violence”, your implicit assumption is that a people can never act through their state, but must instead develop other voluntary associations (and explicit agreements to accept violence). Logistics and likelihood aside, at least on the international stage we cannot avoid contronting other states, failed states and kleptocrats who act through them. Why can we not use our own state for this purpose?
Regards,
Tom
“While our demands on the natural environment is much tempered in the developed economies by the feedback mechanisms of property rights, markets and pricing signals, those signals are flawed in our own economies as a result of government interference, and in any event are not working well with respect to many resources and products acquired from developing economies – due to the interwined problems of a lack of clear and enforceable property rights, government ownership and regulation/fiat, and kleptocracy and corruption for the benefit of elites.”
Pretty much.
Fundamentalist:
Thanks for the additional links on validation and specification. You are implicitly saying that until our climate models PERFECTLY model the Earth – which requires a perfect understanding of all forcing factors and their interactions, you won’t accept them.
Of course neither our scientific knowledge nor our climate models will ever be perfect, but the comparison of model runs that consider only natural factors and those including anthropogenic forcings against actual climate change over the past century shows a remarkably good fit – although sea level increases (as measured precisely by satellite) and other climate parameters have accelerated at rates beyond those indicated by models, due to a lack of sufficient understanding of ice sheet dynamics, soot and albedo feedbacks.
We know anthropogenic factors have sharply risen and will continue to do so as the rest of the world industrializes and develops, and we know that the climate is in many ways changing more rapidly than our models suggest.
But rather than this indicating to you a cause for serious concern, given the difficulties we have in persuading others to lift their foot from the accelerator, you prefer to take comfort in the fact that our windshield is still rather opaque.
The very strong wave of private action by individuals and firms on climate change and public calls for additional coordinated action, both to mitigate and prepare for climate change I think are very strong validators of the scientific view that industrial man has significant responsibility for changing the climate.
But since we are not changing it intentionally, climate change is only “natural”, as Dr. Reisman has argued. There are principalled reasons for refusing to take concerted action via states to control how we drive the climate, but there are no such reasons to refuse to acknowledge that we are driving the climate in particular directions, and should start considering the consequences.
Regards,
TT
Robert T:
“”Homo industrialis” is the problem and how he goes about organising this endeavour is fairly irrelevant. …
“[B]asic old western-style capitalism is the most efficient way to grow an economy, or as I prefer to think of it, convert fossil fuel and raw materials into pollution and landfill as efficiently as possible.
“China and India are frightening. Their massive populations (1.3bn and 1.1bn) have their sights firmly set on the American Way of Life and with sustained double-digit growth little is going to stand in the way.”
Yes and no. Your are losing important distinctions and lessons with your broad stokes. Socialist economies that have not recognized or protected property rights are not only clearly much less efficient and much greater oppressors, but they are also have clearly been the greatest threats to their own environments and their peoples’ health and welfare. Just look through the environmental wreckage of the Soviet block.
In Western societies – with the limited exception of cases where resources remain “publicly” owned or where legislatures have overridden private property rights in favor of powerful polluters – pollution and landfill are costs that producers always have incentives (via competition and pressure from damaged parties) to minimize.
China and India are frightening – precisely because (i) their governments are too powerful and the mechanisms of clear and enforceable property tights, voluntary transactions and markets have been deliberately stunted and still are not working well, so they are ruining their own environments, and (ii) their growing markets are in turn stripping out resources from other kleptocracies/poorly managed regimes like Burma (tropical timber) and Brazil (forests to soybeans). Their own internal failings imperil their growth, even while their external demands present opportunities for elites in other countries to steal public or indigenously owned resources that technology and capital make increasingly easy to liquidate.
It is too bad that libertarians do not understand fundamental ecological concepts of overshoot. It is even more regrettable that ecologists of the “Limits to Growth” school did not understand how markets function and so lost a stupid PR war over the direction of commodity prices. Even as this issue is totally irrelevant to the impact of Western markets on the resources of developing economies, it served to allow those in the West who prefer freedom and property rights over socialism to turn a blind eye to real problems and to tune out the discordant but “discredited” enviros.
I hope you will keep studying how markets work, even as you persist in sharing your concerns about man’s impact on the planet. I offer below a short introduction to Austrian perspectives on markets and the environment (which is focussed on domestic policy and unfortunately still rather rudimentary with respect to impacts outside of a single country):
Property Rights Solutions For The Global Commons: Bottom-Up Or Top-Down?
Terry L. Anderson and J. Bishop Grewell
Http://Www.Law.Duke.Edu/Shell/Cite.Pl?10+Duke+Envtl.+L.+&+Pol’y+F.+73
The Commons and The Tragedy Of Banking [for references to Mises; more at http://mises.org/humanaction/chap23sec6.asp
Philipp Bagus
Http://mises.org/Story/1373
The End Of The Externality Revolution
H. Barnett and Bruce Yandle
Http://mises.org/Journals/Scholar/Barnett.Pdf
Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case For Private Property Rights
Walter Block
Http://mises.org/Etexts/Environfreedom.Pdf
Pollution Trading Permits As A Form Of Market Socialism and The Search For A Real Market Solution To Environmental Pollution
Robert W. Mcgee and Walter E. Block
Http://Www.Walterblock.Com/Publications/Pollution_Trading_Permits.Pdf
Toward A Calculational Theory and Policy Of Intergenerational Sustainability
John Bratland
Http://mises.org/Journals/Qjae/Pdf/Qjae9_2_2.Pdf
Market-Based Environmentalism and The Free Market; They’re Not The Same
Roy E. Cordato
Http://Www.Independent.Org/Pdf/Tir/Tir_01_3_Hill.Pdf
Toward An Austrian Theory Of Environmental Economics
Roy Cordato
Http://mises.org/Story/1760
The Common Law Approach To Pollution Prevention; A Roundtable Discussion (1997)
Http://Www.Cei.Org/Pdf/1353.Pdf
Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution
Murray N. Rothbard
Http://mises.org/Rothbard/Lawproperty.Pdf
The Bankruptcy Of Collectivist Environmental Policy
Fred L. Smith Jr.
Http://Www.Cei.Org/Pdf/3238.Pdf
Eco-Socialism Threat To Liberty Around The World
Fred L. Smith, Jr.
Http://Www.Cei.Org/Pdf/3818.Pdf
Resolving The Tragedy Of The Commons By Creating Private Property Rights In Wildlife
Robert J. Smith
Http://Www.Cato.Org/Pubs/Journal/Cj1n2-1.Html
Coase, Pigou, and Environmental Rights
Bruce Yandle
Http://Www.Environnement-Propriete.Org/English/Documentation/Doc/Coase_Pigou_and_Environmental_Rights_Bruce_Yandle.Pdf
The Commons: Tragedy Or Triumph?
Bruce Yandle
Http://Www.Fee.Org/Publications/The-Freeman/Article.Asp?Aid=4064
Coase, Pigou, and Environmental Rights
By Bruce Yandle
Http://Www.Acton.Org/Ppolicy/Environment/Economics/Index.Html
Yandle’s “The Commons: Tragedy Or Triumph?” is a rather insightful and easy start.
Sincerely,
TT
Philemon:
The Holocene Optimum provides no basis for Holocene Optimism:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/215043/37
TT
TT – I think you are over-analysing it. The big picture is very simple and demonstrated by a few simple facts, such as this chart of global CO2 emissions.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.htm
I am 53. Just in the course of my lifetime population has more than doubled, the level of CO2 above the pre-industrial mean has tripled and annual CO2 emissions have quadrupled. All of these trends are still accelerating.
Quibbling over property rights, or labeling regimes you don’t much like as “kleptocracies” seems pointless. The reality is that globalisation has reduced us to one large village. The timber “stolen” from Burma will likely be laundered, have an FSC badge stamped on it and turn up in your local eco-responsible DIY store. Meanwhile the arctic has gone into meltdown through everyone else’s emissions but their own.
The only reason people can’t see objectively what a destructive species we are is because they are all fully signed up members of it. Even the Green party refuses to say anything about population policy, the single most important factor in the whole sorry mess.
I also think that libertarians propose an economic model (private property rights assigned to everything everywhere) that they know is not workable and will never happen. Having done so it is then very easy for them to claim that this economic model would solve everything, knowing the claim can never be tested.
Per capita global environmental impact (measured in terms of global resources consumed and CO2 emitted) is highest in countries nearest the libertarians’ ideal, such as the US, Australia, Canada. Hard to see how an extension of the system would make things better.
Robert, I am trying present an analysis with an understanding of my audience, in terms they understand and that will not get me immediately dismissed as a “socialist”.
I also happen to favor smaller government, as it is very apparent that big government lies at the core of other problems that start us in the face here – such as the Iraq war and the going war on liberty and our pocketbooks that it represents, not to mention the costs to others and its status as a foreign policy debacle.
I share your view on the seriousness of global environmental issues, but most do not simply because they are not immediate, self-evident or otherwise tangible. We live first, and try to puzzle through the world second, with limited time and limited faculties.
That we now have things under relative control in our countries is a fact that makes it harder both to notice what is happening elsewhere or to realize that we play unintentional roles in it.
Good challenge, though I disagree. The question libertarians face is how to apply their principles with respect to problems for which purely private property rights are infeasible (such as climate) and in how to interact with failed states to address problems relating to a lack of property rights there – and how to do so in a mnnner that doesn’t involve the use of our own states as negotiating proxies.
I’m no expert in it, but the Inclosures Acts in the UK happened around the start of the industrial revolution. They seem to have been instrumental in driving the bulk of the population off the land and into the cities, concentrating the agricultural wealth in the hands of the few and in creating the proletariat. How exactly do you transfer commons into private ownership in a fair way, even for easily divided up stuff like land?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Act
As for favouring small government – you can’t simply dial up the government you want. You have to work round the real ones that exist in real countries. China and the US are not going to simply disappear in the face of your disfavour and be replaced by something more to your liking.
It is imporatnt to be realistic about the status quo before considering how it might change. You need to be realistic about what drives (selfish) individuals, how goverments form and survive and the basics on which industrial civilisation is built. These things took centuries to evolve and are not going to just go away.
Advanced democracies export their problems to emerging economies, thus shoving the whole problem neatly under the carpet. If the west really believed in being good global citizens we would (just for staters) refuse to trade with China and India. Then there is the small matter of cleaning up our own act.
“Per capita global environmental impact (measured in terms of global resources consumed and CO2 emitted) is highest in countries nearest the libertarians’ ideal, such as the US, Australia, Canada. Hard to see how an extension of the system would make things better.”
Closest to the ideal says nothing. All the countries you mentioned are mixed economies, so “close” is an extremely relative term. Besides, these countries are also industrialized. Their emissions will be higher because they are more productive. Socialist countries had environmental calamities, but not because they were productive…
I recommend you read the sources TT generously provided.
TT: “You are implicitly saying that until our climate models PERFECTLY model the Earth – which requires a perfect understanding of all forcing factors and their interactions, you won’t accept them.”
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that people place a lot of confidence in them when they have no reason to. Most of the hysteria about the future comes from the predictions of those models. I will accept them when they’ve been properly validated. No model is ever perfect. I use imperfect models all the time because they’re useful. But I have validated them and therefore know the margin of error in the forecast. In fact, there’s a paradox that the closer a model fits the data on which it has been built, the worse it is at forecasting. This is especially true in neural networks programs where the program places a penalty on the amount of complexity that would make the model fit the training data too well.
TT: “but the comparison of model runs that consider only natural factors and those including anthropogenic forcings against actual climate change over the past century shows a remarkably good fit…”
Of course they do. They’ve been trained on the data they are forecasting. They demonstrate all of the problems mentioned above. How well do they forecast outside of their data set on which they’ve been built is the acid test, and no one has put them to the test in the last 20 years.
TT: “…you prefer to take comfort in the fact that our windshield is still rather opaque.”
No, not that it’s opaque, but that you have removed the windshield and installed a disaster movie in its place that runs on a continual loop.
TT: “The very strong wave of private action by individuals and firms on climate change and public calls for additional coordinated action, both to mitigate and prepare for climate change I think are very strong validators of the scientific view that industrial man has significant responsibility for changing the climate.”
Or it means they’re good politicians and know how to pander.
TT: “…there are no such reasons to refuse to acknowledge that we are driving the climate in particular directions, and should start considering the consequences.”
That’s what the debate is all about and you want to just dismiss it out of hand. The debate is over whether humans are driving the climate change or whether it’s a natural phenomenon. In my opinion, there is little evidence that humans are driving the change; contributing to it in a minor way, maybe, but not driving it. The people who deliberately ignore the evidence against human caused GW are doing so out of politcal motives for the most part. Not you, but the vast majority are socialists.
Or perhaps the answer you seek Robert T may be that humans are a territorial creature. ‘Tis interesting to note the difference in population in birds that are territorial with those who aren’t. Indeed such territorality is rather opposed methinks here hence some prefer the notion of homesteading a plot of land. I believe it means that someone is using that plot of land for a productive purpose rather than just simply hogging it to keep others out. Yet extending such environmental concerns to property rights is about being a space hog, isn’t it? You own the forest to keep others out, especially would be polluters? Actually I’d guess if Libbers were complaining about how many are homeless due to a public-owned forest which Libbers hope would be sold to a property developer, knocked down and turned into housing estate, they would keel over from a heart attack if it was instead sold to an environmental consortium funded by private donations and kept as a forest, leaving many still homeless. ‘Oh no those lefties with their love of Mother Earth have left a perfectly good land go to waste and showed their love trees and critters before humans, gasp, cough, wheeze’. =|:%)
TWLP, I think most libs would be very satisfied with private ownership of nature preserves. Did I misunderstand your post?
“they would keel over from a heart attack if it was instead sold to an environmental consortium funded by private donations and kept as a forest, leaving many still homeless.”
Assuming no duplicity on the part of the selling government, no objections from this libber. The point you raised was basically utilitarian. Anyone else?
I know that everyone has read about the frozen mammoths in northern Siberia. We know from excavations that ice-covered northern Siberia once had an almost tropical climate with a wide variety of animals and plants. We also know that Antarctica once has vegetation. So what would be so horrible about the planet reverting to that climate?
TT and Anthony,
OK. I read your article.
http://www.fee.org/Publications/The-Freeman/Article.Asp?Aid=4064
Predictably is says nothing at all about the global commons of the atmosphere. How are all you libs going to cap global CO2 emissions and avert an otherwise inevitable tragedy?
Still no realism about what sort of species you belong to.
Over to you.
The bottom line is that carbon dioxide levels have been at least an order of magnitude higher in the past. Plants do not thrive well at much below the current levels. That’s why real greenhouses pump in more carbon dioxide (about 1000 parts per million, as I recall) to keep the plants at optimum health. So, they actually purchase carbon dioxide for that purpose.
Carbon dioxide is a necessary part of respiration, photosynthesis and life. The miniscule bit of historic carbon we can burn that replenishes the atmosphere with carbon dioxide was originally taken from the air by plants which fossilized in various forms. By luck some of it escaped being loosed back into the atmosphere or being mineralized.
Markets are the civilized response to scarcity.
Tokyo Tom,
No, I will stand by my judgment of where Robert T’s desires lie. Practically every comment he has written is derogatory of the desires and actions free acting people. In nearly every comment he asserts they must be saved from themselves.
Fundamentalist,
As I was reading your comments last week, I thought to myself how like RogerM they seemed to be. I now know why.
Robert:
How exactly do you transfer commons into private ownership in a fair way, even for easily divided up stuff like land?
That’s the trillion dollar question.
Libertarians do not insist that open-access resources be divided up by creating individual property rights; cooperative ownership (common property rights or CPR) via formal agreements or informally developed practices and customs (such those developed by Maine lobstermen and English angling clubs) may work better at solving the prisoners’ dilemma issues and are just as acceptable.
But technological advances and greater demand might swamp CPR regimes, and such regimes remain vulnerable if they are not accorded legal protection. My understanding of the UK enclosures in this regard is that they were actually a legislative theft of common property by the powerful.
Can states play positive roles in solving problems? At least internally, it is rather clear that the answer is that the state works best by allowing, and providing judicial mechanisms to enforce, private transactions, and works least well when it tries to specify detailed and rigid “solutions” itself – since the government never has perfect information, often plays favorites and once a regulatory regime is put in place, parties have no ability to work out their differences directly with each other, but are forever in the position of trying to influence the state and in adversarial positions vis-a-vis each other.
Elinor Ostrom is the guru of CPR regimes; I suggest you look into her fascinating and highly-regarded work.
Technology seems to provide us ability to create property rights regimes in ocean fisheries.
The stickiest problems are those where the resource is located in a country where we cannot ourselves create or enforce legal rights and in the atmosphere, which no one owns and to which all have access.
On this, you are right – Yandle offers no solution. Even worse, many libertarians don’t even want to acknowledge, much less discuss, the problem. Since it is not a problem that is confined to any one country, clearly we need to coordinate with others, duing our state apparatus.
Reaching any kind of effective solution will require much more focussed attention and bridge-building (abroad and at home), and if libertarians do not want to be part of the discussion, clearly they will have little influence on the results.
TT
“Actually I’d guess if Libbers were complaining about how many are homeless due to a public-owned forest which Libbers hope would be sold to a property developer, knocked down and turned into housing estate, they would keel over from a heart attack if it was instead sold to an environmental consortium funded by private donations and kept as a forest, leaving many still homeless. ‘Oh no those lefties with their love of Mother Earth have left a perfectly good land go to waste and showed their love trees and critters before humans, gasp, cough, wheeze’. =|:%)”
Or perhaps I wouldn’t care less, given that it is the owner’s to dispose of as they please.
Robert T
Too bad you haven’t read my comment on peak oil.
For global warming, my take is that Jean Paul has the best point so far. It does not matter which court can or cannot take the global warming case.
His point is that you want to criminalise CO2 emissions, but are not willing to take it to the usual standard of a criminal act – proof without reasonable doubt that there is one (or many) agressor and one (or many) victim.
You prefer to pretend that global warming can be a victimless crime, and to patch it up you rely on an implicit belief, that there is one “good” climate, the pre-industrial one, and that all other possible climates are “evil” climates. Such good/evil claim is purely religious, no matter the actual science. So is the idea that the babies other people make far away take something away from you. They don’t. Because the vast majority of pregnancies are desired, we expect newborns to bring more than they take, and they will, by becoming the future engineers that develop abundant, clean energy, for example.
Back to climate change, you can still argue that a very large amount of CO2 will do real harm to some people. Thus, a guilty verdict can eventually be obtained, just not yet. When you do have that verdict, I believe punishment will involve a complete ban on some type of emissions, but with some reasonable delay to comply. You cannot have half crimes. Precedent will spread to all emitters in all regions.
Maybe other bloggers have other scenarios. The essential is that it is not necessary to have world government and micromanagement of emissions to solve a global emissions problem. It it not necessary to privatize the un-privatizable either. You only need to respect pollution victim rights, which is precisely what is NOT happening when the state “nationalises” the interior of your lungs to sell it back as an emission dump.
The Kyoto protocol is just a gimmick to transfer wealth, especially to big corporations hoping to get more than their fair share of the initially free permits, to then move their emissions to third world countries and pocket the permits. Immediate emission ceilings is not necessary to curb emissions now. The expectations of a future ban is sufficient. Thus, a protocol with immediate ceilings is likely to serve another agenda.
Bastiat says: “It it not necessary to privatize the un-privatizable either. You only need to respect pollution victim rights, which is precisely what is NOT happening when the state “nationalises” the interior of your lungs to sell it back as an emission dump.”
I have been trying, but have thus far failed, to make precisely this point as eloquently.
Robert T:
Allow me to further address this:
“Advanced democracies export their problems to emerging economies, thus shoving the whole problem neatly under the carpet. If the west really believed in being good global citizens we would (just for starters) refuse to trade with China and India. Then there is the small matter of cleaning up our own act.”
The “small matter” of cleaning up our own act (misgovernment in the US) is actually a huge matter and the one that poses the greatest present threat to us, which is why it is hard to get people’s attention for a crusade to run off and save the rest of the world.
Of course, our domestic resource issues are largely under control (though regulation is too rigid and attracts eternal rent-seeking, politicking and division) and we are not literally exporting any problems – other than through our bumbling wars, of course!
As I noted, I fully agree that our market demands are providing incentives for much of the environmental devastation that we are seeing, even while it also creates opoportunities for wealth-generation in the developing world. I think we need to think much harder about these problems, but they are not problems that are so much being swept under the rug as they are problems that stem from institutional failures elsewhere that do not stare us in the face, even as they are important and though we may be complicit in them and share some responsibility for them.
Largely, our relations with China and India are heading in the right directions, though I do think we (using our governments for support – in this others here are likely to disagree with me) should be doing more to help them combat their own environmental and institutional problems, as well as to work to create meaningful property rights in tropical forests (in other countries)and oceans.
On the climate change front, of course we have trade levers to use in getting them to sign onto measures that will help us all to rein in our impacts on climate, and help them to control their destruction of their own environments.
The use of trade levers must be coordinated with others, but clearly we have legal claims to prevent them from developing their economies, even were we to consider it moral – for the sake of the planet – to restrain them.
I am in favor of much greater and proactive efforts to deal with our various tragedy of the commons problems, but as they require international cooperation clearly we are not going to make much headway if we make China, India and development generally our enemy. We have to remain focussed on the problems.
TT
Is anyone else bothered by the disconnect between “We MUST help those who cannot help themselves!” and “We are on the verge of an overpopulation crisis!”
I don’t know whether it’s the disconnect itself, or the fact that people who cling to both points seem utterly oblivious to any problems with it.
Philemon, where do you come up with gems like this?
“carbon dioxide levels have been at least an order of magnitude higher in the past”
Industrial man has pushed CO2 levels out of the band in which it has been for hundreds of thousands of years, and it will soon be at levels not seen for millions of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Recent ice core data told us two years ago that over the last 650,000 years, “CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm
Given slow natural removal rates of CO2 from the atmosphere and the accelerated use of fossil fuels accompanying worldwide economic growth, we are sure to see a doubling or tripling of atmospheric CO2 from preindustrial levels.
Life on earth as we know it will not end, but we are surely stressing ecosytems, biodiversity and our own systems.
Fundamentalist:
1. I disagree that “Most of the hysteria about the future comes from the predictions of those models.” Rather, the level of concern has more to do with the obvious fact that mankind collectively has its foot on what scientists are telling us is an accelerator, that a good case can be made from the evidence that pressing the accelerator revs up the climate, but not only can we not confirm that by taking our foot OFF the accelerator, but we continue to press the accelerator further and have very little ability to prevent even additional acceleration.
And “proof” that pressing the accelerator actually has consequences will only come when the consequences are upon us and a fair head of steam has built up.
2. I think that the very strong wave of private action by individuals, scientists, business firms and various organizations on climate change and public calls for additional coordinated action, both to mitigate and prepare for climate change are very strong validators of the scientific view that industrial man has significant responsibility for changing the climate.
You suggest that this indicates that “they’re good politicians and know how to pander”.
Clearly there are rent-seekers and politicians seeking to broker those rents. But just as clearly, many are changing their behavior, incurring costs, seeking to adapt and trying to
coordinate burden-sharing with the aim of gaining long-term shared benefits.
3. “The people who deliberately ignore the evidence against human caused GW are doing so out of politcal motives for the most part.”
First, we should acknowledge that the cognitive conservatism that evolution dealt us means that ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit into our existing mental maps of the world comes naturally. We are also predisposed to justify even self-deception that cannot be ignored. Next, if by suggesting that deliberate denial of scientific evidence is driven by “political” motives you mean rent-seeking, I would say that this is by no means universal, but is seen on all sides.
But that aside, perhaps you’d care to share with us the “evidence against human caused GW” that you think is being denied? I think even you have conceded that we are making a contribution (along the spectrum of GHGs, soot and other albedo factors summarized in IPCC reports) – what evidence is there that our influence is insignificant?
Regards,
TT
Bastiat, you are being far too facile.
1. You assert that Robert “prefer[s] to pretend that global warming can be a victimless crime, and to patch it up you rely on an implicit belief, that there is one “good” climate, the pre-industrial one, and that all other possible climates are “evil” climates.” You ignore that, unlike cases of localized pollution where negotiation between the pollution and those affected by it can either resort to available courts to enforce clear property rights or engage in negotiations to minimize a clear harm while maximizing the benefits of productive industry, the various human activities that affect climate are essentially unattributable and shared across the globe.
As a result, presently there is no practical ability (outside Kyoto) for parties to engage in private transactions that would have the effect of internalizing any of the external aspects of economic behavior that affects climate.
2. “Thus, a guilty verdict can eventually be obtained, just not yet. When you do have that verdict, I believe punishment will involve a complete ban on some type of emissions, but with some reasonable delay to comply. You cannot have half crimes. Precedent will spread to all emitters in all regions.”
Be serious – the reason why we have any environmental regulation at all in the US is that courts have refused to strictly enforce property rights against invasions by pollution, and the state has been happy to create regulations that grant large firms rights to pollute. Even today US courts will provide no relief to property owners and others suffering from acid rain and other pollution by Midwestern power plants protected from shutting down under the Clean Air Act. And even if US courts prove themselves themselves willing to enjoin activities (much less provide damages) that alter climate, there are simply no means to extend such judgments outside the US.
3. “it is not necessary to have world government and micromanagement of emissions to solve a global emissions problem. It it not necessary to privatize the un-privatizable either. You only need to respect pollution victim rights, which is precisely what is NOT happening when the state “nationalises” the interior of your lungs to sell it back as an emission dump.”
Of course no world government is needed. Like the closing of a range, what is needed is for representatives of major climate change actors and those most affected to negotiate terms of use. Rather pedestrian, at least in concept. Of course, if the “representatives” can not be states, then we virtually need to create new ones from scratch.
How each representative then allocates those rights and related expenses is then a domestic matter. It may be preferable if citizens were explicitly recognized as owning the atmosphere, but arguments can be made that large users have “homesteaded” the rights to their activities that contribute to AGW.
4. “The Kyoto protocol is just a gimmick to transfer wealth, especially to big corporations hoping to get more than their fair share of the initially free permits, to then move their emissions to third world countries and pocket the permits. “
Not very revealing. Actually, permits in the EU were over-allocated since they did not want to bite a bullet that the US and others did not want to share. So emissions in the EU have been rising despite agreed caps. Carbon-intense activities are growing in China partly because neither the US or EU was had the political will to bring China into the compliance discussions and partly because the Chinese government has no environmental liability to its citizens and prefers rapid growth with cheap fossil fuel technology over internalizing through higher cost technology the AGW effects of their activities.
Yancey: As you wish, but I see the desire to categorize as a reflexive way to avoid examining one’s own views.
After all, surely my concerns on environmental matters simply cannot be genuine, but MUST be funded by someone, right?
I think Robert should get credit for trying, even if he doesn’t evince a clear understanding of economics.
Regards,
Tom
On climate change I don’t centre my arguments on the economics because I don’t see the problem in economic terms. Realistically the world is going to need to slash its CO2 emissions by, some would say, 90% by 2050 to have any hope of avoiding really devastatimg consequences. Other say it is too late already. To do this would require us to take some very unattractive economic actions.
Complex instruments such as the EU ETS have not achieved anything and are never likely to. Such mechanisms seem to build in the assumption that growth comes first and emissions a distant second. Anyway, the idea of granting existing polluters the continuing right to pollute seems plain daft – a sort of wild perversion of privatising the commons.
I have heard no convincing argument from any of the libs as to how climate change might be addressed. Mostly the argument seems to rest on it maybe not being as big a problem as the scientists are telling us. As for sorting it out in court, that is just plain ludicrous.
If (hypothetically) we KNEW that we were polluting the atmosphere with something that was definitely going to destroy the biosphere and kill us all in, say, 100 years would we act any differently? I fear not.
As the Vodaphone ad says, “Make the most of now”.
It’s not all gloom an doom. Solar is showing increasing promise as a way to generate electricity. Costs may reach parity with fossil fuel in the US within 10 years.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/03/news/companies/sunpower_solar.fortune/index2.htm
This is where government intervention can really help – by translating the externalised costs of burning fuel into government subsidies, solar power could achieve cost parity much sooner, if not straight away. No wonder that Exxon and its coal producing subsidiaries have been funding the climate sceptic groups for so long. Maybe they should have been funding solar startups such as Nanosolar instead.
I like this from the BBC web site today:
“‘Climate porn’ is the term given to alarmist media coverage of climate change.”
Climate porn. What an apt description!
Economics is vitally important to such debates. Slashing emissions by 90% will have huge economic repercussions. Figuring out how to give firms incentives to innovate and introduce new technologies (which they do of their own initiative anyway – the problem being the significant protections the oil industry enjoys) is also the domain of the economic science. Hardly irrelevant.
Fun, You can find anything you want on the net.
http://strange_stuff.blogspot.com/2007/07/libertarian-porn.html
Anthony, The big issue with CC is coal. Coal reserves are much larger than all the oil and gas combined and consumption is rising everywhere.
TT: “the various human activities that affect climate are essentially unattributable and shared across the globe”
That is my point. Even though taxing men at gunpoint to subsidize mini-skirts and boob jobs would make a walk in the street so much more pleaurable, “maximizing the benefits”, it does not fit Mises’ conception of a free society. Not all externalities are crimes, and as long as CO2 does not make clear victims, it should be left as an externality for people to adapt to. Just like the sight of not-so-pretty girls.
“the reason why we have any environmental regulation at all in the US is that courts have refused to strictly enforce property rights against invasions by pollution”
You have it backwards. The courts stopped enforcing property rights BECAUSE the defendents could now say “I respected the regulation”. http://mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf
“Of course, if the “representatives” can not be states, then we virtually need to create new ones from scratch.”
I would prefer insurance companies. Of course, for me this is an academic discussion about how things are possible without a state. I am perfectly aware that in the current situation the state must be involved. That is why I am not happy about the interior of my lungs being nationalized.
Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by “real harm” worthy of a “guilty verdict”.
Suppose a skier physically causes an avalanche. He is still not guilty of destroying your house. You are the one at fault for building your house in an avalanche-prone area. However, if the skier carries a ghetto blaster powerful enough to cause avalanches where none could possibly occur naturally, then he faces a legitimate lawsuit.
Similarly, merely causing climate change is not sufficient to jail people. You need a CO2 concentration that will derail the climate way out of the bonds of all naturally possible climates. Since the climate has been stable before with huge CO2 concentrations, I just don’t see it happening. CO2 is both acidic and mildly toxic. IMHO, it will cause lawsuits for damage on those two fronts well before it can possibly derail the climate. That is, if we don’t get the next coming glaciation first, in which case any excess CO2 would rapidly be absorbed by the colder ocean.
Of course, the fact that a bank robbery is difficult to “attribute” between the robbers does not prevent from arresting them. If CO2 seriously threatens to derail the climate, then all emitters are in trouble.
Tokyo Tom,
I am trying to categorize Robert T. because he claims to be something other than what his comments appear to define. He has repeatedly called for state control over resources while denying to be a socialist. This may reveal an ignorance of economics, but socialists are often ignorant in exactly that way.
Why is defining him important? It is important because we have real world evidence of the silliness of the actions he for which he is explicitly calling.
Yes, you may have a perfectly uncorrupted interest in addressing climate change. I only asked the question because climate change seems to be your only interest in this site. It is either a serious hobby of yours, or a job. I wanted to know which. I don’t recall what answer you gave.
Bastiat, good point that Not all externalities are crimes, and as long as CO2 does not make clear victims, it should be left as an externality for people to adapt to.
But Mises, Yandle and others speak of transition points, that are reached when demand pressure grows as a result of social changes (including new forms of organization) or technological advances (which might also enable greater protection), when open-access resources fall first under common property regimes and then later under private property rights.
I think we are at one of those points now.
TT
I post on what interests me most, Yancey. That`s all.
TT: “transition points, that are reached when demand pressure grows as a result of social changes”
What if the majority refuses that you repaint your house because of some irrational fear that the landscape will “exceed capacity” for the specific color you want to paint it in? Sounds like mob rule to me, not like Mises. Something is missing.
I think you have to prove that 600ppm CO2 will cause more damage than any other possible climate change that could still have occured at 300ppm CO2. Only then you can show how “CO2 capacity” is scarce, and the need to end the open access regime. Fisheries, for example, are way past that point. But I’m not sure we are there yet for CO2.
TT
You wrote -
*************************************************
I think Robert should get credit for trying, even if he doesn’t evince a clear understanding of economics.
*************************************************
Although you are largely on the same side in this discussion, this comment really bugged me. To me the economics of tackling climate change are crystal clear and I have tried several times to draw people into a discussion on the subject. Each time I am met with a wall of libertarian dogma and a refusal to argue through the details. I find this stragne as you all, apparently, pride yourself on a knowledge of economics.
For those that missed it I will explain my thinking once more.
1. Coal has been the cheapest way to make electricity for at least 200 years. Reserves are large and easy to get at and the cost to a power company of disposing of the waste CO2 is zero. No renewable or nuclear technology can yet compete with coal-fired power stations on cost.
2. The renewable sector is growing, in part due to subsidies. This is dangerous, because it is likely to encourage renewable technologies which fail to save CO2 over their lifetime AND could not compete economically without subsidy either. For example, the embodied energy in silicon solar panels may never be recovered through their entire lifetime, in which case what is the point of making them from either a CO2 or $ point of view? Doing it for subsidies alone is madness.
3. To avoid this pitfall, the correct model is to internalise the true CO2 cost by applying a tax on all primary fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) in proportion to the CO2 they create when burned. If a renewable or nuclear technology actually relies on intensive consumption of fossil fuel in its manufacture, maintenance or decommissioning then this this form of tax will expose the technology as a poor option. The market will automatically home in on those technologies which really do have a low carbon footprint.
I am not a traditional socialist, in terms of “power to the workers”, benefits for lazy workshy people and all that stuff. But I DO see government intervention as the only way to create the type of market I describe above.
Dear Tokyo Rose, your propaganda about carbon dioxide cuts no ice with me. Dry or otherwise. You know they throw out the high outliers on the ice core data. Oh… sorry, maybe you don’t. Anyway, ice cores leak carbon dioxide; so, they generally read low.
Of course, despite much hoopla, methane has been down, too.
Then again, so have temperatures. Especially in the Southern Hemisphere. The Northern Hemisphere has been flat.
There is no need for world government because of carbon dioxide. By the way, you really don’t want world government.
Philemon: “You know they throw out the high outliers on the ice core data.”
Good point. Did you see the documentary on PBS about the guys who rescued the WWII P-38′s from Greenland? Or maybe it was Iceland. Anyway, the planes are about 200 ft below the surface of the ice, which would make them about a thousand years old using the standard dating methods used with ice cores.
I DID see the thing about the planes – that was awesome! but sad ending… – but anyway my point is, c’mon. The science isn’t so bad that they can’t reliably date the cores. Radiodating versus depth measurement, I am sure.
I agree absolutely with Philemon. The relatively anarchic scattering of historical nation states got us to the point we’re at today with their perversions of human society… and yet some people want an even MORE centralized state to heal the damage done by the earlier ones.
How about we stop drinking the kool-aid?
The transition-point comments were interesting – specifically the sequence from unowned commons, to state-owned, to privately-owned.
This made me think about the ‘ownership’ of the radio spectrum – a commons to some, thus eligible for state regulation or private ownership, but in reality, not ownable at all.
Owning the spectrum is like IP, so if you leaned such a way you could dismiss it on that grounds; because what you are really claiming to own is the excludability over the right to generate, and allow to propagate, photons of a particular range of frequencies.
Going back to some points I made elsewhere (on I think a different topic – hard to know, this one has been going for ages!), the real determinant of ‘ownership’ of this supposed commons is the degree to anyone else wants to tolerate your trespass.
Absolute broadcast rights in an area could be achieved by physical property owners appointing some agency on their behalf to voice complaint for radio trespass; this would generate a rent for the property owner; the permission itself could be traded on a market, which would lead to territorial aggregation and other cool things; and the party that secured all the nonconflicting permissions in an area could then shut down any other broadcaster by citing trespass. This all respectful of and nicely supported by the handy laws of nature as revealed by rational inquiry, and best of all without a state.
Another example is conversation. You permit the trespass of another person causing your ears to vibrate, and likewise he allows you the same, and the two of you jointly moderate your use of the unowned commons of ‘air vibrating at 0-20kHz’ with no state to babysit. If one person raises his voice to a painful shriek, you also need not call the nanny government to pass a clumsy and heavy handed anti-shrieking statute – your own demand that the trespasser cease is all that is needed.
So creative people, how might this work for the supposed ‘atmosphere commons’?
Roger, with your mention of the P-38s I now see why you’ve changed your handle to Fundamentalist!
A little Googling shows that most mentions of the P-38s are connected to Creationists’ refusal to accept the idea that the Earth is older than 7000 years – can you please tell me that you are not in this group?
Can you point me to any scientist who seriously doubts the ice core aging or our basic data captures from them?
And do intend to seriously argue that the conditions of the active glaciers in Greenland’s southern coasts where the P-38s landed, which experience heavy snowfalls, bear any resemblance to the high, stable and much drier ice caps on Greenland or Antarctic wheere the ice cores are taken from?
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about36638.html
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=67&m=62
That you can even throw this into the discussion makes me seriously question your “fundamental” seriousness.
TT
I am afraid that I DO understand the hostility that compels folks like Philemon and Yancey to throw ad hominem barbs. But I don’t respect it, as it’s basically a surrender to the “conservation of cognitive energy” reflexes that defend our more or less hardened mental maps of reality.
Anyone else want to throw in the towel on the mental effort, either with some dissmisive parting shot, or by engaging with me only with hostility (as I must be a clear enemy of reason!)?
Robert T.:
Realistically the world is going to need to slash its CO2 emissions by, some would say, 90% by 2050 to have any hope of avoiding really devastatimg consequences. Other say it is too late already. To do this would require us to take some very unattractive economic actions.
Complex instruments such as the EU ETS have not achieved anything and are never likely to. … Anyway, the idea of granting existing polluters the continuing right to pollute seems plain daft – a sort of wild perversion of privatising the commons.
You appear not to have realize that you have deftly touched on the core reasons – but not yet clearly stated by others here – why many here think we should do NOTHING about mitigating climate change.
Libertarians are in principle opposed to government interference in the economy and impingements on personal liberty, so they are predisposed to do nothing in the first place (other than to continue to dismantle government). So many to begin with would simply rather not hear of a real problem, as they don’t want to see others use it as a reason to justify government action (which they see as always more costly than putative benefits).
Others ARE concerned that there may be a problem, but are not convinced that it is sufficiently serious to justify any government action. Do you see how your summary – that it may be “too late already” to dodge the bullet, which efforts “would require us to take some very unattractive economic actions” – seems to support their case?
Of course, the massive wave of cooperative movement across industry to explicitly face climate change and to get ready for and perhaps forestall some of it belies any easy conclusions that there is either no problem or that it is too small to merit any proactive social change.
Further, our policy options are not binary, as you note in your most recent post: the correct model is to internalise the true CO2 cost by applying a tax on all primary fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) in proportion to the CO2 they create when burned. … The market will automatically home in on those technologies which really do have a low carbon footprint.
Many here would disapprove of such “Pigouvian” tax measures, for which there seems to be growing interest and support among many well-regarded economists – such as Greg Mankiw (former head of Bush’s CEA) has persistently advocated
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/columns.html; http://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=en&q=pigou+site%3Agregmankiw.blogspot.com –
but others have noted that such taxes would actually be a step in the right direction if they were revenue neutral and proceeds credited to citizens via income or payroll tax reductions.
As to “understanding of economics”, I was implicitly referring the Austrian perspectives on economics, which I would agree is a clearer and more useful vision than that afforded by other schools of economic thought. I hope you will investigate it further, even as you fairly question the willingness of adherents here to discuss how the wheels of Austrian analysis hit the road on various environmental issues.
Sincerely,
TT
Bastiat, here is Mises himself on the issue of transitions (or “mob rule” as you would have it):
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap23sec6.asp
Perhaps others can help to fill out more of Mises’ thoughts on the topic of transitions, but this seems relevant in any case.
“even as you fairly question the willingness of adherents here to discuss how the wheels of Austrian analysis hit the road on various environmental issues.”
Austrian analysis or no, the libertarian analysis says “nonaggression is the only way”.
So the austrian perspective is – solve the problem however you damn well like, so long as it’s not aggression.
Don’t mistake it for ‘dogma’ just because it’s simple. Simple is good. Simple is better. Try it. You’ll like it.
I suppose the above should read “So the LIBERTARIAN perspective is – …”
I don’t know how much of a difference it makes. I would hope zero.
Well the Austrian (i.e. praxeological, i.e. economic) analysis wouldn’t suggest anything other than outlining what the consequences of various actions would be.
Jean Paul: Thanks for your creative thoughts on the transition issue as it may apply to climate change.
I suppose if there were no states to attract rent-seeking, groups representing the interests of different people might develop to fight climate change by demanding that others cease their “trespass”, but the GHG producers might have a better argument that they had homesteaded their use. But if there were such groups, they could in any case work out a deal between themselves, even without clear liability or ownership rules.
States of course interfer with or distract from this process domestically, which would in any event break down internationally unless states stepped in as explicit proxies.
The discussions over climate change are essentially a complex prisoners’ dilemma negotiation between resource users – time, energy and trust-building are needed to get anywhere. Does anybody note the incentives that those who use the atmosphere as a free GHG/soot dump have to disrupt the process?
By the way, you earlier noted a disconnect between “We MUST help those who cannot help themselves!” and “We are on the verge of an overpopulation crisis!”. There is less disconnect that you may suppose. As Dan McLaughlin noted on his post on Malthusian issues, http://mises.org/daily/2718, a crucial aspect of “overpopulation” is that the lack of sufficent property rights infrastructure in developing countries delays the demographic shift and leads to a race to consume resources. As we share the same planet, this dynamic has repercussions that affect us. Why, for our own sake, if not for altruistic reasons, should we not be working at strengthening the effectiveness of property rights and the rule of law in the developing world?
Regards,
TT
Anthony: yes, thanks for the clarification. agreed – it is purely a value judgment whether the austrian econ predictions for nonaggression are preferable to the austrian econ predictions for various kinds of aggression. choosing between value judgments is for philosophy to sort out.
Tom says: “but the GHG producers might have a better argument that they had homesteaded their use.”
You can’t homestead assault…? I think that’s what the protesting group is trying to demonstrate, right? Some form of damage/injury or just any detectable effect at all, caused by the GHG producer?
Alternatively, if the protesters can’t prove some kind of trespass, then they can rabble-rouse a socio-economic witch hunt, which so long as it employs strictly peaceful means (i.e. propaganda is fine, anything that does or should involve cops is not), i see no problem with it.
Maybe the wisest would be the constructive approach: continue the process of education; make carbon footprint a big scary thing that consumers demand to see stamped on all the stuff they buy, like 0 sodium 0 calories in 48pt font on food; important stuff like that. Let auditors provide a stamp for each package – certified for a total supply-chain carbon cost of X, and individually coded in an RFID, as all products could be, perhaps? Or maybe just a pass/fail metric – a big TokyoTomTurnOn logo for the discerning picks of your personal labs?
Also, the peaceful protester can pursue a campaign of carbon offsets – encourage people to reduce their emission, and to invest in offsets to some percentage target greater than their own offsets if they can. Make it hip to collect offsets, diversify your portfolio, invest in your children’s children’s future… cmon, how hard is it to sell a patch of forest to someone?
Now that’s a nice idea: suddenly private nature preserves are lucrative as hell because a share in a preserve represents some tangible, auditable rate of offset, which has a market value among the people who are truly terrified of a warmer earth. How do you make your fortune trading in the offsets market? just buy some crappy land and do nothing with it!!!
An audit certificate of held offsets becomes valuable when the first hypothetical group – the assaulted one from the top of this post – comes knocking on your door seeking damages.
Well that all sounds pretty good to me, why do you think we don’t have all this? What possible obstacle could there be? I can’t think of one.
TT, Thanks for your reply. You seem to be the only person who has thought deeply about how climate change might be tackled and understands where I am coming from (even if you don’t agree with it all). I hadn’t come across the term “Pigouvian” before but it is exactly what I think is needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
If you accept this argument then it is a short step to realise that the problem is primarily a political one rather than an economic one. How do you get the world to act in unison to create a workable Pigovian tax on CO2?
I do take issue with your statement “the massive wave of cooperative movement across industry”. No such wave exists, just a tiny, tiny ripple. There is a huge amount of greenwashing, with companies claiming to be carbon neutral and so on for reasons of image, but the reality is that global carbon emissions have accelerated in the last 10 years.
Much of this is because we have exported manufacture to low cost coal-powered Asian countries. In a global economy we should calculate our individual carbon footprint on the basis of what we consume, not the average of the country we live in. This would undermine those who blame it all on China, when in fact it is mostly the west that is benefitting from their explosive growth.
Here is a philospophical comment about the libertarian posters on this site.
I would have expected followers of the von Mises way of thinking to adhere to Positive Economics (the study of “what is”).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_economics
Instead you advocate approaches rooted in Normative Economics (“what ought to be”), justfying it by saying that they are the real “what is”. Simultaneously you attack people like me who are suggesting a different “what ought to be”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_economics
Tom,
What I write about Robert T. is not ad hominem attacks. I am attempting to show that his stated philosophy has already been demonstrated to be a failure by history. I suspect this is the reason he so vehemently claims to be something other than what his own words indicate.
Yancey.
Why are you so keen to stamp SOCIALIST across my forehead in bright red letters? As I explained earlier, I am director of two companies, comfortably well of and unlikely to be out there selling copies of Socialist Worker.
Just reading this latest “Museletter” from Richard Heinberg. Partly relevant to the discussion, it sums up my view of the US.
http://www.energybulletin.net/35309.html
*************************************************
The US got rich exploiting its own resources and labor. Its most valuable resource—oil—went into decline forty years ago; since then, we Americans have tried to stay rich by exploiting other nations’ labor and resources, using leveraged trade rules, dollar hegemony, and military threats. All this time, we congratulated ourselves: we were living in a post-industrial information economy; they were doing the dreary, obsolete work of actually making things. They sweated and saved; it was up to us to spend and borrow. We served an indispensable function in the global economy as the consumer of last resort, as the engine of new debt creation (more debt equals more money in circulation—i.e., more GDP growth), and as the global cop keeping order in an unruly world (while also sneaking donuts and taking bribes). The Chinese burned their coal and poisoned their workers and environment to make our stuff, enabling us to enjoy a cleaner environment by keeping our coal in the ground, while they loaned us the money to buy cheap Chinese stuff with. Such a deal!
************************************************
“Here is a philospophical comment about the libertarian posters on this site.
I would have expected followers of the von Mises way of thinking to adhere to Positive Economics (the study of “what is”).”
Whether or not a specific course of action _should_ be taken is a matter of normative economics, not positive. Positive economics only elucidates what the effects of an action are, and no more than that. It cannot on its own suggest policies. For this underlying philosophical premises are required. So there is nothing unnatural about focusing on normative economics in this instance.
Robert,
Because so many of your comments are derogatory or dismissive of private property rights and free actions of free people in the market. And yet you claim not to have a predilection for socialism.
Robert: “…we Americans have tried to stay rich by exploiting other nations’ labor and resources, using leveraged trade rules, dollar hegemony, and military threats.”
If you believe this, you are a socialist. Robert may not know much about socialism, so I’ll give him a pass. The quote from Richard Heinberg is pure neo-marxism, straight from the pen of the father of neo-marxism, Emanuel Wallenstein. Because of the massive failure of Karl Marx’s predictions about capitalism, orthodox Marxism faced a crises in the 1950′s, so Wallenstein invented (fabricated out of of thin air) the center-periphery (CP) idea of international development. Wallenstein said that Marx was only partially wrong about capitalists exploiting workers. Capitalists decided to treat workers in the West better in order to prevent a revolution, so they exported their exploitation to the third world. Western capitalism stays alive by exploiting (stealing) from the world’s poor. In other words, the center (the US) can’t maintain its standard of living with keeping the periphery (poor countries) poor so we’ll have cheap labor and oil.
I studied the center-periphery dogma in the late 1980′s in school when it was still popular. Economists gave it the benefit of the doubt for awhile, but the evidence against it was so overwhelming that all but the most dogmatic socialists abandoned it. Any time anyone mentions the CP theory, it’s a clear sign that they are socialist, whatever they may call themselves.
Robert: “I am director of two companies…”
Many of the most ardent socialists are wealthy and owners/directors of large businesses. Armand Hammer of Occidental petroleum was an early one.
Robert: “I would have expected followers of the von Mises way of thinking to adhere to Positive Economics (the study of “what is”).
Austrian study reality, or “what is.” We happen to disagree with socialists about what reality is. Socialists believe the CP theory is reality, when clearly it ain’t.
Jean Paul – well, you’ve certainly brought your thinking cap, haven’t you?
As to the homesteading question, I have some sympathy for industry – after all, for the longest time no one considered that their GHG emissions to be externalities at all – and didn’t many of them get started before many of us were born? But I’m not making a technical argument for them, just acknowledging that if we move to a clearer system of liability or property rules, parties could negotiate to improve their positions regardless of how the initial rules were established.
I appreciate your recognition that it is acceptable for protesters to “rabble-rouse a socio-economic witch hunt, which so long as it employs strictly peaceful means (i.e. propaganda is fine, anything that does or should involve cops is not), i see no problem with it.” Many seem not to recognize the legitimacy of this, nor how moral suasion is a standard aspect of the many informal systems that serve to regulate various commons.
However, on the question of violence, surely you also recognize that is probably the most common element of disputes over priority to open-access resources?
TT
Yancey
************************************************
Because so many of your comments are derogatory or dismissive of private property rights and free actions of free people in the market. And yet you claim not to have a predilection for socialism.
************************************************
That accusation is simply not true. In my day to day general approach to life and business I behave as a regular capitalist. I am not a Director of two LARGE companies unfortunately, but my wife’s and my (small) businesses are thriving thanks. Hardly the characteristics of your regular socialist?
On the single issue of climate change I see no alternative to intergovernmental agreement and action. And to be effective it needs to be fairly drastic and to start without delay. The effects of climate change are not a zero sum game with winners and losers – we will all be losers if we take the business of trashing the environment to its logical conclusion.
If this form of action sounds similar to what a socialist might advocate the reasons are entirely different. Climate change is not a right vs. left thing.
A straight carbon tax is likely to be highly regressive. i.e. to favour the rich at the expense of the poor. This is because the poor spend a greater proportion of their income on fuel and food. Does that sound socialist?
The question you ought to be asking is what would happen to the enormous revenue that would be raised by a carbon tax. People suggest that it could be revenue-neutral, taking the place of other taxes, in which case spending it would not be a big issue. In practice the tax might need to be very high in order to squeeze carbon from the global economy and if (as is likely) renewables turn out to be far more costly then this will drag down growth everywhere. Unfortunate, but no gain without pain.
Fundamentalist – I can’t be bothered to waste time sticking labels on Richard Heinberg. His ideas are hardly original – there are a million sites on the net sharing his views about the US and the way they do business through an unhealthy mix of economic, miltary and diplomatic bullying. I am cheering from the sidelines as it falls apart.
Robert T,
“That accusation is simply not true. In my day to day general approach to life and business I behave as a regular capitalist. I am not a Director of two LARGE companies unfortunately, but my wife’s and my (small) businesses are thriving thanks. Hardly the characteristics of your regular socialist?â€
Hardly at all. This makes it all the more disappointing to read you, who arguably walks the walk of a free market libertarian, does not also talk the talk – nor think the thought.
“On the single issue of climate change I see no alternative to intergovernmental agreement and action. And to be effective it needs to be fairly drastic and to start without delay.â€
This is deadly collectivist thinking. The thing you miss is that there is a principle involved in free market economics and ethics that you may see in the context of running your own business that in fact applies universally in all human endeavors. That it is respect for private property and contract, which leads to the most ethical treatment of property as well as optimal practical results on the environment as well. The theory has been well expounded by the Austrians on how it is private property rights, not collectivist planning that serves humans best in all aspects of life. Beyond that, a few practical history lessons should also go a long way to confirm what theory determines must be true; that the central planning of the state and its socialism leads to capital consumption, waste, and destruction of whatever it touches – including the precious environment. Just look at Soviet Russia for an example of what centrally planned environmentalism can achieve – catastrophe.
Therefore, be consistent – cast away socialism and bring your thinking in line with how you make your living. Respect for private property, contract, reason and natural law, will force you to be able only to advocate liberty from the chains of state intervention and its taxation – and its bogus claims that it can solve the world’s environmental problems.
Tokyo Rose writes: ‘As for “violence”, your implicit assumption is that a people can never act through their state, but must instead develop other voluntary associations (and explicit agreements to accept violence). Logistics and likelihood aside, at least on the international stage we cannot avoid contronting[sic] other states, failed states and kleptocrats who act through them. Why can we not use our own state for this purpose?’
Tokyo Rose, we know who you are and what you stand for. Vade retro.
Paul Edwards
I am getting really tired of all this party-political libertarian guff. I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING in regard to private property. For example, I own a fair sized house not far from London and due to the vagaries of the UK housing market it currently seems to be worth an unfeasibly large amount of money. I am all in favour of private property ownership. It makes me care far more about my property than all those council house dwellers down the road.
The problem is that this model shows no signs of being useful in controlling global CO2 emissions.
Please spare me any more blindingly obvious libertarian woffle and let’s talk about CO2 emissions. Your creed does not seem to have an answer to this thorny problem.
BTW, if being a socialist means occasionally giving some thought to other people, then perhaps I qualify as a socialist.
I am not overly-obsessed with making money as I seem to make it rather faster than I can spend it these days. I am more concerned for my children’s welfare and for the grandchildren who are likely to appear at some point soon. They will require a fully functional planet for at least the next 100 years. And that’s before we have even considered THEIR children.
Paul E
************************************************
Just look at Soviet Russia for an example of what centrally planned environmentalism can achieve – catastrophe.
************************************************
Yes. They certainly messed up the Aral Sea. But how will that compare with capitalism’s efforts in Alberta or Montana?
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071008_110103_110103&source=srch
http://www.radioopensource.org/coal-mountaintop-removal-in-appalachia/
************************************************
Left unfettered, Alberta’s energy sector will, by the end of this century, transform the southern part of the province into a desert and its north into a treeless, toxic swamp. Driven both by global warming and oil and gas developments, temperatures in Alberta will soar by as much as eight degrees. The Athabasca River will slow to a trickle, parching the remainder of the province’s forests and encouraging them to burst into flame, generating vast quantities of CO2. “They’re going to be the architects of their own destruction,” says journalist William Marsden, whose new book outlines the environmental threats posed by Alberta’s energy industry.
************************************************
“Your creed does not seem to have an answer to this thorny problem.”
Gee, so all the input by JP and TT so far is what? Blathering?
As for the “capitalist” environmental destruction you refer to, please ask what is operative in such a case. Are property rights clearly defined etc.? These are important questions.
Robert: “I am cheering from the sidelines as it falls apart.”
Socialists have cheered the collapse many times in the past, just as they have cheered the end of oil many times and have been wrong every time. You were cheering the loudest back in the 1980′s when you all thought that the Japanese would buy the US. If you knew as much economics as you think, you would know that most European countries, except for the UK and Switzerland, are on the verge of bankruptcy. Don’t you even read your own press? Why do you think the French voted for Sarkozy and the Germans for Merkel? Because of their good looks? From what I’ve read of the European press, people voted for them in order to save their nations from bankruptcy. Why have the UK and Switzerland outpaced the rest of Europe? Because they abandoned much of the socialism of the continent. And unless the US does something stupid, like passing laws to stop global warming or nationalizing the oil industry, we’ll leave Europe behind to wallow in its socialist dust.
Robert: “They certainly messed up the Aral Sea.”
Oh please! Is that all you really know about the environmental disasters that exist throughout Eastern Europe and the old USSR? Canada couldn’t screw up its environment as bad as the Soviets did if the Canadians tried. And comparing the exagerated claims of GW hysteria with the reality of the disasters in the Old USSR is just dishonest.
I don’t believe anyone on this site denies that GW is happening. The debate is over how much humans contribute. If water vapor and methane make up the largest share of greenhouse gasses, with CO2 being the smallest, and humans contribute just a portion of the total of CO2, then it stands to reason that if humans were able to end all of our contribution of CO2, it would contribute little to stopping the increase in GHG’s and ending global warming. As Bjorn Lundberg has pointed out, the cost/benefit analysis of trying to end human created CO2 shows it to be a major loser. The same amount of money could be used to solve far more pressing problems, such as disease.
Robert, a common thread in the worst environmental disasters – including China -is not simply the absence of effective property rights but the complicity or active involvement of the state. For virtually all local problems, the state generally offers simply more problems, including licensed theft in the form of favoritism and ongoing politicization. On this, you need to analyze more finely, and I agree with others here.
But it is pretty clear that there are classes of more difficult problems that are regional or global and are surfacing as formerly “control” economies develop and as markets place pressure on the resources of failed states/semi-kleptocracies, and with respect to globally unowned resources like the atmosphere and seas – and that for these propblems, no effective solutions can be reached without negotiations on a large scale with bodies that are able to represent large groups of people. For these, I agree that it is impossible to avoid using our state, even as the active cooperation of others is still possible. The paradigm is still one of a multi-party negotiation, and no fiat by a global government. The multiparty aspect constrains the ability of any participant to apply force to the problem.
Those here who facilely dismiss these problems as “hysteria” (or who prefer to focus on the use of governemtn as “socialistic”) are just pushing off the undeniable and growing externalities to another day, because they cannot bear the difficult task of thinking about them now. But I would hope that the lessons of environmental problems up to now may help you to understand where they are coming from (sympathy for the devil-fighters, in other words).
Fundamentalist, Lomborg’s cost-benefit argument is a socialistic one, isn’t it? That the state should focus not on tweaking the system to dampen externalities that feed AGW (making actors pay their costs), but should focus instead on spending taxpayer dollars to “help” other countries? Conceptually these are different types of problems, while both involve externalities. The first need not involve expenditures by the government, while the second does.
While I certainly agree that the problems of failed development and governance (stemming from lack of property rights and rule of law) abroad are very serious and deserve attention, why should that distract from addressing climate change?
By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops?
Regards,
TT
TT
*************************************************
with respect to globally unowned resources like the atmosphere and seas – and that for these problems, no effective solutions can be reached without negotiations on a large scale with bodies that are able to represent large groups of people. For these, I agree that it is impossible to avoid using our state, even as the active cooperation of others is still possible. The paradigm is still one of a multi-party negotiation, and no fiat by a global government. The multiparty aspect constrains the ability of any participant to apply force to the problem.
*************************************************
Thanks you. Pretty much the point I have being making throughout this discussion. Why do all other contributers find it so hard to come to this blindingly obvious conclusion?
Kyoto and everything that has gone on since has rather demonstrated that 200 or so countries are actually incapable of coming to any effective agreement to deal with the emissions. Even for a single country reducing CO2 is perceived as being very painful, but to get every country to agree to anything effective or binding has proved impossible so far.
There are many reasons for this. Every country has a different status quo to deal with. It would be very difficult for developed countries such as the US to contract and converge to a drastically lower global per-capita emission level – the drop would be precipitous and it is unlikely that their high-energy based infrasructure could survive it. Likewise, countries like India will argue that they should be allowed to rise to at least the global average so should not need to make cuts at all.
Then there is the argument that you should calculate emissions on a per unit land area basis. Using that system the USA looks quite good, effectively accusing India and China of allowing their countries to become overpopulated rather than accepting that their own country was an “energy hog”. Any global agreement really needs to start with an assumption that all people have an equal right to pollute, something the rich countries cannot afford to agree to.
This type of argument demonstrates the extremely low probability that the UN in its current form could ever be the vehicle of a solution.
A more likely route is that the world may, over a long period of time, converge on some sort of federal world government anyway. If you look back at the history of a country like the UK this would be an extension of a process that started many centuries ago and is still going on today with the enlargement and strengethening of the EU. If and when some form of effective world government forms we may have a means to make global decisions about global issues, although it may prove to be too late.
Fundamentalist writes: “I don’t believe anyone on this site denies that GW is happening. The debate is over how much humans contribute. If water vapor and methane make up the largest share of greenhouse gasses, with CO2 being the smallest, and humans contribute just a portion of the total of CO2, then it stands to reason that if humans were able to end all of our contribution of CO2, it would contribute little to stopping the increase in GHG’s and ending global warming. As Bjorn Lundberg has pointed out, the cost/benefit analysis of trying to end human created CO2 shows it to be a major loser. The same amount of money could be used to solve far more pressing problems, such as disease.â€
Fundamentalist, you are conceding too much. At least for me. “Climate science†in its current manifestation is no more nor less than a big fat fib Maggie Thatcher invented with which to berate Arthur Scargill and his coal miners. And then there’s the committee at the U.N., which writes reports every few years to justify its own existence. This is beyond a pseudo-problem.
Oh, you’ve got trouble, my friends. Trouble with a capital T that rhymes with C that stands for Carbon… Carbon… well, carbon dioxide, actually, which is rather different than carbon itself. But you get the point.
Fundamentalist
*************************************************
The debate is over how much humans contribute. If water vapor and methane make up the largest share of greenhouse gasses, with CO2 being the smallest, and humans contribute just a portion of the total of CO2, then it stands to reason that if humans were able to end all of our contribution of CO2, it would contribute little to stopping the increase in GHG’s and ending global warming.
************************************************
This is pure nonsense. Imagine you are in a bath. Water is draining out but a tap is replacing it at the same rate, so the level is in equilibrium. Then along comes man and slightly increases the rate at which water flows into the bath. This small change will cause the bath to overflow after a while.
Man’s CO2 contribution is small compared to nature’s, but nature recycles CO2 within the biosphere and levels in the short to medium term remain in equilibrium. By burning fossil fuel we are introducing “new” CO2 into the system, from carbon which has not seen the light of day for 100 million years.
I have no time for Lomborg. His arguments are full of holes and I do not view him as an evironmentalist at all, skeptical or otherwise. He does love himself doesn’t he? http://www.lomborg.com/about/pictures/index.php?img=9
TT: “Lomborg’s cost-benefit argument is a socialistic one, isn’t it?”
I’m not sure that he’s pushing for governmental action. He may be, I just don’t know. It seems that his idea was to use reason to attack problems instead of emotion the way most we usually do by looking at the resources available and the chances of success. His team of economists put GW way down the list.
TT: “…why should that distract from addressing climate change?”
I was referring mainly to the other problems you mentioned, such as forests and the ocean. But even if you managed to stop all production of CO2 in the US and Europe, what are you going to do about China, India, Africa and S. America. You can have them sign all the treaties you want. You can use of the forests of N. America printing treaties for them to sign, and I have no doubt they will sign any treaty you put before them. But they won’t follow them. Europe is much less corrupt than any third world country, less corrupt than the US I believe, but has managed to accomplish none of the requirements of the Kyoto treaty they signed and use to shame the US for not signing.
If signing international treaties and protocols makes you happy, knock yourself out. I couldn’t care less. But look at the history of what such agreements have accomplished: next to nothing.
TT: “By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops?”
100,000 years tops, based on the research of the Institute for Creation Research. In case anyone is interested, the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at http://www.icr.org/article/3233.
Robert: “If and when some form of effective world government forms we may have a means to make global decisions about global issues, although it may prove to be too late.”
The words “effective” and “government” don’t go together in the same sentence. Efficiency is the inverse of the size of the government. I’m not an anarchist and so can see a limited role for government. But the most efficient and effective governments are the ones closest to the problems. Catholics even have a doctrine for this.
In case you haven’t noticed, the UN is the most incompetent organization in the history of mankind. Yet your hope for the survival of mankind is a supranational government that will somehow, in some way overcome the UN’s problems and actually do something worthwhile?
I don’t doubt that some day the world will have one government, but it will be more like Orwell’s 1984 than the savior of mankind you hope for. And when such a government does appear, look for it to cause environmental devastation that will make the USSR look like a chapter of Greenpeace, because that’s what governments do.
As Mises wrote, governments have a role in protecting property and providing self-defense, but when people in government decide that they can “save the world” (especially from threats that they have invented), unimaginable devastation and carnage follow. History should teach everyone that lesson, but we don’t seem to learn it. Historians consider the 20th century the bloodiest in the history of mankind. Why? Because Socialists and Communists were trying to save mankind from the evil of capitalism. As a result, 12 million died in Nazi Germany and over 20 million in the war they started. 30 million died in the USSR and as many as 100 million in China. The leadership of those nations had good intentions: they merely wanted to save mankind from a major threat, just as promoters of GW hysteria want to do.
I must agree with Fundamentalist. A world government? Forget it.
Fundamentalist/Roger:
Thanks for the cite to mis-named “The Institute for Creation Research” in response to my question to you about the age of the ice cores. I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist.
I’ve taken a stroll through the ICR site and, in the interst of clarifying what the ICR is about and their views on AGW, attach below some excerpts of their views their “work” on the age of the Earth, climate science and man’s duties as steward of Creation.
My view is that the ICR’s work is seriously skewed by the view that the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old. Their persistence is admirable, but their approach cannot be fairly said to be either open-minded, clear thinking or scientific – nor does it confirm, Roger, that “the scientists at the ICR call GW a hoax”.
Nevertheless, I certainly agree that the Bible can provide valuable moral guidance about mankind’s role in the world and our obligations to the rest of God’s creation as His appointed stewards. My question to you, Roger, is whether, in trashing many parts of the Garden of Eden through a race – uncontrolled by clear ownership by individuals of large portions of it – to use, take, liquidate or dump our wastes in it without regard to others (much less to the rest of Creation), can we fairly regard ourselves as being good “stewards” of it?
If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it and were still at work at it (except where some had started to fence parts off) – would YOU be happy? (Or would praise them and say that they had done absolutely the right thing, since the property really meant nothing to you and you had intended its destruction, and had come back to bring your friends with you to a better place?)
Given your Creationist approach, I am see definite limits to the possibility of fruitful engagement with you on issues of climate science, but am more than willing to continue to explore further with you the moral aspects of man’s impact on Creation and our obligations to each other and with respect to that Creation.
Respectfully,
Tom
Sincerely,
Tom
PS: Here are the excerpts from The Institute for Creation Research and its scholars:
God’s written, historical revelation of truth — the inspired text of Scripture — provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits and a philosophy for understanding man’s role as steward over creation.
http://www.icr.org/article/3337/
The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. …
The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended.
http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/
ICR has become a major numerical research center in paleoclimatology.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_misc_climate_modeling/
However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood.
From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355
Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming.
In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12).
http://www.icr.org/article/3233/
The Creator designed the earth well, with built-in feedback mechanisms to handle any crises. There is coming a time, however, when excessive heat will be a problem (see Revelation 16:8-9), and these fluctuations may be a foreshadowing, but that too is in God’s hands.
http://www.icrmedia.org/article/3336/
In biblical terms, the disease is sin, curable only by regeneration through the work of the Holy Spirit, which is made possible by the love of God the Father expressed in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In human terms, the disease is a naturalistic worldview, curable only by embracing a genuinely theistic worldview that acknowledges the Creator.
http://www.icr.org/article/3474/
The whole of creation is now running down and wearing out. “The earth shall wax old like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6), and man’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. …
But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong! [TT: Amen to that!]
http://www.icr.org/article/678/
Anthony and Fundamentalist – surely you are correct that “effective world government” is a self-contradiction, if by that you mean a world STATE.
If, however, by “effective world government” you mean man’s effective government of the world by means of the universal extension of clear and enforceable property rights, isn’t THAT exactly what we all agree is something that is urgently needed? And mightn’t even socialists like Robert T agree?
The question is how we get there, and what steps are most efficacious both in getting us there and in minimizing damage and maximizing freedom along the way.
TT
I am in favour of better assignment and enforcement of property rights, i.e. better government over the commons. My comments were levelled against the notion of a world government qua world State.
TT: “I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist.”
Actually, I didn’t know the ICR had done research on GW until this week. I have been studying it since the late 1980′s.
And it doesn’t take much courage to stand up for the truth. The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists. Some are from MIT and other top universities. One worked as a physicist for the Sandia Labs for many years. They’re rejected by the mainstream of the scientific community, not because their bad scientists, but because they refuse to drink the coolaid of evolution. Being in the minority doesn’t bother me as it does some. The majority is often wrong. Jesus said the path to the truth is narrow and few people find it. If I wanted to be with the majority on religion I’d have to be a Muslim. I studied mainstream econ, even gained a masters degree in it, then discovered it was wrong on most things. That’s why I became an Austrian, another group that’s shunned by the mainstream. I believe that if Austrians would study the science of Creationism with an open mind and with the analytical skills they have learned as Austrians, they would become creationists, too.
TT: “the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old.”
That’s not true. A 29th century theologian calculated that the earth was 6,000 years old based on his understanding of the chronologies of the Bible. The Bible never states how old the earth is. Similar scholars have calculated 10,000 years for the age of the earth. I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old.
TT: “If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it…”
Of course I would be unhappy. When that happens to the earth, let me know.
TT: “The question is how we get there, and what steps are most efficacious both in getting us there and in minimizing damage and maximizing freedom along the way.”
First thing you have to do is quit trying to scare people to death with nightmare scenarios, for when people are scared, they run to their government and demand a solution. That leads to larger governments, greater bureacracy and corruption, and greater devastation.
You can’t protect the environment without respect for property and respect for property is almost non-existent in the world, even in the so-called capitalist US. Most countries are neither socialist nor capitalist. They follow what I call traditional economics, because it was the dominant economic system from the beginning of history until the advent of capitalism in Europe in the 17th century. In traditional econ, only the nobility and politically connected enjoy property rights, and they’re not secure. The masses have no property rights. In addition, the state controls the markets.
So to protect the environment in the rest of the world, you have to start to convince them of the benefits of property rights and free markets. It seems like an impossible task, but I don’t see any other method that will actually succeed. Politicians are good at token gestures, like the Kyoto treaty, that accomplish nothing. But the danger of such token gestures is that they lull people into a false sense that something has been accomplished when it hasn’t.
That was the long run strategy. In the short run, I would suggest trying what the Natures Conservancy does–buy property. Environmentalists should be buying up the worlds forests so they can protect them from illegal lumbering. Buy up oil fields if you don’t want people using the oil. Buy auto manufacturers, or start companies that make electric cars. In other words, get involved in the free market and give people an alternative to pollution.
There is no continuity in this thread. I have explained repeatedly the logic of why climate change can only be tackled cenrally, yet no-one will respond sensibly, challenge my logic or offer alternatives.
Instead you pick out trigger words like “effective government” and set off on your standard, oft-repeated right-wing rant. Even TT keeps labeling me a socialist when I have patiently explained that I am not, at least according to any standard definition. e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
“The term socialism is often used to refer to an economic system characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution.”
I have proposed a centrally administered carbon tax. Nothing more and nothing less.
And now I discover I am mixed up with a bunch of Creationist / ID loonies. At least now I have an explanation for Fundametalist’s strange perspective on life, total lack of judgment and inability to debate rationally.
Personally I find the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster more appealing.
http://www.venganza.org/
Robert: “And now I discover I am mixed up with a bunch of Creationist / ID loonies.”
I’ll debate the scientific merits of evolution/creation any time you want. I promise I’ll not mention the Bible or God even once, but you must promise not to use appeals to authority.
Robert: “Even TT keeps labeling me a socialist when I have patiently explained that I am not, at least according to any standard definition. e.g.”
No, you don’t advocate state ownership of the means of production, but neither do modern socialists. If you visit the main socialist party web sites, you’ll learn that they advocate government control of the means of production first, because government ownership is too unpopular at the moment. They favor an incremental approach, governmental control via taxation and regulation and then governmental ownership in the future. In other words, economic fascism first, then outright socialism. That’s why socialists have gotten behind the radical environmental movement, especially GW.
Robert: “I have proposed a centrally administered carbon tax. Nothing more and nothing less.”
You and TT haven’t convinced anyone posting on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause. So why would any of us support a carbon tax that would not reduce GW but would further the goals of socialism, increase the power and reach of corrupt governments, and impoverish the people?
“You and TT haven’t convinced anyone posting on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause. ”
I thought you were bright enough to have worked it out for yourself. Start by deleting sites like this from your favourites:
http://www.junkscience.com/
Then add some like this.
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
http://whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/monitoring.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm
In the end, a person who believes that the human species isnt unique from other animals and compares us as not much more than bacteria in yeast doesnt have much ground for throwing ad hominems at a creationist.
Especially when wikipedia is the source of that protagonist’s economic and political definitions. Its a phenomenon I experience quite often in day to day life – a breakdown in communication due to the fact that there doesnt appear to be any underlying principles to Robert T’s arguments, or even an agreement on the definition of words.
Robert T, you state that you are wealthy and middle-aged. You have had the benefit of living in a relatively free country with a relatively strong respect from property rights. You are proposing a carbon tax. Once such a carbon tax is enacted, the meddling by the government will not stop there on this issue. Such policies will make industrial production (the means by which we are unique and our main means of survival) harder.
How can you justifiably make it more difficult for those who are not wealthy and havent enjoyed the same opportunities that the industrialization and traditional respect for property rights that you have in your country? It is all very well for the well off to talk of adding costs to production, because a few more % increase in spending on the necessities of life will not make much of a difference on their standard of living. It is funny that it is only those who already enjoy a relatively high standard of living that advocate government control over the environment, or those who directly benefit from the patronage that such control provides.
However, the poorer people are, the greater the % of income is spent on the necessities of life. I lived for a time in China, where in many places during winter the only affordable way to heat a home was to burn coal. I thought at the blindness and hypocracy of western countries whose governments advocate policies which hamper industrialization – their nations went through industrialization and their populations are richer for it. However, it is being proposed to hamper developing nations in their process of industrialization. This is unacceptable, especially when industrialization led to the very wealth which enabled a higher environmental standard that the western advocates of governmental environmental meddling seem to achieve.
All for what? A number of hypotheses regarding the impact of human activity on climate change which are far from conclusive. This cant be a moral basis for impeding the raising of the standards of living of people by government fiat. What is certain is the results of such proposed governmental action – yet more people are denied the economic and social mobility to better their existence. No moral goal was ever reached through immoral means and I believe, based on the above, that a centrally administered carbon tax is immoral.
I suppose that the actions that Robert T proposes isnt immoral if we are, after all, merely akin to yeast bacteria.
Robert, your insults and protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, both TT and JP have offered alternatives and have challenged several of your preferred solutions. As for my religious inclinations, I am an atheist.
Robert T,
“I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING in regard to private property.â€
I don’t think you do at all. Nor do you understand what i mean by respect for private property. If you did on both counts, you would not be advocating taxation and central planning as a plausible solution to the problem of maintaining a healthy environment.
“I am all in favour of private property ownership. It makes me care far more about my property than all those council house dwellers down the road.â€
And yet you fail to recognize it is exactly this and only this that can have the hope of universal protection of the environment, and for the reason you cite. Private property owners have an interest in protecting the environment they personally own. Renters and caretakers – those who run the state – do not have the same personal interest in maintaining the capital value of the resources they use and expropriate. Tax collectors, in the end can and will be bought. Under statism, the right to trash the environment is bought by the highest bidder. Have you not noticed this? Only libertarian law and justice via protection of private property offers a viable means to protect the environment.
“Please spare me any more blindingly obvious libertarian woffle and let’s talk about CO2 emissions. Your creed does not seem to have an answer to this thorny problem.â€
If libertarian woffle were so blindingly obvious, you would not be posting as you do, and I would not be responding to it.
“BTW, if being a socialist means occasionally giving some thought to other people, then perhaps I qualify as a socialist.â€
You qualify as a socialist, but not for the reason you cite, but rather due to your ignorance of the realities of political philosophy and political economy, and your insistence that central planning can conceivably present a viable solution to any possible problem, including the alleged problem of global warming.
“I am not overly-obsessed with making money as I seem to make it rather faster than I can spend it these days. I am more concerned for my children’s welfare and for the grandchildren who are likely to appear at some point soon.â€
You are fortunate. However the more statist the world becomes, the less likely it will be that your children will be in the same financial situation as you. And the more poverty people wallow in, the less time and resources they have to apply towards addressing environmental problems.
************************************************
Robert, your insults and protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, both TT and JP have offered alternatives and have challenged several of your preferred solutions.
************************************************
Not at all. Regarding global CO2 levels, the general attitude from everyone else on this thread is still to (a) duck the issue, with some soothing but very vague weasel words about how liberatrian values will somehow overcome the problem at some unspecified point in the future, or (b) deny MMGW exists, or (c) deny MMGW is a problem.
All you are doing is convincing me that a global carbon tax (or some very similar arrangement) is the only mechanism that will work, however difficult and unpalatable it may be.
This whole concept of the world getting “wealthier” in the future seems very questionable. It is a very relative term and tends to be measured in terms of the number of useless gadgets we can all afford. It is certainly not (as Lomborg suggests) a measure of how well equipped we will be to mitigate the effects of climate change. In a world where population continues an upward trajectory while the environment swirls down the pan I wonder of people will actually feel better off in 100 years from now?
Daniel
*************************************************
I lived for a time in China, where in many places during winter the only affordable way to heat a home was to burn coal. I thought at the blindness and hypocracy of western countries whose governments advocate policies which hamper industrialization…
*************************************************
You have to accept that this logic, however much it reflects reality, is the logic of the lunatic asylum. It is a sort of modern equivalent of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy of the cold war. Even the implication that any of us have some sort of god given human right to heat a home at all bears examination.
China and India are careering down the same path that brought affluence to the West. We were able to get away with it for 10 generations or so because we did it on a smaller scale. They are playing catch up on a gargantuan scale.
China and India have 40% of the world population (2.4 bn). China boasts double digit growth and India is not far behind. Their CO2 emissions are rising even faster.
CDIAC
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/prc.htm
BP Energy review, 2007
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9017919&contentId=7033429
Global coal consumption (the largest source of CO2) is growing at 4.5%. This is a doubling every 15.5 years. This cannot continue, whatever the moral rights and wrongs may be. If we don’t sort it out that great non-negotiator, “nature”, will do the job for us.
Robert: “If we don’t sort it out that great non-negotiator, “nature”, will do the job for us.”
I’ll take my chances with nature. I know for a fact the devastation and carnage that socialism brings. I think nature is a lot more forgiving and gentle in its correction of our mistakes.
F:
Totally agree about socialism, at least as practiced by 20th Century communist states. Was that socialism anyway, or just a rebadged version of the Tsarist system that preceded it?
In practice, every country in the world has a mixed economy of some sort. Its just a question of striking a balance between the public and private sectors. After all, for a country to exist at all it needs some form of state apparatus to glue it together, and that requires funding of some sort. Occasionally a country is so rich that tax is not needed (Monaco) but that is unusual.
Anyway, it seems that most people approve of your plan as, communally, we seem to have decided to do nothing about CO2 emissions. Lets hope future generations understand and approve when they experience the consequences of our inaction.
At what point did carbon dioxide become a poison? Last I checked, trees used it to make oxygen. CO2 doesn’t cause acid rain, asthma attacks, or anything of the sort. Why is this a big deal again?
Applying labels to things is not the same as debating a subject. No-one said CO2 was a poison (except you). Alcohol isn’t a poison either. It occurs naturally in mammals. But it can have some fairly drastic effects at elevated levsls in the wrong circumstances .
For bit of light relief try the “Tragedy of the bunnies” game:
http://www.bunnygame.org/
Too many posts to read by now, hopefully you will find the following observation to be novel:
During the post-Bretton Woods inflation, there was too much money floating around, and oil (and other commodity) producers mistakenly responded to the distorted price signals (due to money illusion) to ramp up production to unhealthy levels.
Similarly, during the deflation of the mid-90s, when oil prices tanked because of the opposite form of terrible monetary policy (this time deflation), lots of marginal producers were put out of business.
Both of these events, combined with all of the other fiscal and regulatory distortions of the market for oil (and everything else), caused huge problems with production, consumption, and distribution. No one denies that supplies of oil are ultimately finite, but one should not use as evidence for this events that have different causes that are entirely explainable by other means.
In short, let markets work it out, since they will exploit new forms of energy when and as they make sense, and keep clueless bureaucrats and rent-seeking politicians out of it. Indeed, it is those very interlopers that have caused a goodly number of the problems we have encountered to this point.
As Henry David Thoreau said, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches for one who is striking at the root.” And the root cause of Peak Oil is something that we are also heading toward: Peak Dollar.
That is, the decades-long stream of cheap, non-savings- (and therefore non-work-) based credit has fostered oil depletion on a far greater scale than would have been the case were credit savings- (work-) based. Factor in regimes in the Persian Gulf whose control of vast fields of easily accessible oil has shrouded production in secrecy, and what you get is a market so distorted as to be no market at all. Instead, it’s a government-maniuplated free-for-all that has set up the US (and possibly the world) for an unprecedented economic calamity that will at least do us the favor of rendering the ridiculous War on CO2 null and void.
P.S. Note in this Peak Oil presentation by Colin Campbell — http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-596805984521272213 — the reference to the relationship betwen rapid oil depletion and cheap credit.
Thanks for the video David. I agree with both you and Robert Churchill.
Robert T, I’ll let TT sort out any misunderstandings between you, but if you want to ignore what he and JP suggested, so be it.
Robert T says: “Even the implication that any of us have some sort of god given human right to heat a home at all bears examination.”
!
You want to forbid heating some mud hut (wait, am I even allowed to have a hut, master?), and to prevent this vile offense, you propose a carbon tax, collected I am sure by loincloth-clad (wait, are we permitted loincloths, master?) children with coin boxes, and not by lethally armed stormtroopers, yes?
While I may be incorrect, I do not think that any of the above posts emphasize that, worldwide, oil is paid for in U.S. dollars. Arguably, one significant factor causing higher oil prices (higher demand for oil from newly industrializing Asian countries in another) is the continued and substantial decline in the foreign exchange value of the U.S. dollar. By requiring higher U.S. dollar prices for oil, foreign producers are attempting to offset the decline in the foreign exchange value of the dollar. Of course, the major factor causing the decline in the foreign exchange value of the U.S. dollar is this country’s relatively higher rate of monetary inflation.
Dennis: “Arguably, one significant factor causing higher oil prices (higher demand for oil from newly industrializing Asian countries in another) is the continued and substantial decline in the foreign exchange value of the U.S. dollar.”
I think you’re right. And I think it explains some of the low price of oil during the 1990′s when the dollar climbed to historic highs. Then in the late 1990′s when the dollar began to fall, prices rose. But even if the FX doesn’t change, the price of oil needs to climb in step with inflation in order for oil producing nations to continue to buy US goods and services.
BTW, for the people who think the US invaded Iraq in order to steal their oil, a leading Arabic newspaper, The Middle East, has this to say:
“‘We were told that the Americans want to steal our oil,’ quips a senior Iraqi official.’ So far, however, we have trouble persuading them to come to Iraq and do some stealing!’
“Over the past two years, the new Iraqi government has negotiated a number of deals with several oil companies from countries across the globe including Japan, China, Korea, India, Algeria and Brazil. The major American oil companies, however, have adopted a wait-and-see attitude pending the passage of a comprehensive law by the Iraqi parliament.” http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=10436
“You want to forbid heating some mud hut (wait, am I even allowed to have a hut, master?), and to prevent this vile offense, you propose a carbon tax, collected I am sure by loincloth-clad (wait, are we permitted loincloths, master?) children with coin boxes, and not by lethally armed stormtroopers, yes?”
Are you on drugs?
There is a very good case that if the human race extracts and burns all the available oil, gas, coal, oil sands, oil shale and everything else (but particularly COAL) CO2 will rise to well over 1000 ppm. If this happens large parts of our best agricultural lands will become desert, sea levels will rise 70 metres as the polar regions melt and a bunch of other effects will be triggered, all of them undesirable.
Still, things might not get too bad in Jean Paul’s lifetime, so why worry? A disposable planet seems to be the logical conclusion to a disposable economy and certainly a good deal less important that the threat of infringing personal rights.
F:
“US invaded Iraq in order to steal their oil,”
It was never about stealing the oil. It was about bringing the oil on to the open market to increase supply and bring down prices. Still “blood for oil”, but more subtle.
I have been arguing for a carbon tax for 3 or 4 years. If you are serious about reducing CO2 it just seems the only logical way of doing it. It seems the idea is gaining traction everywhere. This, from CNN Money today, The reported is not particularly in favour of the idea but many are:
http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2007/10/one_bad_way_to_fight_global_wa.html
*************************************************
Metcalf calculates that in 2005 a carbon tax would have cut CO2 emissions by 717 million tons. But almost 90 percent of that would come from cutting the use of coal, which releases more CO2 than oil and a lot more than natural gas. A carbon tax does a lot to push companies away from burning coal in older, more heavily polluting plants in which the cost of the tax could be more than the cost of the coal itself.
*************************************************
Robert T: “Still “blood for oil”, but more subtle.”
More like “blood for defense contracts.”
The only reason for going into Iraq rather than, say, Zimbabwe, was oil. Oil is the reason that the US has tried to maintain some sort of military or diplomatic foothold in every ME country since WW2 and earlier.
The US does not need to own the oil. The US only requires the oil to flow. Being a fungible product the markets do the rest.
Paul Newman’s History of Oil is great – very funny and quite educational.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZefONsT1E8
This may be a better link to the Paul Newman video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159&q=history+of+oil
Robert: “It seems the idea is gaining traction everywhere.”
Don’t get too excited. People don’t know how much a carbon tax will cost them, so of course they’re in favor of it. Once the cost becomes clear, it will die a quick death. Just as the Europeans found the rather mild Kyoto agreement too expensive, so Americans, and most of the world will find a carbon tax too much to swallow. Unless, of course, the socialists persuade us to pass a token tax that accomplishes nothing. The US is fully capable of acting like Europeans and performing token acts that do nothing.
Robert: “The US only requires the oil to flow.”
Then why isn’t it flowing? We invaded Iraq 4 years ago and still have nothing to show for it. Besides, Europeans who promote the blood for oil motive ignore two important facts about oil: 1) oil is fungible and 2) no one can eat oil. The fact that oil is no good to the owner until he sells it means that all oil producers will sell their oil. The 1973 Arab oil embargo, when Arabs could withhold oil from the market, was a unique moment in history because the Arabs didn’t know how to spend their windfall at the time. They were economically very backward; many princes actually stashed cash under their mattresses. For the past three decades, all oil producers have become heavily dependent on oil revenue to feed their people, especially Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. No oil producer today can afford to keep oil from the market.
Because oil producers have no choice but to sell their oil on the market, the fact that oil is fungible means that we don’t need to buy directly from the Middle East. In fact, the US today buys very little oil from the ME. Canada and Mexico are our biggest foreign suppliers, followed by Venezuela and Nigeria. But if for some reason Saudi Arabia decided not to sell oil to the US, it wouldn’t hurt the US even a small amount. The Saudis must sell their oil to someone in order to pay debts, operate the government and feed the people. They must now find a buyer to replace the US. Whoever buys that oil will give up a supply somewhere else which the US can easily buy.
There may be some in Washington who think we need to keep oil flowing, and an arguement can be made that Iran might try to block oil shipments through the Persian Gulf, since they have tried before. But I doubt they’ll try it again after the disaster they suffered from their first attempt. Real economists know that we don’t need to protect the flow of oil; the realities of the marketplace ensure that it will flow freely.
It used to be said that a correct understanding of Say’s law separated real economists from pretenders. Today, I think an understanding of the oil industry acts as a good test.
Whatever may be said about his ideas, I do admire Robert T for his tenacity in making an informative thread.
I will go out on a limb (!) and say that people do have a right to acquire the fuel they need to heat their homes. People have a right to pursue the means of survival, as long as they do not harm anyone else in doing so. It is immoral not to allow people to use the cheapest fuel available, as this directly impacts on the survival of the populace in contravention of a government’s only excusable mandate – to protect its subjects.
Really, your position could only be maintained by someone who wouldnt be terribly effected by the tax that you impose.
If you cannot heat your house, you are far more likely to perish/suffer ill health etc. A valid question is what is the cheapest fuel and why is it cheap? Instead of mandating a tax, invest in or develop a non-CO2 producing source of energy that is cheaper than the ones we have.
Robert T says: “…CO2 will rise to well over 1000 ppm. If this happens large parts of our best agricultural lands will become desert…”
…probably at about the same rate of speed that large tracts of tundra become our new best agricultural land, right?
jean paul:”…probably at about the same rate of speed that large tracts of tundra become our new best agricultural land, right?”
Exactly! GW hysteria refuses to admit that the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities. Besides, Robert does not know that “…large parts of our best agricultural lands will become desert…” That’s a prediction based on highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy. Talk about irrational faith.
F: Oddly enough I agree with most of your last post. But you missed my point about Iraq. When Saddam was in power oil production was far lower than it could have been if western investment had been allowed. Saddam produced enough oil to build his many palaces and was happy to keep his people in poverty. This situation offends free marketeers, so the Bush plan must have been to prise the country open (“bring democracy to Iraq”). Unfortunately the US/UK alliance has, in effect, lost the war. The country is in a total shambles with a population divided up into its pre-Iraq factions, not very interested in Western-style democracy and with Iran keeping the whole mess going. Oil cannot flow under these circumstances, and in fact production is now lower than in Saddam’s days. Not every plan works, even if you are President of the USA. Oil is only fungible if it can get to market.
Carbon tax does not have to cost very much. Inevitably it will cost something in the short term, because it will force us to develop renewables, which at the moment are more costly than fossil fuel. But the idea is to make the change revenue-neutral – a substitute for other taxes. There is a lot of sense in discouraging dirty energy AND at the same time encouraging employment in the form of reduced income tax.
“…people do have a right to acquire the fuel they need to heat their homes.”
It is not as if people go out and dig coal or chop wood with their own sweated labour (well, I do, but that’s another story)! We are part of a global machine in which cheap fossil fuel is fed to us by giant corporations with investments of billions of dollars. I view us more as animals in a zoo than the sort free hunter/gatherers that your comments conjure up. I am surprised that libertarians, who are very critical of big government, do not levels some of the same venom at big multinational corporations.
“…probably at about the same rate of speed that large tracts of tundra become our new best agricultural land, right?”
Wrong. Tundra is very infertile and is in the wrong part of the planet to get the light levels for productive agriculture. The main effect of melting the tundra will be a mega-release of methane which is likely to greatly accelerate GW.
“I am surprised that libertarians, who are very critical of big government, do not levels some of the same venom at big multinational corporations.”
We do. If you notice many of the blog posts here, they are critical of statist corporations, which probably includes many oil companies. Even the corporate charter is a statist creation.
Unfortunately, big government and big corporations are a fact of life. They gain a competitive advantage in all sorts of ways just by being big, particlularly if their business is something mundane, commoditised and global, such as food or oil.
Purely in terms of investment levels it takes a large company to be able to invest the billions required to set up something like the Canadian oil sands projects. Most people couldn’t even afford one of those 13 foot high tyres on the 400 ton trucks!
This seems to undermine the libertarian concept of millions of individual actors all pursuing their own agenda and creating a super-efficient market. In reality we are in the hands of a small number of huge players. We supply them with what they demand at a price they set and consume what they tell us to.
You can’t wish away these facts of life in the 21st century. The trend towards business “giantism” is getting ever stronger as globalisation advances on the back of ever advancing technology and communications.
F: yes, the net of gains and losses attributable to GW is unpredictable with any certainty, but you can expect it will be closer to neutral than to any extreme in either direction.
If the global community is allowed to respond in freedom to whatever changes we see however far ahead, we will all reap the benefit of the gains and we will all be cushioned against the losses.
Robert T says: “Unfortunately, big government and big corporations are a fact of life… This seems to undermine the libertarian concept of millions of individual actors all pursuing their own agenda and creating a super-efficient market.”
… and some other stuff around that.
One might argue – I think most here would – that the perversely large, corrupt, rent-seeking institutions we are beseiged by are the product of state aggression.
Large monopoly producers are by no means inevitable and there is plenty of literature to support this.
Anyway, there is nothing unlibertarian about large organizations of any sort – if the peaceful market of voluntary transactions permits such to flourish. So long as there is no aggression involved, people will always have the option to fix what bothers them.
“This seems to undermine the libertarian concept of millions of individual actors all pursuing their own agenda and creating a super-efficient market. In reality we are in the hands of a small number of huge players. We supply them with what they demand at a price they set and consume what they tell us to.”
This seems to suggest we have a state backing certain corporations in so doing.
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn102.pdf
There is no inevitable tendency towards concentration in any free market – only an optimal number of firms, which differs from market to market. The nonsense on capital concentration was Marx’s rubbish, and has since been refuted.
Yancey, to clarify, I think it’s fine to call Robert T a socialist and don’t see that as ad hominem, but don’t see it as a productive way to engage him, if indeed that is your interest.
What I was referring to was that, as someone who is sometimes vehemently declared to be beyond the pale of acceptable analysis here, I am sensitive to what seems to me to be your persistent questioning of my good faith in posting here – by continuing to imply that I must be posting here only because I’m paid to do so. I suppose it is a reflection of the tribal influences on our perceptions that you cannot accept that no rent-seeker is going to invest in a project with such dismal prospect of returns as persuading Miseseans that government action is either necessary or desireable or that I might simply be one of the other cranks posting here, though the beat of my drummer is rather off pace of others here.
Robert T: “Applying labels to things is not the same as debating a subject.”
Exactly, which is why my reference to you as a socialist was meant sardonically. However, every tribe has its lingo and anathemas, and in this case there actually IS something useful to them, if you care to investigate – and survive the run through the gauntlet!
Here, “socialists” who really don’t understand how economies work and the mischief done by states are considered an even lower form of human than the money-grubbing pols, self-aggrandizing bureacrats and the rent-seeking special interests who are the ones who drive the growth of government and most of its misdeeds.
TT
“I hope we shall crush … in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.â€
–Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816
Roger:
A few points:
1. “The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists.”
“the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at http://www.icr.org/article/3233.”
“I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old.”
Hmm. Since the ICR is a Creationist organization dedicated to the propositions that the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth”, that God actively intervenes in history through events such as the Flood and to demonstrating that evolution is the “Koolaid” that unthinking scientists and other ignorant the world over have swallowed (except for a brave minority of religiously devout free thinkers in the US, and all of the Muslims) – why do I have such a hard time finding that either the ICR or you is at all “scientific”, as opposed to devoted to clinging to hold together a religiously derived worldview?
Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with?
“The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. …
The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended.
http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/”
“However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood.
From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355“
2. “You can’t protect the environment without respect for property and respect for property is almost non-existent in the world, even in the so-called capitalist US. … So to protect the environment in the rest of the world, you have to start to convince them of the benefits of property rights and free markets.
These are overstatements. Indigenous peoples and despots have all protected valuable environmental resource by the simple method of defending them against others – others who may not have been happy, but backed down in the face of superior power.
3.“Politicians are good at token gestures, like the Kyoto treaty, that accomplish nothing. But the danger of such token gestures is that they lull people into a false sense that something has been accomplished when it hasn’t.
Kyoto failed because the largest AGW emitters refused to join because they saw greater short-term profit in continuing to treat the atmosphere as an open-access commons, so EU politicians and firms were not brave enough to incur sugnificant pain unilaterally (and thus overallocated permits). The real danger is that hard-boiled economic thinkers will jump to the wrong conclusion, and fail to consider that decisions to finally close commons are multiplayer prisoners dilemmas that often fail.
4. ” quit trying to scare people to death with nightmare scenarios”
Hmm, where have I done that? Or are you referring to Pew, USCAP, Bush and Paulsson, other industry groups, scientists worldwide, the intelligence community and various religious group?
5. “You and TT haven’t convinced anyone posting on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause. So why would any of us support a carbon tax that would not reduce GW?”
Where did I try to convince anyone on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause? You have not established that a carbon tax would have no effect, but of course the reason why the rest of the economics profession and much of industry – including Exxon – is that they believe it would improved our net marginal position.
6. “GW hysteria refuses to admit that the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities. Besides, Robert does not know that “…large parts of our best agricultural lands will become desert…” That’s a prediction based on highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy. Talk about irrational faith.”
For you, “GW hysteria” just seems to mean anyone who disagrees with you. Have you noticed, BTW, that your conclusion that “the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities” not only is based on “highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy”, but there is that pesky little point the the purported “benefits” will be localized in the temperate and Arctic (where Western economies are located), with little benefits accruing to poorer countries that are expected to face the greatest challenges?
Regards, TT
“[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!”
http://www.icr.org/article/678/
“The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. …”
I’ve heard quite a few fundies allude to this before. I had wondered whence it came.
As we all know, consensus among certain individuals (some of whom indeed are part of fields related to the issue at hand) is very different from actual verifiable scientific evidence.
I am skeptical about human-induced global warming, but am willing to accept it as a fact if the connection is proven authoritatively. Indeed, I believed in it out of hand for many years until I began investigating evidence myself; now I have doubts but remain unconvinced by either the deniers or the proponents.
A barrier to my conversion to your “camp” (for myself as well as many libertarians) is the fact that government-backed or sponsored calls for more governmental regulation (of anything, no matter what it may be) smacks of disingenuousness, and many of the studies on global warming arise from governemt or UN -backed (or -funded) research. One may argue that governments or the political class at large actually ignore the ‘GW problem,’ but this is manifestly false as governments have obviously stepped up efforts (on a national and international scale) to supposedly ‘combat’ GW. There is plenty of talk about GW among politicians etc. and, despite it being largely lip service (which is what politicians are usually most capable of mustering), the subsidies and “energy plans” that they toss around are very real to taxpayers. Now before you castigate me for overlooking the astounding subsidies given big oil, please note that I am even less in favor of such subsidies (if that is possible).
From what I’ve read, there are scientists of all stripes who, when studying GW point out that the workings of climate, etc. are not well understood (although of course, our knowledge is growing). This means that all models and forecasts, as intensive as they may be, are not final and authoritative (and I will read any article you send me- I have read a vast number of divergent reports). A problem is that both sides of the debate often cling to their pet research projects and then dismiss out of hand anything that contradicts their findings.
If people truly believe that global warming is real and caused by fossil-fuel burning, it seems to me that the only solution is to go get your engineering degrees and start working on better technologies (this is not a pot-shot at anyone- I have no idea what your respective fields are). After all, could you imagine a better time, given all the press and attention the issue receives, there is no doubt research funding to be had. To say that no technological innovation will change the situation is a farce and a cop-out. It is only technological innovation that will help. Going to the government to make use of its iron fist is just a roundabout and less effective means of forcing a change. One of the reasons cited for this statist approach is the oft-cited time-crunch. However, figures vary wildly as to how long we have before ‘peak oil’.
I think that if people were calling for more technological innovation, more research, more private funding (to keep the twisted influence of politics out of it), few would object. The problem arises from these calls for massive -even international- government control of the situation, since – as I mentioned above – many view this approach(in my mind rightly) as off the mark (or a veiled call for socialism, as evidenced by some of the reactions in this blog post).
One main point that I hope to convey is that the contentious issue here is more the role of government in exacting wide-sweeping changes as opposed to the actual existence of GW and the role of humans in the phenomenon.
If one is willing to accept the anthropocentric nature of GW (which is still up for debate, whether the issue is settled in one’s own mind or not), one understands (unless you’re a true luddite, primitivist or misanthrope) that it is a question of matching and surpassing our current energy production with different technologies.
Once this basic tenent is established, certain people move to a statist approach while others advocate an ‘entrepreneurial’ approach. So at the core, a lot of these bad feelings are the result of a difference of approach to a solution to a problem which many are unconvinced is an actual problem. One must undestand that in a debate with Austrians, a statist approach to any problem will be a red flag, and rightly so (in my mind).
To clarify, this post was addressed mainly to Mr. Robert T.
… And at the end, when I say “Austrians,” I should have written “Austrians and their sympathizers”.
thanks
From Robert T.:
So, in your view we are all slaves to government and business? Who, exactly, is forcing you to supply anything to anyone other than the state itself? Who, exactly, is forcing you to consume anything, if it is not the state itself? I know of no corporation anywhere the Great Britain, or the United States that forces you to supply it with any resources, or forces you to consume the goods and services it produces. The coercer in all cases is the government, not businesses.
You will find a lot of common ground with the readers and writers on this site if you criticize how government power is used to benefit corporations and other rent seekers (you can confirm this by reading other material at this site rather than this thread alone), but your criticisms need to be far more precise than is indicated by the comment I quoted above.
How do you stop abuses? You stop them by eliminating the power of coercion that enables and supports them. You stop them by strictly limiting the power of government. Trying to place limits on individuals and the businesses they form is treating the symptoms rather than treating the disease.
TT: “Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with?â€
I agree with all of them. But the quotes you posted from the ICR web site are not the science, but the conclusions based on the science. Just as atheists like Richard Dawkins conclude from the theory of evolution that God does not exist, and wax eloquent about it, so creationists conclude from their research that God does exist.
Whether or not creationists are good scientists depends upon your definition of science. Since you are impressed with the consensus view on GW, I would guess that you define science as whatever the consensus view is. If so, you might want to read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. If science is nothing more than the consensus opinion, then Austrian econ is not science, because it represents the viewpoint of a small minority.
I, along with Austrians, still believe that science is the application of scientific principles to the study of nature. According to that definition, creationism is far better science than evolution. Creationism has two sides to it: 1) the study of the scientific phenomena and 2) drawing conclusions from the results of the study. Just as Austrian econ demonstrates that the real world does not and cannot work according to the principles of socialism, or Keynesian econ, so creationists use science to prove that evolution could not possibly take place as described by the theory. The scientific part of creationism is limited to answering the two questions: “Does the natural world work in the way described by the theory of evolution?†and “If not, how does it work?†The scientific answer to the first question is no, it’s impossible. The scientific answer to the second is to demonstrate the mechanisms by which the earth and life on the planet might have come about.
After answering the scientific part, the creationist takes off his science helmet and puts on his philosophical one, just as Dawkins does when he promotes atheism. The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation. To dismiss the science because of the theological conclusions would be similar to dismissing evolution because atheists take comfort in it. Atheism is a theological conclusion based on the science of evolution, just as respect for the Bible is a theological conclusion based on the science of creationism.
Anthony: “I’ve heard quite a few fundies allude to this before. I had wondered whence it came.
Anthony: “I’ve heard quite a few fundies allude to this before. I had wondered whence it came.â€
Why do creationists place so much emphasis on the Biblical flood? There is quite a bit of evidence that the stratified layers of rock did not accumulate over millions of years. The fossil record provides some of the evidence because the fact that the fleshy part of animals are so well preserved proves that they did not decay. It’s similar to the mammoths of Siberia that froze so rapidly that the food in their mouths was preserved. Many fossils had to have been buried very rapidly under tons of mud over a wide area. Also, many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet. This is just a sample of the evidence; whole books have been written on it. In sum, the fossil record and geologic record demonstrate a major, catastrophic event in the recent past. The Biblical flood matches that event in many ways, although there is no way to prove it beyond doubt.
“…many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet…”
…or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes.
CDS
*************************************************
If people truly believe that global warming is real and caused by fossil-fuel burning, it seems to me that the only solution is to go get your engineering degrees and start working on better technologies
*************************************************
And there is a huge amount of venture capital going into renewable energy research. Investors see fossil fuel depletion as a one way bet and are also speculating that government action will put a price on carbon. For example, the founders of Google have invested $100m in Nanosolar http://www.nanosolar.com/
The problem is, if, after all the investment, the technology cannot make renewables good enough to compete directly with coal to generate electricity, then what? Renewables will never be more than niche players for specialist applications and the only thing that will wean us off coal is depletion of the resource. That will be many decades too late for climate change.
I am not arguing for international government control, but I am arguing for a global carbon tax administered by governments. I see this as the only way to give renewables the economic boost they need to displace coal. Who knows, with this boost they may attract so much investment that they actually DO become the preferred option over coal, even without the tax advantage.
Yancey
*************************************************
So, in your view we are all slaves to government and business? Who, exactly, is forcing you to supply anything to anyone other than the state itself? Who, exactly, is forcing you to consume anything, if it is not the state itself? I know of no corporation anywhere the Great Britain, or the United States that forces you to supply it with any resources, or forces you to consume the goods and services it produces. The coercer in all cases is the government, not businesses.
*************************************************
My comments were really directed at the global mega-brands such as Tesco, Walmart, Vodaphone, Apple, Microsoft, Toyota, etc. The global branding and marketing is so strong and all pervading that people are brainwashed into wanting their rubbish without even realising it. Every sports arena or formula 1 car delivers their messages subliminally into your brain. Buying and owning these global brands is part of people’s definiton of personal success. The process starts even before we have learnt to read and write.
On the supplier side, any UK farmer knows how the supermarket squeezes their margins to the point where they cannot operate profitably, particularly in competition with low wage growers flying in their produce from half way round the world.
I am fairly sure this was not von Mises’ economic vision at all.
Brainwashed? Well after enduring years of public education, I am sure some people are more stupid than they’d be otherwise. However, no “brainwashing” occurs.
Jean Paul: “…or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes.”
You’re talking about metamorphic rock that lies under sendimentary rock. I was referring to sedimentary rock like sandstone and limestone. Several features of sedimentary rock contradict the ancient age of the earth. These, among others, include the fact that sedimentary layers can be traced over hundreds of thousands of square miles, whereas normal processes of sedimentation such as river deltas cover a tiny fraction of that area. Sedimentary layers usually have sharply defined boundaries and are parallel, with layers several thousand feet thick. If layers had been laid down over millions of years, erosion would have destroyed that parallelism. Dead animals and plants decay quickly and are eaten or destroyed by the elements; preservation of fossils in sedimentary rock requires rapid burial in sediments thick enough to preserve their bodily forms. On continents, sedimentary layers are more than a mile thick; conventional explanations of their origins are insufficient for that volume of sediment. Limestone layers hundreds of feet thick are too large and uniform for the conventional explanation that they are bodies of tiny sea creatures. These and many other geological facts point to a rapid formation of the sedimentary layers of the earth’s crust. For more, see the book “In the Beginning” on the web site http://www.creationscience.com, written by Dr. Walter Brown, PhD, MIT, former professor of science at the Air Force Academy and Chief of Science and Tchnology Studies at the Air War College.
Robert: “I am fairly sure this was not von Mises’ economic vision at all.”
You might be surprised. I can’t speak for Mises, but he, Hayek and others opposed the idea of making the “perfect competition” model the standard. In that model, only small firms exist and they’re so small their decisions have no impact on the marketplace. The perfect competition model is actually anti-competitive in that it takes away all means of competing in business except price. Some people, especially socialists, proclaim the perfect competition model as the appropriate goal for governments to strive for, which is why socialist are in love with small businesses. Austrians aren’t opposed to large businesses, though many oppose corporations because they are creations of the state.
Daniel, did you think about Lomborg before you swallowed?
“How can you justifiably make it more difficult for those who are not wealthy and havent enjoyed the same opportunities that the industrialization and traditional respect for property rights that you have in your country? It is all very well for the well off to talk of adding costs to production, because a few more % increase in spending on the necessities of life will not make much of a difference on their standard of living. It is funny that it is only those who already enjoy a relatively high standard of living that advocate government control over the environment, or those who directly benefit from the patronage that such control provides. … I thought at the blindness and hypocracy of western countries whose governments advocate policies which hamper industrialization – their nations went through industrialization and their populations are richer for it. However, it is being proposed to hamper developing nations in their process of industrialization.”
Simply, who is trying to make it more difficult for those who are not wealthy to industrialize? What proposals of western governments will hamper developing nations in their process of industrialization?
Agreements like Kyoto have effectively SUBSIDIZED development, (1) by increasing the cost of (and dampening the demand for) energy in western nations and (2) establishing trading mechanisms (the CDM) that generate incentives to invest in projects in developing nations that either offset western GHG emissions or result in GHG-lite energy for developing nations Kyoto has in fact contributed to the remarkable growth that we have seen in China, India and elsewhere.
The truth is that – as in other tragedy of the commons situations – no one can force anyone else to do anything; multilateral AGREEMENT is needed. The west simply CANNOT unilaterally impose GHG restrictions on developing nations – we could perhaps have played more hardball with China and India to accept a low carbon diet, through trade restrictions and the like, but we did not.
Was this done to subsidize poorer nations or atone for the west’s leading role in GHG contributions up to now, or as a result of successful manipulation of government policy by those who gain the most by passing the costs of GHG emissions on to others? Kyoto was intended as a deliberate subsidy; US intransigence was probably the latter.
By the way, the real way to see reduced GHG emissions in China is clearly to shift the economy from a state-owned one (where polluters have no responsibilities to those affected) to a private one that recognizes propoerty rights. China’s dirty development surely imposes its greatest costs on its own people.
Climate change and the need for global cooperation is helping get speed the transition of China to a cleaner private economy – and is NOT hampering development elsewhere. Lomborg’s canard doesn’t fly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/09/how_to_control.html
http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/cc/foccjul07.htm
TT
“Some people, especially socialists, proclaim the perfect competition model as the appropriate goal for governments to strive for, which is why socialist are in love with small businesses.”
Amazingly, so are many Chicagoans.
Robert, yes commercial enterprises have invested in figuring out how people tick and how to persuade them to buy. But no one’s holding a gun to anyone’s head, and one competitor is always hot on another’s heels (if not at home, then in Japan, Korea, China or India) to replace the front-runners by finding ways that will make consumers happier. And I prefer to leave to parents the decision as to when to turn off the tube on their kids – states simply can’t do a better job than families.
There is still plenty of competition in the world, as you recognize in your follow-on comment about the difficulties facing the poor UK farmers – try not to let your keyboard run away from you!
BTW, I do have some sympathy for future-shocked people around the globe, but urbanization and advances in agriculture have improved the lot of very many and no one’s market anywhere should be guaranteed. We are better off if the government doesn’t try to exercise its “better judgment” in the form of forcing unwanted changes on everyone for the benefit of a few and further government – like expressway-building programs, never-ending wars and defense spending, state-run education and the war on drugs.
Roger, you say that “The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation”, but leave out one of the most important details – as I noted with a number of quotes from the “Institute for Creation Research” upthread: Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs.
This is hardly scientific.
Of course, Creationists are hardly unique in finding that all of the evidence they see in the world conveniently confirms that which they already believed. My own view is that our God-given cognitive conservatism and tribalism (both of which have provided important advantages) lie at the bottom of this phenomenon.
Regards,
Tom
CDS, most of what you raise (legitimately) has been discussed in great depth before.
On the science, it is hard to find anyone who disagress with the IPCC’s summaries of the vast and growing scientific literature, even as everyone seems to have a bone or two to pick with the “summaries for policymakers” that go through an expressly political process that requires approval by all member governments. There is no monolithic science, and scientists still make careers out of showing that they are right and their peers wrong.
On the economics, you are strangely silent. Austrians would recognize that the atmosphere is still largely an open-access commons which all are entitled to use, short of those that impose clear and readily documented harm to others downwind. While Pigouvians would say that these “externalities” justify state intervention in the form of taxes, Austrians prefer to focus on whether property rights can be more clearly defined and the costs to private transactions – that would allow various resource users to express their preferences – can be reduced, and to avoid the clumsy, costly and politically divisive hand of government.
I would point out that in the case of AGW, what we have is basically a voluntary and complex international negotiation by resource users in which governments are the most visible proxies of their peoples, though there is a universe of corporations and groups that actively care about the problem and who are involved in the discussions.
There simply is no world government that can impose a “solution” by fiat. Think of competing ranchers who have recognized that they are ruining their range, and are working out how to control access and determine best practices and priorities. This is perfectly consistent with what Misesans envision, but for the inconvenient fact that existing states have arrogated to themselves the dominant role in acting as our representatives.
“Climate change and the need for global cooperation is helping get speed the transition of China to a cleaner private economy – and is NOT hampering development elsewhere. Lomborg’s canard doesn’t fly.”
No idea what Lomborg said, and it has little relevance. You state that “we” help speed the transition of China to a cleaner private economy.
1. Who is “we”? I submit that you can only mean our government.
2. A “cleaner” private economy is more expensive that a “dirty” one. In such an event, who will pay the difference?
What you are advocating is that “we” raise taxes and use those taxes to set up a governmental body to tell “them” (being the PRC government) to clean up. Or, “We” may subsidize “them” by using tax dollars. Then, who will bear the costs on “their” side for this “cleaner” economy? The populace.
So, raise taxes here for our government to tell their government to raise the the cost of living over there. It sounds ugly.
In any event it makes no difference ethically if extra costs are borne by those who can or cannot afford them. I merely used the China example as a means of communicating clearly to Robert T, who might otherwise turn off if an example was provided where only wealthy people bore additional costs.
Also, good luck at putting pressure on the PRC to privatise any faster than they already are. The history of economic reform in the PRC is a result of the state giving only so much room for the people to operate as is needed to stifle unrest. Its about as effective as giving African nations money to develop infrastructure.
Also, I doubt your argument about Kyoto being good for developing nations. I cannot see how raising the price of energy in western countries helps businesses of developing countries. I can see how increased energy costs would lead to decreased disposable income. I think I am on solid ground when I state that “green” industries has played a negligible effect in the industrialization of developing countries, while the rising prices of cheap fuel is a cost to be borne directly by those undertaking such industrialization.
TT: “Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs. This is hardly scientific.”
I suppose you think that evolutionary scientists are blank slates when they approach the subject. That’s a little bit naive. Why did the majority of scientists adopt the theory of evolution long before it had any evidence for it? As Dawkins has written, it made atheism respectable for the first time. Most creationist scientists, such as Dr. Brown and Dr. Michael Behe, taught evolution for many years before changing their minds; the mounting scientific evidence against evolution changed their minds, not the Bible.
TT: “On the science, it is hard to find anyone who disagress with the IPCC’s summaries of the vast and growing scientific literature…”
You really should read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. Consensus is not science nor proof of the correctness of one’s argument; it could mean that the majority have been fooled. The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change.
Anthony: “Amazingly, so are many Chicagoans.”
Maybe because I was older, in my 30′s when I worked on my MA in econ, I accepted the perfect competition model as a tool for analyzing price effects in isolation so that no other effects on demand would contaminate the discussion. What a surprise to find out later that many people were taking it as the model for a perfect society!
TT
“Climate change and the need for global cooperation is helping get speed the transition of China to a cleaner private economy – and is NOT hampering development elsewhere. Lomborg’s canard doesn’t fly.”
There are few signs that any country in the world is doing anything on climate change. Some countries have managed to reduce CO2 since 1990 but this seems to be fortuitous (e.g. the UK’s dash for gas) or by exporting their manufacture to China and India (e.g. most countries in the West).
In an industrial fossil fueled economy a clean local environment (a decrease in entropy locally) is generally obtained by expending large amounts of energy creating a greater increase in entropy elsewhere. OK, its a bit pseaudo scientific, but it reflects the fact that the West’s claim to any sort of clean green image seems to rely on wholesale destruction of the environment in Asia – accelerating coal use and CO2 emissions, massive air pollution, deforestation for biofuels, etc, etc.
Realistically, I don’t see either a private property based solution or a government-driven solution proving workable and making any impact at all on CO2. Lets hope I’m wrong (or, hope against hope, that CC is a hoax!).
Fundamentalist: “Maybe because I was older, in my 30′s when I worked on my MA in econ, I accepted the perfect competition model as a tool for analyzing price effects in isolation so that no other effects on demand would contaminate the discussion. What a surprise to find out later that many people were taking it as the model for a perfect society!”
I agree, from being an analytical _tool_ (not a utopia), it has become every conservative’s and moderate liberal’s wet dream. Economics textbooks even spend time analyzing which markets conform to the model! It makes about as much sense as looking for a general equilibrium in reality. Whilst this is a useful conceptual tool, it serves no further purpose.
Anthony: “It makes about as much sense as looking for a general equilibrium in reality. Whilst this is a useful conceptual tool, it serves no further purpose.”
Exactly! I just finished Hayek’s “Pure Capital” in which he uses stationary and equilibrium conditions for all but the last two chapters, but he is very careful to repeat many times that these conditions can not possibly exist in reality. Actually, I had to read it twice to grasp his basic points and still don’t understand a lot of it. If you look at what the EU is doing in terms of promoting competition, it sounds like they take the perfect competion analytical tool as the pattern for reality, too.
Maybe publishers of econ text books should include warning labels under sections relating to perfect competition, stationarity and equilibrium that state THESE ARE ANALYTICAL MODELS ONLY. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REPLICATE THESE CONDITIONS IN REAL LIFE.
Fundamentalist/Roger:
So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists who see evolution as a much more powerful (and productive in terms of research inquiries) explanation of the biological world than that of a God that made all of creation at once by fiat and intervenes from time to time at His whim to destroy or create further – though evolution is hardly the subject here. Evolution has had an uphill battle against oppression by church establishments, though there are noble holdouts throughout the universe of Islamic free thinkers, with a scattering in the US.
Nice try on the IPCC, which I view as I think others like Lindzen, Christy and Michaels do – simply as a valuable digest of the developing science, not as a monolithic “consensus”. You are right of course that “The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change”, but it cut the other way, doesn`t it? Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift.
Fundamentalist/Roger:
So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists who see evolution as a much more powerful (and productive in terms of research inquiries) explanation of the biological world than that of a God that made all of creation at once by fiat and intervenes from time to time at His whim to destroy or create further – though evolution is hardly the subject here. Evolution has had an uphill battle against oppression by church establishments, though there are noble holdouts throughout the universe of Islamic free thinkers, with a scattering in the US.
Nice try on the IPCC, which I view as I think others like Lindzen, Christy and Michaels do – simply as a valuable digest of the developing science, not as a monolithic “consensus”. You are right of course that “The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change”, but it cut the other way, doesn`t it? Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift.
TT: “So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists…”
You know very well that wasn’t what I was doing. Just as you ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted, while assuming pure motives for the consensus scientists, you also try to impune the science of creationists by judging their motives. I was simply pointing out that evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either.
You really should get over the habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are. You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with. Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself.
TT: “Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift.”
Lindzen and others like him are very much like Gallileo, Newton, Einstein and others who stood against the consensus when it was wrong.
“Maybe publishers of econ text books should include warning labels under sections relating to perfect competition, stationarity and equilibrium that state THESE ARE ANALYTICAL MODELS ONLY. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REPLICATE THESE CONDITIONS IN REAL LIFE.”
Reminds me of an old joke…
*************************************************
There were three people marooned on this desert island. One was a physicist. One was a chemist. The other was an economist. And washed up onto the beach was a can of beans. So, they puzzled over how they were going to open this can of beans. The physicist did some calculations and said, “Well, you know, if you drop this can of beans from this cliff and it hits the rock below just at this angle, it will split open and we won’t lose too many.” The chemist said, “I’ve got an idea. We put salt water on the top, leave it in the sun, and after a week, it will rust away, the top will pop off and we can get the beans.” Then they turned to the economist and said, “What is your solution?” And he says, “Let’s assume we have a can opener.”
*************************************************
And here I was thinking that God might look like the guy on Joe Satriani’s most famous album. In any event, I dont think the discussion could possibly stray further from its point of origin, which may not necessarily be such a bad thing.
Gosh, I hate it when a joke gets dumbed down. It was a linguist joke, and it had to do with language rules that the innate universal grammar pre-supposed. Nothing to do with economists, not even Keynesians.
Robert T writes: “Realistically, I don’t see either a private property based solution or a government-driven solution proving workable and making any impact at all on CO2.â€
Robert, how right you are!
As far as CC, I assume you mean climate change, being a hoax, climate change has always been with us. The idea that we can arrest it is the hoax.
The good news is this: The piddly amount of combustible fossil fuel that has been stored up that we can get to and burn is tiny, and can’t make more than an iota of a difference. Besides which, I regularly survive 45,000 ppms of carbon dioxide around my face, as do you.
The reason I find the AGW hype so ludicrous, is that their science is so screwy. It makes no sense. Unless, you want an excuse to tax everybody through the nose, literally. (And do God knows what with the tax money.)
Fundamentalist:
- Where do I “ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted”? Are you talking about Linzen et al., or the Institute for Creation Research? I’ve looked at what I can find at ICR, but didn’t find any science but rather arguments against AGW based clearly on presuppositions that the Bible descriptions of the Flood are literally true. Does ICR have any published (journals or self-) research at all?
- Where do I “assum[e] pure motives for the consensus scientists” or for evolutionary scientists?
- I do not “impune the science of creationists by judging their motives” – there is no science that I can see to impugn. Rather, I’ve simply noted that they have rather clearly stated that they are trying to fit reality into a preconceived box we call the Bible. Is it unfair for us to note that or draw any conclusions from it?
- Yes, you have indicated that you think that “evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either”. However, this is not releveant to discussing climate science, and you have not actually made any case for “impure” motives among evolutionary scientists. If the active intervention (intermittent or ongoing) of God is in fact the best explanation for various aspects of the real world, at some point science will be incapable of finding materialistic explanations. Until that point, I prefer a science that does not presume such intervention – as neither has such intervention has ever been demonstrated, nor does such an approach provide any fruitful leads for further research or understanding. The theory of natural selection and ancillary theories in support of evolution gained adherent not because of political or ideological agendas to throw off theological shackles, but because they provided powerful and testable insights into the evidence, as opposed to the “God did it” school. Moving to a materialistic view of creation occurred on the basis of the fit between the evidence and the hypotheses, and often after much struggle with preconceptions based on the Bible and enforced by church establishments and popular culture.
- If I indeed had a “habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are”, then I would wholeheartedly agree that it is one I should strive to overcome. But I don’t think I actually do have such a habit, even while I do consider it useful to consider motive, self-interest and other aspects of human nature when weighing what people have to say – even Al Gore.
- “You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with.” Yep; I am unaware that I make any such attributions of pure or evil motives – nor do I see any evidence of this on my comments upthread. Rather, it seems to be you (and others like Philemon) who presents dichotomies of pure and evil motives, and “sides”.
- “Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself.” Understanding motivation may help in weighing evidence presented by others – that’s all. Only fools never try to look behind the curtain.
- “Lindzen and others like him” are largely old codgers (most, with much less relevant expertise than Lindzen) who have not yet been persuaded by new paradgims that everyone else has found convincingly fit the evidence. Some find this heroic, though it is also entirely consistent with our God-given tendencies to defend our worldviews at all costs (as ignoring cognitive dissonance may be less costly than changing our minds). Of course our climate is sufficiently complex that we will never understand it completely, so there is always room for new ideas, evidence and arguments against oversimplification, or concerning public policy.
I do appreciate your thoughts.
Regards,
Tom
Fundamentalist: “Exactly! I just finished Hayek’s “Pure Capital” in which he uses stationary and equilibrium conditions for all but the last two chapters, but he is very careful to repeat many times that these conditions can not possibly exist in reality. Actually, I had to read it twice to grasp his basic points and still don’t understand a lot of it. If you look at what the EU is doing in terms of promoting competition, it sounds like they take the perfect competion analytical tool as the pattern for reality, too.”
Is it due to Hayek’s writing style (perhaps even more difficult to wade through than Mises), or the complexity of the ideas contained therein? I was actually surprised to learn the extent to which Hayek and Mises dealt with equilibrium conditions, given that many Austrians see these as a faulty concept (perhaps though in their facet as a utopia.)
Daniel, thanks for your comments.
- Your argument that unilateral actions in the West to price GHGs or otherwise limit AGW hamper development in other countries is not only demonstrably wrong, but it is also what Lomborg harps on.
- When I say that “we” help speed the transition of China to a cleaner private economy, I am mainly referring to Western investors – who have cleaner, more efficient technologies and are sensitive to generating large externalities. Western governments are also pushing greater property rights and of course Bush has a policy to subsidize technology transfers to China.
- A “cleaner” private economy is NOT more expensive that a “dirty” one, but is rather an economy that is more efficient by various means that provide incentives for economic actors who generate real external costs to internalize them. In “dirty” economies, these costs are passed onto various others, without any mechanisms for negotiations between both sides to enter transactions that would benefit both. China is modernizing rapidly, but at huge and unnecessary environmental costs due to state ownership and lack of private property rights that would lead to cleaner development.
- I’m not advocating any taxes or subsidies to the PRC, but it certainly is interesting – and non-libertarian – that that you would consider that Western subsidies to China would be “costs” to its people. Greater private property rights and lower pollution are costs? Is that why despite brutal suppression, Chinese peasants continue to protest dirty air, ground and water caused by state-owned enterprises? You need a primer in Austrian thought on environmental issues – I have a collection of links here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/02/starve-a-cold-feed-a-fever-links-to-austrians-on-environmental-issues.aspx.
- Yes, China is difficult to deal with on climate matters – especially as they have no responsibility for increased GHG levels up to now and their GHG footprint per capita is 1/3 or less of the EU and US. The best short-term approach is their own self-interest in reducing the costs of pollution and increasing the energy-efficiency of their GDP. We also have levers to use on AGW directly if we wish, but up until now Kyoto etc has clearly been a subsidy to China and others.
- Kyoto is good for developing nations not only by providing direct and indirect incentives for Western firms to invest abroad – which it clear has – but also simply by dampening Western demand for fuel. Surely you can see that as we ease off on the pedal, that means less pressure on fossil fuel prices in developing countries that have no Kyoto obligations. Markets are still tightening due to China demand and supply restrictions, but Kyoto and other climate policies in the West have moderated the situation. (Our wars etc. are another matter.)
Robert T:
- I agree that no country is particularly bending over backwards to accept costs that others are unwilling to share. The US decision to opt out of Kyoto is the main reason that those it binds have so spectacularly underperformed.
Reaching an internationally acceptable regime to deal with open-access commons like the atmosphere involves difficult prisoners dilemma issues that the US and China have had no appetite for.
- You say that “In an industrial fossil fueled economy a clean local environment (a decrease in entropy locally) is generally obtained by expending large amounts of energy creating a greater increase in entropy elsewhere. … the West’s claim to any sort of clean green image seems to rely on wholesale destruction of the environment in Asia”. Taking away the growth of China should show you that your first proposition is simply wrong. The Western economies largely grew without exporting environmental problems.
As I have noted above, Western demand for resources has certainly greatly compounded certain environmental problems, but these problems have their roots in the lack of effective ownership regimes in developing nations.
How we respond to governance failure in the developing world is an exceptionally sticky issue that is much more difficult than confronting climate change, which seems to be the principal reason why the governance issue remains on the back burner – to be insincerely raised by Lomborg and the like, or addressed by the US only when we have a war that will provide alot of rents to insiders in the defense industry.
BTW, there’s a new article out on the difficulties of international climate change by Cass Sunstein of U. Chicago:
THE COMPLEX CLIMATE CHANGE INCENTIVES OF CHINA
AND THE UNITED STATES
Cass R. Sunstein
http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1008598
You might want to take a look.
TT
TT
“Taking away the growth of China should show you that your first proposition is simply wrong. The Western economies largely grew without exporting environmental problems. ”
I grew up in Sheffield in the 60′s. At that time Sheffield was a world centre of steel production and steel products and the sky over Brightside was black with fumes from the plants. If you visit Sheffield today you will find it transformed into a pleasant, green city of shoping malls, hairdressing salons and restaurants. But guess where all the manufacturing went and guess what the skies look like round Shanghai?
We moved to Leyland in Lancashire a few years later where my Dad worked for British Leyland making cars. Guess what? Same story…
Sorry, in some ways China and India are back where we were decades ago. Nice that they make all our stuff for us, just a shame we have to share the planet with them.
Philemon
What a coincidence that the far right government-haters are always the same people who deny CC is a problem? You sound very much like this idiot who gets to talk to the whole of London for 3 hours every morning on LBC radio.
http://public.tv/programmes.php?PID=2299&Title=We+NEED+Global+Warming+-+Nick+Ferrari
His anti-climate change stance seems to be based entirely on being selfish, self-centred, short-sighted and generally ignorant (not to mention racist and sexist…).
TT
************************************************
How we respond to governance failure in the developing world is an exceptionally sticky issue that is much more difficult than confronting climate change,
************************************************
What are you trying to say exactly?
Who is “we”? Why would “we” want to respond to “governance failure in the developing world”? In what way can the difficulty be compared to “confronting climate change”.
Some of your posts get to the point, but this statement could be straight out of the mounth of a politician!
Reading between the lines I disagree with what I think you are trying to say, which is that CC cannot be tackled until every country has a well ordered government like the US or UK (LOL!). The best, most democratically governed countries emit the vast majority of the CO2 (plus a lot of Chinese and Indian CO2 by proxy) and show little desire to stop.
Robert, what I was trying to express is the relatively simple proposition that those in developed economies have an interest in ensuring better governance in the developing world – since until we get there, there is little that we can do to prevent the destruction of resources underway there that we might like to protect or the proliferation of other problems that affect us – but this is an even bigger can of worms than the much smaller negotiation over AGW, to which most developing countries make no net contributions.
As for China and India being where we were decades ago, you have again made my point – when we were developing, we were NOT exporting our problems, but experiencing them first hand. And we had basically done a great job of cleaning up before China started to grow.
China’s competitive strength is based on their huge labor cost advantage, which they will retain even as they begin to internalize the huge environmental costs they are now experiencing.
Anthony: “I was actually surprised to learn the extent to which Hayek and Mises dealt with equilibrium conditions, given that many Austrians see these as a faulty concept…”
Hayek states in “Pure Capital” that he is attempting a reconciliation between the English and Austrian traditions of economics, and he has a chart in one of the earlier chapters comparing the two that is very interesting. But I don’t think he includes Keynes in the English tradition. He thinks Keynes unraveled at least half a century of progress in economics and that he was catering to the politicians and business people of his day. Hayek’s critique of Keynes in the last two chapters is very interesting, but you have to understand the previous chapters to understand the critique.
It seems that Hayek uses equilibrium analysis as a way of meeting the English tradition half-way by using one of their favorite tools, but it’s also a necessary tool isolating the effects of one or two variables. Another difference is that Hayek uses equilibrium as a starting point, then adds changes one at a time to see how they affect the capital structure. The English tradition seems to make equilibrium the goal, whereas Hayek insists it can never happen in reality. It’s a fascinating book. Just wish I could grasp the concepts better.
Thanks for the comments Fundamentalist. When I have a better grasp of economics, I’ll look into the book. Reisman is another Austrian who has attempted a fusion between the Austrian and Classical schools of Economics – have you read any of his works?
Anthony: “Reisman is another Austrian who has attempted a fusion between the Austrian and Classical schools of Economics – have you read any of his works?”
Yes, I read “Capitalism,” and it’s great! A whole lot easier to understand than Hayek. But he doesn’t go into the structure of capital like Hayek does and I wanted to understand more about the “lengthening” and “shortening” of production. He also deals with the origin of interest rates and time preference. I think a simplified way of looking at the lengthening and shortening of production my be to use the indifference curves that they teach in microecon which show the trade-offs between capital and labor at different prices for each, because lengthening, or more roundabout production is essentialling employing more capital and less direct labor in a process. I don’t know; I’m still thinking about it.
TT:
It is of limited value to compare local environmental issues (local air quality, polluted rivers, depleted fish stock, etc) with the global environmental issue of CO2 emissions.
In CO2 terms we have not “done a great job of cleaning up”. Far from it. The West’s emissions are rising faster than ever. I don’t really care whether Canada decides to trash Alberta digging up the oil sands – it is their problem. But I do care that Canada’s CO2 emissions are 36% up on the 1990 baseline.
This article describes what I see as the only workable route to a solution – the route that I put forward earlier in this discussion:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/12/news/economy/energy_consumption/index.htm?postversion=2007101209
“The hope is to motivate people to pressure their political and social leaders to make the necessary policy changes.”
Finally. here is a new report on CC by the Melbourne Carbon Equity group. Don’t know much about them but the report is worth a read.
http://www.carbonequity.info/PDFs/Arctic.pdf
Robert T writes: “What a coincidence that the far right government-haters are always the same people who deny CC is a problem? You sound very much like this idiot who gets to talk to the whole of London for 3 hours every morning on LBC radio.â€
Gee, Robert T, ad hominem circumstantial much? That’s Pathetic!
We far right government-haters don’t deny that climate-change is a problem. We also don’t deny that non-climate-change is a problem… Well, it depends on where you live, actually.
We also don’t deny that so-called solutions to so-called problems advanced by government apparatchiks aren’t a problem.
Of course, I’m not sure what “far right†means. Unless it’s cognate with “believes that government policies inevitably obstruct people from solving problems they’re perfectly capable of solving themselves, but that are foisted on them by the politically connected so that they may make fat wads of cash off everyone else’s misery.â€
Oh, unless you mean far-right like Nazis! You know, autarchic, vegetarian, environmentalist, Malthusian, puritan, Lebensraumisch, eugenicist, anti-smoking, prohibitionist, protectionist, health-food nuts like You Know Who.
Fundamentalist: “I think a simplified way of looking at the lengthening and shortening of production my be to use the indifference curves that they teach in microecon which show the trade-offs between capital and labor at different prices for each, because lengthening, or more roundabout production is essentialling employing more capital and less direct labor in a process. I don’t know; I’m still thinking about it.”
Wouldn’t increased productivity also lead to more workers being hired though?
Good on you for managing to read through a 1000 page treatise.
Robert, I greatly appreciate your continuing to push on CO2. I completely share your concern. But as you were clearly wrong with your sweeping general statement that economies have developed by exporting entropy, you might consider acknowledging it.
Allow me at this point to offer some suggestions that you might find helpful. I think you will be more successful with this very demanding crowd if you would be more careful with your statements, ask for clarification when there are responses you don’t understand and acknowledge when upon reflection it seems that you might be mistaken. In other words, take care to reduce the size of the target you present and increase your effectiveness by getting to know your audience better and by expanding your choice of weapons and sharpening them up. A little more reading from the list of articles I posted might be helpful.
But don’t expect a whole lot – as for many here, “enviros” are THE enemy (despite Austrian teachings to look to a lack of effective property rights as the real cause of enduring disputes over resources). I personally view the closed-minded and Manichaean posters here as the biggest threat to reason, even as I acknowledge the same flawed human nature.
Unfortunately I don’t have time to get back to you on AGW, except to thank yo for the links. The second one, which shows how dramatically the Earth is changing ahead of climate models and best guesses derived from the conservative IPCC process, is particularly troubling.
TT
Anthony: “Wouldn’t increased productivity also lead to more workers being hired though?”
I shouldn’t have limited the act of using more capital in production to labor-saving devices only. More capital intensive process could include more durable equipment and buildings, too. But even a switch to labor-saving equipment increases employment. I know it sounds like a paradox, but the solution is in the fact that the producers of the labor-saving equipment will have to hire more labor to meet the demand. So total employment in the economy increases.
Oddly, employment shrinks when demand for consumer products increases due to credit expansion. Credit expansion causes businesses to borrow and invest in more capital intensive processes, thereby increasing employment. The new workers will demand more consumer goods, but the volume of consumer goods is the same as before the credit expansion, so their prices rise. As prices rise, profits rise, so producers of consumer goods want to produce more. In addition, the rise in prices makes labor relatively cheaper, so they produce more consumer goods by employing more labor-intensive processes (such as paying overtime) rather than purchasing the labor-saving equipment as before. This process reverses the earlier expansion of employment in the capital-equipment producing industires, and greater unemployment results. Had the earlier investment in more capital-intensive methods been financed by savings, the savers would have reduced consumption enough to supply consumer goods to the new employees in the capital-intensive industries and prices would not have risen.
Hayek concludes that relatives prices, between consumer goods, capital goods and labor, are the primary drivers of the economy. Interest rates and money supply affect those by changing demand for each.
As you can see from this oversimplification, Austrian econ is a very different world from mainstream, Keynesian econ.
Thanks for the explication.
“As you can see from this oversimplification, Austrian econ is a very different world from mainstream, Keynesian econ.”
Yep, that cannot be emphasized enough. I guess in some ways Austrian economics is much closer to classical economics. As I am studying mainstream econ I constantly have to “unlearn” things as I read more Austrian econ. I am mainly taking the course to understand neoclassical economics. Certain elements on the mainstream course (e.g. mathematical tools) are universally useful though.
TT
To be honest, I’m not trying to “be more successful with this very demanding crowd”. I have a very different world view from all of them (apart from some overlap with yourself).
Philemon in particular makes me laugh. In one post he ridicules climate change,
************************************************
The piddly amount of combustible fossil fuel that has been stored up that we can get to and burn is tiny, and can’t make more than an iota of a difference.
************************************************
…then when I compare him to a radio presenter who also ridicules climate change, he says this is an ad-hom and justifies it by saying
************************************************
we…don’t deny that non-climate-change is a problem”.
************************************************
I DO maintain the point that the West are able to export a disproportionate part of their pollution to “developing” (I hate that term) countries. A country such as Luxembourg is a good example – it has no manufacturing industry yet enjoys a very high average standard of living from the proceeeds of banking, etc. All the physical stuff it consumes (food, manufactured goods, fuel, etc. come from elsewhere, leaving the waste and pollution of their manufacture safely back in their countries of origin.
In the UK we even fill up the empty container ships with the unwanted electronic goods and plastic bottles and send them back from whence they came!
Where I part company with everyone on this site, and even with you to some extent, is in the concept that private property rights could provide any basis whatsoever for tacking climate change. I cannot conceive of any way of dividing up the global atmosphere so that we each own and husband a bit. Even if this were possible we would require a global authority to administer the scheme which, as I understand it, would be equally anti-libertarian. People either can’t see or are not prepared to admit this simple point, preferring instead to bluster their way though with statements like…
************************************************
“believes that government policies inevitably obstruct people from solving problems they’re perfectly capable of solving themselves, but that are foisted on them by the politically connected so that they may make fat wads of cash off everyone else’s misery.â€
*************************************************
Viewing climate change as an economic problem may be at the heart of the problem. If the world was about to be hit by an asteroid or the population wiped out by a virulent disease you would not frame the problem as an economic one. The nearest real world example might be the second world war. This was not won by complex economics, but by whole populations pulling in the same direction and temporarily setting aside their personal agendas.
Tokyo Rose writes: “…despite Austrian teachings to look to a lack of effective property rights as the real cause of enduring disputes over resources.â€
Why can’t you let go of your idea that tragedy of the commons somehow applies to super-abundant resources like oxygen? If you are concerned about carbon dioxide, you should be concerned about the relative paucity of carbon dioxide in geologic history terms, We are in the minimum of a minimum. Plants are suffering.
Besides which, Austrian teachings teach that the State is the real cause of enduring disputes over resources.
Therefore, one needs to be particularly suspicious of so-called property rights which don’t exist without the state.
As for instance, intellectual property rights, or emissions property rights, or… Well, how much did our state try to sell the electro-magnetic spectrum for back in the dotcom bubble? Gee, who created the dotcom bubble (hint: he’s hawking his book right now). And what did “we†collect on that?,
Anthony: “As I am studying mainstream econ I constantly have to “unlearn” things as I read more Austrian econ. I am mainly taking the course to understand neoclassical economics.”
Reminds me of a Simon & Garfunkel song, Kodachrome. One line was “When I think back on all the crap I learned in high schoo, it’s a wonder I can think at all.”
I earned an MA in econ, a mixtures of Keynes and neo-classical and monetarist. It has taken me about two years to learn to think like an Austrian. Roger Garrison has some articles on this site that compare Austrian econ with Keynes and neo-classical that I found really helpful.
Robert, thanks for the further comments.
Comparative advantage means that economies always differ and continually change. This phenomenon is problematic only where unowned resources are involved – and that is where I agree with you on this thread, as climate change, regional environmental problems and local resources and pollution problems are rearing a very ugly head indeed. But until recently, the developed economies where really not exporting their pollution.
You say that Realistically, I don’t see either a private property based solution or a government-driven solution proving workable and making any impact at all on CO2. … Where I part company with everyone on this site, and even with you to some extent, is in the concept that private property rights could provide any basis whatsoever for tacking climate change. I cannot conceive of any way of dividing up the global atmosphere so that we each own and husband a bit. Let me note first that Austrians allow for a slightly larger universe of possible solutions – including any type of private transactions, coordinated action, and other activities involving moral suasion and social pressure. Austrians often posit that coordinated action will arise to deal with braod-scale problems, if only the state wasn`t there to interfere. Consumer pressure has a history of effectiveness, and even after the advent of the state one can find a fair number of examples of property institutions that are essentially evolved and informal common property schemes.
However, I am really not so sure of the likelihood or efficacy of group action for the problems we are now facing, nor do I see any effective private property rights schemes emerging on their own with respect to the atmosphere, which it is possible to use and alter, but not to fence off – in that, I agree with you. But I keep mentioning propoerty rights so that others here are forced to acknolwedge that, yes indeed, there are none, and to consider whether any are possible.
As to whether any state-sanctioned schemes may be effective, while noting that considering effectiveness skips the question of acceptability under one`s principles (an important issue), I would observe that the SO2 permitting scheme under the Clean Air Act has been very effective and not very costly.
Adopting such a scheme fir GHGs would NOT require a global government but merely an agreement among major emitters – not unlike ranchers agreeing how to use and police a range.
Philemon, thanks for comment!
I believe that the key Austrian teaching is that a lack of effective property rights is the real cause of enduring disputes over resources (as this interferes with catallxy), even as I fully agree with you that Austrians note that frequently the State exacerbates problems – either directly as a poor resource owner or by converting private disputes into public ones that are never really over. See Roy Cordato and others here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/02/starve-a-cold-feed-a-fever-links-to-austrians-on-environmental-issues.aspx
I also agree with you that “one needs to be particularly suspicious of so-called property rights which don’t exist without the state.” Wariness is a good attribute.
You ask, Why can’t you let go of your idea that tragedy of the commons somehow applies to super-abundant resources like oxygen? If you are concerned about carbon dioxide, you should be concerned about the relative paucity of carbon dioxide in geologic history terms, We are in the minimum of a minimum. Plants are suffering.
While we are more focussed on how GHG emssions and other human activitiesd affect our shared climate (and not O2 or C2 per se), surely you can note what has happened to other “abundant” natural resources that were unowned? With tinme, they have either been destroyed or we have devised schemes to regulte our use of them, such as informal common property schemes or formal private property rights. These are transitions that both Mises and Yandle have noted at the link above.
Sincerely,
A boy named “Sue”
“Consumer pressure has a history of effectiveness”
Do you know of any academic works that touch on the matter, perhaps?
The Austrian school and its supporters in this discussion seem to suggest that most problems can be laid at the door of the state – if only the state could be abolished we would all be able to live happily ever after.
This does not seem to be a very realistic view of the world. Somewhat akin to the “Let’s assume we have a can opener” joke.
For whatever reasons, many centuries ago the world crystalised into 200 or so countries, each with their own relatively independent state apparatus. Things might have been different – we could have ended up with a single world government, or perhaps no countries at all. However, the geography of the planet in combination with the human drive and capability to self-organise on a large scale has left us with what we have today – 200 independent states. This situation is unlikely to change so, under the circumstances, it seems rather pointless to base an entire school of economics on the proposition that this situation is “wrong” in some way.
Getting back to the original theme of this thread, 200 countries (all with different vested interests) is likely to be a very dangerous brew when fossil fuel goes into decline, the situation exacerbated by climate change. Over half of the 6.7 bn people on this planet are represented by nuclear-armed states with a total stockpile of over 20,000 warheads.
The country most vulnerable to the effects of oil depletion is likely to be the US. It imports over 60% of its oil (about 12 mbo/day) and has constructed a very energy intensive infrastructure. The US holds over half of the world stockpile of nuclear weapons. Given that “The American Way of Life is Not Negotiable” (Bush, 2002), it is easy to see the US starting a REAL gloves-off war in the Middle East (not the “both hands tied behind your back” variety that we are in at the moment). The Middle East has about 60% of the world’s remaining oil and would make a very attractive target for a country with its back to wall and few other options on the table.
This thread was never about how markets work, whichever school of economics you support. It is about the very real possibility of the gross market failure. I can only assume that Sean Corrigan believes this is vanishingly unlikely and deserves to be mocked unmercifully. If so, I respectfully disagree.
Daniel, thanks for your comments.
- Your argument that unilateral actions in the West to price GHGs or otherwise limit AGW hamper development in other countries is not only demonstrably wrong, but it is also what Lomborg harps on.
******************************************
Cheers, TT
To be more blunt, by stating “unilateral actions by the West” you can only mean unilateral actions by western governments – private citizens arent acting in a unilateral and collective fashion.
What I am pointing out is that there is a cost to the citizens of those western governments in employing yet another bureaucracy to “tackle” the problem of climate change – thats one half of the equation I am railing against. While I realize the costs are insignificant in comparison to Kyoto, they still exist and a principled libertarian must accept this. I doubt Lomborg would take that particular view.
Furthermore, I doubt there is much hampering going on at the moment because the level of international meddling is low. My comments were more of an expected repercussion of the solutions proposed.
*************************************************
- When I say that “we” help speed the transition of China to a cleaner private economy, I am mainly referring to Western investors – who have cleaner, more efficient technologies and are sensitive to generating large externalities. Western governments are also pushing greater property rights and of course Bush has a policy to subsidize technology transfers to China.
******************************************
Do you believe that a Western government is effective in pushing for greater property rights? And again, the ethical mandate to tax the citizens of western countries for the “representatives” of those countries to conduct such advocacy would, to a principled and consistent libertarian, be absent. Happily, I can also condemn this unethical taxation on its lack of effectiveness too.
***********************************************
- A “cleaner” private economy is NOT more expensive that a “dirty” one, but is rather an economy that is more efficient by various means that provide incentives for economic actors who generate real external costs to internalize them. In “dirty” economies, these costs are passed onto various others, without any mechanisms for negotiations between both sides to enter transactions that would benefit both. China is modernizing rapidly, but at huge and unnecessary environmental costs due to state ownership and lack of private property rights that would lead to cleaner development.
************************************************
I think we can both agree that a large part of the reason why China is a “dirty” economy is because of lower startup costs. Apologies if this is putting words in your mouth.
************************************************
- I’m not advocating any taxes or subsidies to the PRC, but it certainly is interesting – and non-libertarian – that that you would consider that Western subsidies to China would be “costs” to its people. Greater private property rights and lower pollution are costs? Is that why despite brutal suppression, Chinese peasants continue to protest dirty air, ground and water caused by state-owned enterprises? You need a primer in Austrian thought on environmental issues – I have a collection of links here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/02/starve-a-cold-feed-a-fever-links-to-austrians-on-environmental-issues.aspx.
*********************************************
We are talking at cross purposes. The costs are
for western subsidies are borne by the western tax payer. I am sure that the economic repercussions of subsidies on recipient nations are complex and also not entirely beneficial. Foreign aid to Africa comes to mind as a comparison.
We are talking at cross purposes because although we both agree that private property rights and free markets are the civilized and appropriate solution to economic problems (i.e. problems of scarcity), we disagree because you think that foreign governments have a role in advocating such ideas in other countries while I dont. I believe its ineffective. Its like a fox trying to convince another fox to go vegetarian.
*******************************************
- Yes, China is difficult to deal with on climate matters – especially as they have no responsibility for increased GHG levels up to now and their GHG footprint per capita is 1/3 or less of the EU and US. The best short-term approach is their own self-interest in reducing the costs of pollution and increasing the energy-efficiency of their GDP. We also have levers to use on AGW directly if we wish, but up until now Kyoto etc has clearly been a subsidy to China and others.
- Kyoto is good for developing nations not only by providing direct and indirect incentives for Western firms to invest abroad – which it clear has – but also simply by dampening Western demand for fuel. Surely you can see that as we ease off on the pedal, that means less pressure on fossil fuel prices in developing countries that have no Kyoto obligations. Markets are still tightening due to China demand and supply restrictions, but Kyoto and other climate policies in the West have moderated the situation. (Our wars etc. are another matter.)
**************************************************
In summation I do not care about CO2 emissions, global warming or the scientific arguments surrounding them. I do not care because if there is or is not a problem the reaction would still be the same – more freedom for market participants and more private property rights – that is all the primer one needs on Austrian economics on this issue. Our difference, TT, is that you think the state can be an effective advocate for these rights abroad, while I do not. It would be about as effective an advocate as it is in any other field of endeavour.
“This situation is unlikely to change so, under the circumstances, it seems rather pointless to base an entire school of economics on the proposition that this situation is “wrong” in some way.”
It is not based on it being “wrong”, since that is an ethical question and outside the domain of wertfrei science (i.e. economics.) Austrian economics is a thing on its own, separate from the ethical positions its adherents may hold.
Anthony, I’m not aware of any particular academic works on the effectiveness of consumer movements have influenced industry/market behavior on environmental issues, but surely a number of examples come to mind?
Robert: “…it is easy to see the US starting a REAL gloves-off war in the Middle East…”
Easy to see for the European luney-left, maybe. You’re hatred of the US is driving you insane.
Daniel, thanks for your comments.
1. Kyoto and the private actions taken under it present new business opportunities (incentives for cleaner development and GHG offsets) to China and India, and thus foster rather than hamper their development.
Yes, there are costs incurred in reaching and administering international agreements, costs that are ultimately borne by taxpayers and consumers.
2. Western investors and governments are indeed being effective in enhancing property rights in China. Constructive engagement and trade continually show the Chinese the many benefits of privatizing their economy, freeing their people, closing externalities and providing better protection to property. At the same time, I am sure the Chinese are also learning useful lessons about the costs of statism simply by watching the US blunder about in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Nevertheless, it is perfectly fair to be concerned about whether actions by our government (and others) to aid the development of open societies based on property rights – whether in China or elsewhere – are truly justified.
3. China’s development is dirty not because of low cost of entry, but because of state ownership of the dirtiest industries and very little protection of private property – in other words, because of a lack of mechanisms that would internalize large externalities.
4. You are not happy to see states serve any purposes, but propose no agenda that would reduce the harm states cause via wars, ownership of resources, inept regulation and pork barrel favoritism. I don’t expect states to wither away any time soon and so don’t expect alternate institutions of social cordination to arise that would replace states. So why don’t we focus on pproblems where states are useful in proving further coordination, such as systemic cases of resource abuse resulting from poorly defined property rights, a lack of enforcement mechanisms, and high information or transaction costs?
TT,
I should be described as a minarchist. I believe that your points regarding the lack of private property rights are spot on, and fuel for some truly interesting and necessary arguments in legal philosophy. I just dont expect government apparatus to be useful in implementing these novel property rights – they dont even enforce the existing ones.
I suppose the difference between your thoughts and mine are that you see a role for the states for the creation of these novel rights whereas I dont.
To be clear, I believe that in the present climate there is no way to use government as a means the our mutually agreed upon ends. It may be the case in the future that governments have a role to play, but there will certainly have to be a paradigm shift in cultural perceptions regarding freedom, private property and the role of government before this happens.
In the meantime, I would be content with curtailing government power and involvement as much as possible, including international economic negotiations and environmental actions.
My apologies for the double post, but allow me to outline my proposed course of action:
To simply raise a family that lives by the principles of liberty, and where prudent, converse amongst acquaintances who respect the same things that I do to possibly develop that respect from what is often a subconscious respect to a fully realized understanding of the reasons of why freedom is not only practical, but moral.
I believe that the main obstacle between the world we live in and the world that we want to live in is not the state as much as the culture which permits and even welcomes Leviathan. To use Pat Buchanan’s term, we are in a Culture War. I believe the only appropriate way for a libertarian to respond is to do what I am doing. There isnt any short cut.
F:
*************************************************
Robert: “…it is easy to see the US starting a REAL gloves-off war in the Middle East…”
Easy to see for the European luney-left, maybe. You’re hatred of the US is driving you insane.
*************************************************
Many observers across the world agree with my view, including many in the US itself. It is based on the continuing aggressive global military policy that the US has pursued ever since WW2. The Project for The New American Century encapsulates this strategy as enspoused by the Republicans. Note: much of this material pre-dates the Iraq invasion, so can be taken as a statement of intent re Iraq and perhaps in due course Iran.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html
The opening statements in this PDF are particularly revealing.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad;…/…If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests.”
And with crude oil futures heading skywards (new record over $85 this morning) we may not have to wait long to find out.
http://www.nymex.com/lsco_emi_cso.aspx
Has this become the longest running blog thread ever, yet?
Just wondering, cuz, wow.
Robert: “Many observers across the world agree with my view, including many in the US itself.”
Doesn’t mean anything. Truth is not a result of a vote. Hatred of the US has run high for decades for a variety of reasons, the greatest being the popularity of communist/socialist ideology around the world, particularly Europe.
History is the best guide to the future, so let’s look at which nations have been the most aggressive and killed the most people in the last century. My vote goes to China for #1, followed by Russia, then Germany, Japan and Turkey. Thinking that the US will be the most aggressive because it has the fire-power is simplistic reasoning at best.
Daniel, I understand where you are coming from and agree that there isn’t any short cut in facing the problems that confront us.
To me, the main obstacle between the world we live in and the world that we want to live in is the fact that most of us prefer to throw our hands up in the face of difficult problems rather than getting them dirty through engagement.
I just ran across these links that I posted elsewhere earlier this year on how human communities have approached commons issues – you might find that they provide a fruitful basis for further consideration. I am not a big fan of state involvement and agree that for many problems much progress could be made by removing or substantially modifying the role played by the state. The text which follows for context I have simply cut and pasted in:
“While private property approaches (which also require the establishment of commonly accepted understandings and legal institutions) that resolve commons problems by eliminating the commons is one approach, it is not the sole one. Historically, many commons have been managed by creating shared rules of use, while excluding outsiders – so that from the outside, the commons looks like private property. These traditional approaches have relied heavily on a shared sence of community and on informal (but still effective) rules and sanctions, including peer pressure (moral suasion) and direct action. This can still be seen at work in the New England lobster fisheries, for example. It seems to me that these approaches have very deep roots and provide the basis for mankind’s startling evolutionary success.
“Many traditional approaches to commons have been swamped by growing market demand and evolving technology that has made either privatization or destructive exploitation by outsiders possible.
“But in some cases, where privatization is simply not feasible, community management approaches are making a comeback. The latest reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for US fisheries is a case in point. This eliminates the destructive, dangerous and wasteful race to catch diminishing fish stocks during incresingly limited fishing seasons, by setting quotas that are allocated to existing fishermen and that, like rights to graze a shared range, may be transferred among the fishermen in private transactions. Ron Bailey of Reason Magazine has a good article on these approaches here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/36839.html
“If you are interested in exploring this further, I would suggest the following as useful starting points [rearranged from general to more specific as to climate change]:”
1. Bruce Yandle, The Commons: Tragedy or Triumph?
http://www.Fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/Article.Asp?Aid=4064
2. Messick, D. M., M. B. Brewer, Solving Social Dilemmas, http://www.iew.unizh.ch/wp/iewwp059.pdf
Exerpt: “[I]nformal sanctions are key to the enforcement of implicit agreements and social norms. Their importance derives from the fact that the bulk of people’s daily interactions is not governed by explicit, enforceable contracts but by informal agreements and social norms. These agreements and norms are major factors in a society’s social capital that is crucial for the functioning of democratic institutions as well as for economic and social success. How we interact with our colleagues at the workplace, with our friends and neighbors and even with strangers is governed by a set of informally shared rules of appropriate behavior.”
3. Robert Ellickson, Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes,
http://www.amazon.com/Order-without-Law-Neighbors-Disputes/dp/0674641698/sr=1-1/qid=1169438777/ref=sr_1_1/002-1575649-3454448?ie=UTF8&s=books
4. Thomas Dietz, Elinor Ostrom & Paul C. Stern, The Struggle to Govern the Commons, SCIENCE VOL 302 12 DECEMBER 2003
http://www.conservationcommons.org/media/document/docu-7e8akm.pdf
5. Elinor Ostrom, Thomas Dietz, Nives Dolsak, Paul C. Stern, Susan Stonich, and Elke U. Weber, The Drama of the Commons (Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Editors, National Research Council)
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10287.html
6. Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions)
http://www.amazon.com/Governing-Commons-Evolution-Institutions-Collective/dp/0521405998
7. CAROL M. ROSE, EXPANDING THE CHOICES FOR THE GLOBAL COMMONS: COMPARING NEWFANGLED TRADABLE ALLOWANCE SCHEMES TO OLD-FASHIONED COMMON PROPERTY REGIMES, 10 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 45
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/delpf/articles/delpf10p45.htm
8. Terry L. Anderson and J. Bishop Grewell
Property Rights Solutions for the Global Commons: Bottom-Up or Top-Down?
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?10+Duke+Envtl.+L.+&+Pol'y+F.+73+pdf
9. BRUCE YANDLE, GRASPING FOR THE HEAVENS: 3-D PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE GLOBAL COMMONS, 10 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 13
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?10+Duke+Envtl.+L.+&+Pol'y+F.+13
10. Helen Payne Watt, Common Assets: Asserting Rights to Our Shared Inheritance, http://www.cfed.org/publications/Common%20Assets.pdf
The above was taken from my comments here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/energy_policy/001061hypocrisy_starts_at_.html
Fundamentalist, Robert has more than simple reasoning, he has the last six years plus the war drums beating on Iran to look at to see where US policy has gone off the rails in the Middle East, at least partly expressly justified on the grounds he mentions.
Robert: The Austrian school and its supporters in this discussion seem to suggest that most problems can be laid at the door of the state – if only the state could be abolished we would all be able to live happily ever after. … This thread was never about how markets work, whichever school of economics you support. It is about the very real possibility of the gross market failure.
You keep missing very important points. Much of this thread WAS indeed about how markets work and don’t work – the chief point I have been trying to make to other Austrians here is precisely that no markets are working with respect to the atmosphere and that for other resources where there is no effective ownership markets are working very poorly. Where markets work well, we simply don’t have serious problems.
The other big point, and the reason why Austrians are very reluctant to touch climate change, is that they are 100% right to fear that government will be hijacked by special interests who want to loot taxpayers and/or get a leg up on competitors AND will be run with a fair degree of incompetence – because those running it don’t have liability for the consequences. Our invasion of Iraq is a perfect example, and with you most of us would make common cause in being concerned that there will be other good examples in the Middle East before too long.
Regards,
Tom
Robert: “…it is easy to see the US starting a REAL gloves-off war in the Middle East…”
Why would the US want to steal oil from the Middle East when we have huge supplies much closer in Canada, Mexico and Venezuela? I realize that Europeans think Americans are incredibly stupid and evil, but going to the Middle East to steal oil when so much is available next door goes beyond the stupidity that Europeans usually attribute to us.
Nevertheless, let’s assume that the US will use nukes to steal oil from the Middle East. You didn’t finish your horror story. Russia and China will defend their ME friends by striking back at the US with nukes. The whole world will be covered with radiation. Isn’t that the plot from “The Morning After” style of movies done in the 1980′s when Pres Reagan was supposed to touch off a nuke holocost? Keynes was wrong: we’re all dead in the short run.
But allow me a safe prediction: a Democrat (a socialist comrade that Europeans will love) probably Hillary, will win the next presidency and all talk from Europe of an “aggressive” US foreign policy will end. I’m confident of this prediction because I’ve seen it before. Under Reagan and Bush I, Europeans saw the world ending in flames and nuclear radiation on a daily basis. When Clinton was elected, all European hysteria ended suddenly and the US became the world’s friend. Then when Bush II was elected, the European left dusted off their old scripts about nuclear holocost and began singing their old dirges again.
“Anthony, I’m not aware of any particular academic works on the effectiveness of consumer movements have influenced industry/market behavior on environmental issues, but surely a number of examples come to mind?”
I’d be much obliged if you could provide some.
F:
*************************************************
Why would the US want to steal oil from the Middle East when we have huge supplies much closer in Canada, Mexico and Venezuela?
*************************************************
Oil is a fungible product so in a free market it is somewhat irrelevant where it comes from. The US’s problem is that it is far and away the world’s biggest consumer and importer of oil. Every one of those 12 million barrels it imports each day is another $86 (another new record today http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/15/markets/bc.oilprices.ap/index.htm?postversion=2007101515 ) of trade deficit. The US’s deficit is running around $1 trillion / annum, so oil alone makes up nearly 40% of this deficit. Do the maths.
The problem could reach crisis point if the rest of the world (particularly China) call emough and stop buying treasury notes to finance this huge deficit. The $US enjoys a preeminent status as the world’s reserve currency, a status that is largely maintained by the US’s insistance that oil be denominated in $US.
You have to wonder what would happen if this pack of cards eventually collapses, leaving the most massively armed nation on earth with no access to the oil on which it’s highly oil dependent infrastructure depends.
As a side issue, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela all have their own issues as oil suppliers. Chavez is highly anti-US; production from the Cantarel field in Mexico has recently collapsed; Canadian oil is now primarily from oil sands which is high cost, environmentally damaging and limited by natural gas and water supplies. By comparison ME oil is still very cheap and abundant. If annexed, Iraq/Iran’s reserves could keep the US running for many, many decades. I agree that Russia and China would be less than happy, but would they risk all out nuclear war by retaliating? A very dangerous situation all round in my view.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
TT: I read the last of your links (thanks)
http://www.cfed.org/publications/Common%20Assets.pdf
which postulates a Sky Trust to manage global commons along a private ownership model. It is interesting, but as usual it seems to skirt round the biggest issue of all – the politics. Anyone can postulate a mechanisms such as the Sky Trust but no-one seems able to say how we would get there politically. The endless series of global summits on climate change have proved this point time and time again.
TT:
Another point, in response to this:
*************************************************
You keep missing very important points. Much of this thread WAS indeed about how markets work and don’t work – the chief point I have been trying to make to other Austrians here is precisely that no markets are working with respect to the atmosphere and that for other resources where there is no effective ownership markets are working very poorly. Where markets work well, we simply don’t have serious problems.
*************************************************
Many scientists are suggesting that CO2 emissions needs to be cut so drastically (perhaps 90% by 2030) that it is hard to see how the global economy could continue in anything like its current form. Emissions historically have correlated closely with economic growth and both are rising year on year.
I would not want to be the politician tasked with explaining the virtues of the private ownership model to my electorate.
Robert: “You have to wonder what would happen if this pack of cards eventually collapses, leaving the most massively armed nation on earth with no access to the oil on which it’s highly oil dependent infrastructure depends.”
We’re also the richest nation on earth. Why would we use military force to steal oil when it would be so much cheaper to buy it? Oh, I forgot, we Americans are too stupid to think like that. We prefer bute force.
Robert: “Emissions historically have correlated closely with economic growth and both are rising year on year.”
Not! The reconstructed history of CO2 shows dramatic changes in CO2 levels over millenia, long before industrialization. I have asked TT multiple times for an explanation of what caused these variations in CO2 levels, but no response. If you don’t know what caused these early variations in CO2 levels, how do you know what causes them today?
Robert: “Many scientists are suggesting that CO2 emissions needs to be cut so drastically (perhaps 90% by 2030) that it is hard to see how the global economy could continue in anything like its current form.”
How are you going to sell that to anyone? You’d have to kill half the people and animals on the planet to reduce CO2 that much. The Kyoto treaty has failed in Europe because the average European figured out that you wanted to reduce his standard of living to that of the middle ages. Not many average people are paying attention to the issue in the US, yet, but just let them hear talk aobut reducing CO2 90% and they’ll lynch guys like you and TT.
P.S. The enormous productivity of farming in the US and Europe is due primarily to mechanization. To reduce CO2 by 90%, farmers would have to go back to using oxen and horses and reduce productivity by 90%. People would starve by the millions. That’s better than moving our houses back from the beach a few yards?
Fundamentalist/Roger:
1. “Why would we use military force to steal oil when it would be so much cheaper to buy it?”
Of course you’re right that using military force to acquire or “protect” others’ oil makes no sense as a policy, but you seem to keep missing the rather widespread view here that a very large portion of our ME and empire-building policy is driven by rent-seeking and political opportunism, isn’t it: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/09/28/why-are-republicans-unhinged-on-energy-policy.aspx. Perhaps you don’t share this general view here, but why do you keep ignoring it?
2. “You’d have to kill half the people and animals on the planet to reduce CO2 that much.”
Like scare-mongering much? Isn’t this much the same as what industry has ALWAYS told us when confronted with a demand to clean up its previously free messes?
3. “How are you going to sell that to anyone?”
The same way other transitions from unregulated open-access resources to property regimes have been sold: explaining why a transistion is in users’ long-term self-interest and by shared values, sense of duty and appreciation of the value of creation.
By this question do you mean rightly to point out how, in our short-term self-interests, we are pushing costs off to others less well off than us and to future generations – or do you intend to applaud that?
Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this, but simply consider the costs imposed by any “remedy” to exceed purported benefits? If so, how long do you think we should wait before any policy action is merited – forever, or just until the Second Coming?
4. “The reconstructed history of CO2 shows dramatic changes in CO2 levels over millenia, long before industrialization. I have asked TT multiple times for an explanation of what caused these variations in CO2 levels, but no response. If you don’t know what caused these early variations in CO2 levels, how do you know what causes them today?”
Not quite. I take the liberty of quoting what you asked me earlier, and my responses:
June 29, 2006: CO2 Science’s Finding on Global Warming: A Marxist-Type Response, George Reisman
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005248.asp
R: “while the CO2 estimates from the ice cores is impressive work, the fact that the rise in CO2 and temperature occur at the same time suggests that no cause/effect relation exists between them; a third force is driving the two. Also, what caused the huge variations in CO2 in the past, before the industrial age?”
TT: “As to the correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures, scientists are aware that other factors initiate the warming trends out of ice ages (milankovich cycles, cosmic rays, etc.) but these trends are then reinforced and strengthened by rising CO2 levels. We now have CO2 levels 37% higher than the levels prevailing before industrialization, and ice core records show that these levels are higher than they’ve been for close to a million years.”
at July 12, 2006 3:06 AM
R: “What is the evidence that CO2 causes GW? I have seen the evidence that CO2 and warming occur simultaneously. The evidence from the ice cores is very interesting, but it raises several questions: What caused the increase in CO2/Methane before the industrial age? Why do the changes occur simultaneously, when if a cause/effect relationship existed, CO2 increases would lead warming by a period or more? Why go crazy over the relationship between CO2 and warming when a third factor, solar activity, may be causing both of them, which the simultaneous occurrence suggests, but we have little data to go on.”
TT: “CO2 and global warming: My basic understanding about the evidence of the role of CO2 in the current warming is as follows:
- CO2 is one anthropogenic factor; there are others that should not be overlooked.
- We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the increase is having its predicted consequence of having a greater effect on nighttime temperatures than daytime temperatures.
- Scientists recognize that while other factors have initiated global warming or cooling in the past, once the trigger has been pulled the changes in CO2 and methane have played important feedback roles.
- The temperature record shows we are already fully out of the past ice age; increases in temps beyond current levels are essentially unprecedented during ice age cycles.
- Scientists can readily see the huge ramp-ups in CO2 and methane and can largely explain the warming through GCMs, even while they can eliminate other factors, such as changes in solar radiation or glactic cosmic rays.
- We can also see that CO2 levels will continue to rise for quite some time due to continued economic growth in the West and in China/India et al., simply because climate change costs are not factored into fossil fuel usage decsions.
- The chief reason for “going crazy” is simply the public policy issue of whether we should be preparing in any way for, or trying to head off, any of the negative effects that are already making themselves felt.”
TokyoTom at July 21, 2006 5:08 AM
September 26, 2006: Three cheers for …. a senator? Sean Corrigan
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005680.asp
R: “Data from ice cores show significant, regular swings in both temperature and CO2 for the past few millenia. If GW scientists can tell me what caused the swings in CO2 in the past, I’m willing to become neutral on the issue.”
Posted by: Roger M at September 26, 2006 8:42 AM
TT: “I have provided here and on other posts countless cites to climate change information that is responsive to all of the questions you pose. … My understanding is that the many different scientists at many different institutions in many countries have examined and take into account, in warning about the forcing by human-generated GHGs, all of the current knowledge about Malkinovich and sunspot cycles.
“But it seems to me that, by referring to the scientists themselves as leftists, you have already allowed your politics to distort your view of the science. Can I take it you also don’t believe in evolution, think the moon landing, Mars rovers and Hubble telescope to be faked, and that the Administration really cares about balancing the budget and that the never-ending war on terror is actually the best way to secure a good future?
“I think you might benefit from reading a little bit more about what the skeptics of the skeptics have to say: http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/articles.php
While I think the science is convincing and provided ample links above and elsewhere – at the invitation of Dr. Reisman’s presentation of what he considers to be persuasive in the face of much stronger countervailing evidence, my main point in posting on climate change here at Mises has been simply to note that the economics of the problem are quite easy to understand from a Misean perspective as a failure (and abuse) of property rights. Failing to remedy the problem, like other market failures, leads to damage to many for the benefit of a few – and in this case those few have been very generous in funding the pundits who have loudly trumpeted our ignorance and purveyed a fear of enviros. There are obvious Misean-type solutions to tragedy of the commons problems.
“You and others might very well decide that leftists, greens and even most on the right don’t understand the nature of the problem, and that the solutions they propose – such as more leaving GHGs unregulated while offering subsidies to other energy sources and huge public works projects – are wrong-headed; on which point I would agree, and say you should loudly proclaim it, as these policies simply waste taxpayer money. However, I do think that this is a serious issue, and we should not let the propoerty rights failure go unremedied.
“If I thought you and others here – including Dr. Reisman – who disagree with me on the science, economics or political economy were stupid, I wouldn’t waste my time or your trying to persuade you otherwise. Rather, as I noted on Reisman’s prior post, http://blog.mises.org/archives/005221.asp, I think that people have a hard time changing their minds, especially on matters that are not staring them in the face, and even very highly intellegent people and, yes, scientists. Me, too.
“We did not evolve to truly understand the world, but to understand enough to help us to survive and have off-spring. The result is that we build basic maps of reality in our heads and reform them when we have to. Cognitive science shows that we subconsciously filter out much dissonant information, and we all know that it is easier to defend our current reality and to dismiss information that would force us to do to much work in changing our minds. That’s why Darwin, Pasteur and Einstein had such a difficult time. Don’t they say that acceptance of breakthroughs in science occurs one death at a time, as the “old guard” dies?
“On this, you mistake my question, which is not derogatory but meant to ask you to examine what your thinking leads you to. If you reject the scientific papers of university climatologists on the basis that they are “leftists”, “greens” or whatnot, should you not also dismiss on the same grounds all other science that comes from universities? And like Mark, will you also dismiss all climate science (and other science)coming from government-employed scientists? What scientists’s views will you then accept, on anything? My point here is that I presume you are not really a skeptic of university or government science generally, so I hope you will examine why you are so resistant to listening on climate science.
“In my view, you are struggling against accepting the bulk of the science because you have a pre-existing view that you naturally and understandably find easier to defend than to change, so you find ways to dismiss outright the dissonant information. I don’t mean to be offensive in suggesting this, but it does seem that your off-the-cuff dismissal and labelling are hallmarks that this very human phonomenon is at work. I have a very intelligent sister who is very resistant to accepting any part of evolution, so I have spent years trying to figure her out. The cognitive science of how our brains function has been helpful to me in getting my head around this, as well as my own resistance to acknowledging error or changing my mind.
On the climate science again, please note that even though you might prefer not to listen to university scientists or government scientists, there are plenty of others out there – in business and on the right – who are convinced on the science. Some have maintained consistent positions, but many have changed their minds and their public positions as the evidence has become more convincing. Even Exxon (see link above) has now publicly acknowledged that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. As I noted with links on Reisman’s prior post, these include prominent libertarians and skeptics – don’t read me, go see what they have to say. Go read what these fundamentalists who have, in a painful public schism with their brethren, made a 180 degree turn have to say:
http://www.christiansandclimate.org/
http://www.christiansandclimate.org/pub/scientific_business_perspectives_fact.pdf
http://www.christiansandclimate.org/pub/macfarland_briefing_hires.pdf (March 2005 presentation by Mack MacFarland, DuPont Inc. Senior Scientist to evangelical leaders and Senate staffers).
http://www.creationcare.org/resources/climate/”
5. This conclusion is certainly weird: “the fact that the rise in CO2 and temperature occur at the same time suggests that no cause/effect relation exists between them”. Rather, doesn’t the close temporal relationship show a close physical relationship?
An if in the past, warming triggered by other forcings (Milankovich, etc.) first warmed the oceans, which then led to CO2 releases (as CO2 came out of solution due to higher ocean temps), what does this tell us about today, when rising CO2 levels are very clearly largely anrthropogenic? What can we expect to happen as the oceans warm, Roger?
Perhaps you care to pay attention to what Carl Wunsch – who Durkin was forced to excise from “Swindle” after Durkin deliberately miscast his views – has to say:
“[C]ontrary to the impression given in the film, I firmly believe there is a great deal to be learned from models. With effort, all of this is explicable in terms the public can understand.
In the part of the “Swindle” film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important — diametrically opposite to the point I was making — which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.”
6. Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments to you about how you and the creationist “scientists” at ICR are letting your “fundamentalist” views of the Bible influence your views on the climate change science.
Regards,
Tom
Anthony, how about fur, tropical timber certification, and “ethical” coffee?
There are probably many similar cases relating to local industries and business (as well of course plenty of other examples in which consumer action resulted in federal, state or local action).
TT
Thanks. I think the effect that consumers can have is quite an important thing for libertarians to pay attention to… but nevertheless it is hard to find studies that specifically focus and concentrate on that, although one can assemble a sort of collage of works.
F:
Your train of thought seems to become disjointed when you examine these issues. One moment you are saying “Oh, I forgot, we Americans are too stupid to think like that. We prefer bute force.”, then you say “…let them hear talk aobut reducing CO2 90% and they’ll lynch guys like you and TT.”
The US is the most energy dependent country in the world by far. This has happened because domestic oil was cheap and abundant right up until 1970, when it peaked went into decline. Today the US imports 60% of its oil.
The US built its sprawling, energy dependent infrastructure as a result of 300 million individuals all making rational (but short sighted) individual decisions. This is the libertarian way, but for the US it is now proving to be a dangerous trap in terms of energy security and CO2 emissions.
As you point out, reducing CO2 by 90% is not really a viable option. The bulk of your population is distributed evenly across the landscape – entirely dependent on cars and housed in energy guzzling McMansions.
How will the US deal with this problem it has created for itself? You tell me. History tells us that resource wars are usually the default option.
(BTW, oil touched $87.975 this morning. Where will it end? http://www.nymex.com/lsco_emi_cso.aspx )
TT: “An if in the past, warming triggered by other forcings (Milankovich, etc.) first warmed the oceans, which then led to CO2 releases (as CO2 came out of solution due to higher ocean temps)…”
Thanks for the answer! I must have missed it from a previous post of yours. So you’re saying that increases in CO2 before industrialization were caused by global warming. That’s what I have been saying about CO2 today: global warming causes increases in CO2; CO2 does not cause global warming.
TT: “Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments…”
I didn’t read anything worthy of comments. You pretend that creationists have no science behind their theories. You don’t see it because you don’t want to. Did you follow the link to the book at creationscience.com? The only thing that influences my views on GW is the science.
Robert: “This has happened because domestic oil was cheap and abundant right up until 1970…”
On what basis do you claim that oil was cheap? The only way to tell the price of anything is in a free market. The oil market isn’t totally free, but it provides better prices than the totally wild guesswork of the luny left.
Robert: “How will the US deal with this problem it has created for itself?”
I’m sorry, but I’m still in denial. I am very confident that there is no problem to solve.
F: A free market with ample supply chasing limited demand will price oil at the cost of extraction plus a small profit. This is how it used to be pre-2000.
In recent years the situation has reversed – there has been no global spare capacity so prices have been determined by the cost (to potential customers) of NOT getting the oil. This is why oil has risen 8-fold since 2000 and is set to continue rising.
The problem is that the US is built (accidentally I admit) on the assumption that oil would remain cheap for ever. It will not be possible to restructure the US anything like fast enough to track the likely increase in the price of oil.
“The US built its sprawling, energy dependent infrastructure as a result of 300 million individuals all making rational (but short sighted) individual decisions. This is the libertarian way, but for the US it is now proving to be a dangerous trap in terms of energy security and CO2 emissions.”
I’m sorry, I had no idea that the US was a free market, hence what libertarians would refer to as both the basis and the result of rational decisions. Of course the US isn’t, so this is a strawman at best.
Robert: “…so prices have been determined by the cost (to potential customers) of NOT getting the oil.”
Not really. Adjusted for inflation, oil prices remain close to their historical average. And I think most of the difference between real (adjusted for inflation) prices today and the historical average real price will be found in the changes in foreign exchange rates. The recent jump in oil prices is probably due to the decline of the dollar in the FX market.
But the recent rise in oil prices is very interesting. You probably don’t know that gas prices have been falling in the US even as oil prices rise. Very strange. I’m not sure what to make of it, except that speculation may have driven gas prices too high earlier in the year and upset the normal ratio between gasoline and oil prices.
F: This chart shows oil prices 1946 – present in Jan 2007 dollars.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Oil_inflation_chart.htm
The chart does not look that striking until you realise that oil has risen from $50 in Jan 07 to $87.61 today. This puts it within 10% of the peak price set in Dec 1979. The 1970′s price spike was fully explained by the Iran/Iraq war and everything else that preceded it from 1973 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_price_chronology.gif
In 2007 there are a few things going on in the Middle East, but mainly it just seems to be a combination of high demand and ever tightening supply to which there is no obvious end in sight. The peak of global oil production was set over 18 months ago. This might not be THE peak but it demonstrates that we might now be in the general region.
Do you take my point about how low prices can get when there is spare capacity in the market? Initially Texas oil was so easy to produce that it was just a question of poking a hole in the ground and filling up the barrels. Under these circumstances prices are bound to be dictated solely by production costs and not by any intrinsic value in the oil itself. The Railroad Commission of Texas operated like an early version of the much vilified OPEC in order to artificially support prices, but after the US peaked in 1970 they lost control of the market to OPEC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Railroad_Commission
I am aware of the disconnect between oil and gas (petrol where I come from) prices. This article discusses it: http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/17/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm In the UK we are even more insulated from the effects of high crude prices because 2/3 of the cost of petrol is tax. Petrol has only risen from about 70p/l to 96p/l since 2000, which has scarcely made a ripple. The effect on food and other prices is more noticeable, but not everyone connects this with oil.
I do think that the US are in a more precarious position than most countries. Europe has always had a high petrol tax regime which forces people to use it more efficiently – smaller cars, shorter journeys and so on. In the UK we are still a net oil exporter (just) although now entering a very rapid depletion phase that will hit us hard economically over the next decade.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/31/15295/970
Oil will always be a boring background sort of thing that people don’t think about – until it starts to run out in a big way, that is. The price of so many other things is dependent on it. In many ways it is THE key commodity of the entire global economy.
People may find this site interesting. It gives a monthly climate report. The report for September 2007 was released today:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/sep/sep07.html
Cherry picking slightly, global land temperatures (Jan – Sep) are the warmest on record, as are the northern hemisphere land, and land/ocean temperatures.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/sep/global.html#temp
The arctic sea ice extent is looking like a disaster, but we already knew that.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/sep/seaice-2007-timeseries.gif
Robert: “This chart shows oil prices 1946 – present in Jan 2007 dollars.”
That’s a good chart. I think if you adjusted the dollar for its fall in the FX market, too, oil would look even cheaper. Another way to look at it is to compare it to the price of gold, which this site does:
http://www.safehaven.com/article-2712.htm
Compared to the price of gold, oil looks downright cheap even at $90. The differences in your chart and the gold chart can be explained several ways. 1) your chart deflates the price of oil using government indexes, but those indexes don’t capture real inflation well. For example, they don’t capture inflation that occurs in asset prices. Gold does a better job of capturing long term inflation in full. 2) your chart doesn’t capture the fall of the dollar in the FX market. Gold does a better job of that.
The link above has older data than I realized at first. This link updates the price of oil in terms of gold: http://www.safehaven.com/article-8616.htm
Roger/Fundamentalist:
Thanks for your further comments.
1. As I noted, I answered your question about CO2, temps and paleo-climate change over a year ago. You have neatly mis-summarized me and dodged my observation and question.
I said that in the past, CO2 increases were triggered by other forcing factors that initiated warming – as the oceans warmed, CO2 (and methane) was released as the warmer ocean water was not able to dissolve as much CO2. Is this something you agree with – or do you reject all ice core and other paleo data, consistent with your Creationist view that the Earth is no older than 100,000 years?
I also said that as CO2 and methane are acknowledged GHGs, the higher levels likely contributed to reinforcing the warming trends.
In the present case, it is absolutely clear that rising CO2 levels to date are almost entirely the result of wood and fossil fuel combustion – with the CO2 levels PRECEDING ocean warming. So what can we expect as the oceans warm?
As I noted, oceanographer Carl Wunsch had this to say:
“[T]he fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, … [means] that warming the ocean could be dangerous — because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important — diametrically opposite to the point I was making — which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways”. http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm
Wunsch’s concern is underlined by the very close correlations between CO2 and temperature proxies in the paleo record.
Do you disagree with Wunsch?
Or do you intend to imply that a warming ocean – and NOT man – is responsible for rising CO2 levels?
Certainly the apparent lesson from the paleo record that CO2 and methane trail warming initiated by other factors does not justify a conclusion that anthropogenic releases of GHG are not contributing to global warming today.
2. As to the climate “science” at the Institute for Climate Science, yes of course I followed your link. I have not “pretend[ed] that creationists have no science behind their theories”, but simply couldn’t find any. Can you point to any real climate science at ICR?
I saw no science, but could document that summaries of ICR’s views were explicitly grounded on a view that the Biblical view of a young Earth is historically accurate, such as the following:
However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood.
From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355
Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming.
In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12).
http://www.icr.org/article/3233/
It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science:
http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2007/02/institute-of-creation-research-launches.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/05/01/peer-reviewed-creationist-research-hahahahahahahaha/
3. BYW, this was not a rhetorical question in my last comment to you:
“Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this, but simply consider the costs imposed by any “remedy” to exceed purported benefits? If so, how long do you think we should wait before any policy action is merited – forever, or just until the Second Coming?”
The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change?
“[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. …
“But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!
http://www.icr.org/article/678/
Regards,
TT
Anthony, while Robert’s statement that the US “built its sprawling, energy dependent infrastructure as a result of 300 million individuals all making rational (but short sighted) individual decisions” is surely an overstatement, surely despite state invervention the US energy infrastructure and energy markets are much freer than in most countries.
Where Robert is clearly wrong is in concluding that this infratructure and global markets leave the US in a particularly dangerous position, as folks at Cato have noted here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/09/28/why-are-republicans-unhinged-on-energy-policy.aspx.
TT: Not sure what point your article is trying to make, if any. It just seems to be a political rant.
*************************************************
…is surely an overstatement, surely despite state invervention the US energy infrastructure and energy markets are much freer than in most countries.
*************************************************
They are. And this is the result…
If US oil (and global oil for that matter) was available neatly packaged up in one enormous barrel for all the world to see, people would understand it better. World reserves of oil are approximatley 1 cubic mile in volume and we are consuming this inheritance at the rate of 1000 barrels per second.
If people could actually see this they would understand that we do not PRODUCE oil. We CONSUME it. When it is gone it is really gone and the next batch won’t be ready for 100 million years.
Now imagine the US in the period 1900 – 1970, confidently guzzling through it’s own private huge barrel of oil, dishing it out to all and sundry at low, low prices, then wondering why it has very little left now. This is how 300 million individuals manage their key inherited asset, slightly different I suspect from how it would have been managed if owned by one individual. Not a great advert for laissez faier economics.
F:
Re your comments about the falling $ vs. rising oil price, this article and the discussion that follows explore the issue.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/10/16/71630/015
If was a US citizen I would find little comfort in the eroding $. It seems to be a recognition that the US is very reliant on cheap imported oil. The danger is that two trends taken together will trigger a positive feedback loop where foreign investment in US currency and assets dries up and the whole situation spirals into economic depression.
Who thinks we are in a cycle and oil will return to $10 a barrel? Not me, for one.
Also nice to see that this thread gets a less than sympathetic airing on the eurotrib site!
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/9/16/101212/155
Robert: “If was a US citizen I would find little comfort in the eroding $. It seems to be a recognition that the US is very reliant on cheap imported oil.”
No one takes comfort in the eroding $. It’s further evidence of the damage that government action can cause. The $ is eroding because of the loose monetary policies of the Fed. My point in posting the link to the gold/oil chart was to show that the rising price of oil in $ is due to the actions of the Fed for the most part, not to the shortage of oil.
Robert: “…foreign investment in US currency and assets dries up and the whole situation spirals into economic depression.”
The US is definately headed for a major recession, possibly depression. Austrians have been predicting it for almost a year. But the price of oil won’t have caused it. The Fed will have caused it because of its loose monetary policies.
Robert: “Also nice to see that this thread gets a less than sympathetic airing on the eurotrib site!”
So why should we care what Euros think?
Robert, my link was a roundabout way to this good discussion at Cato on the link between energy and security: http://energy.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjllYTlhMDkyMjcwZDQ4ZTZiYmVhYTlkMGUzMjJhM2M
Is this also a political rant, or does it tell you something useful about how politicians like to waste our money on “security” issues?
TT
TT: “surely despite state invervention the US energy infrastructure and energy markets are much freer than in most countries.’”
What I meant was that there have been and there continue to be interventions in energy markets. I don’t see how the blame for the effect of these can be put on the market.
TT: “Certainly the apparent lesson from the paleo record that CO2 and methane trail warming initiated by other factors does not justify a conclusion that anthropogenic releases of GHG are not contributing to global warming today.”
Why not? It appears that a natural cycle of the planet is for the ocean to begin warming for some reason. The warming ocean realeases CO2, methane and water vapor. Today, what percent of GW does that natural process create and what percent does manmade CO2 contribute? Especially since CO2 is the least of the GHG’s, man’s contribution to GW must be very small.
TT: “It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science:”
How do you think scientists operate? They form a hypothesis (guess) about how things work, then try to find evidence to support their guess. One group is trying to prove evolution, which has never been proven scientifically, just adopted by consensus as has GW. The evidence for evolution is so slim that it drove many of the scientiests at ICR and other places to search for an alternative explanation. They chose creation as described in the Bible. Now they’re searching for evidence that supports their hypothesis. Tell me one scientist that operates differently.
As Mises and Hayek tried to explain with history, it’s impossible to dive into the data of history and surface with a coherent theory about how economics works. To make sense of history, one must have a logical theory first and interpret the data of history through that theory. The same advice works in the natural sciences. I am fairly confident that no scientist has looked at the data without a theory and been overwhelmed with the evidence for evolution; the evidence simply doesn’t exist.
Not that evolutionary scientists are trying to prove that evolution is true. They never have tried that. Soon after Darwin’s book came out, the majority of scientists adopted its thesis without question. I don’t know of any scientist many scientists who have even questioned evolution. It’s accepted because it’s the consensus. A few will admit that almost no evidence for evolution exists, but they still accept it on philosophical grounds.
All creationist scientists are doing is questioning the evidence for evolution, which almost no evolutionary scientist does, and proposing an alternative with evidence to back it up. How is that not scientific?
“Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong”
As far as I know, creationists don’t dispute the CO2 data in ice cores, just the ages that scientists claim the cores represent. Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38′s from WWII proved that wrong. Still, scientists refuse to change their minds. A similar example happened with the strata of mud found in ponds. Scientists used to claim that each layer represented one year, but creationists kept demonstrating that such deposits occur multiple times in a year until other scientists began to agree with them.
TT: “The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change?”
Yes I disagree.
TT: “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this…?
No, I don’t agree. Free markets and property rights haven’t even been tried where the environment is concerned.
“But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!”
Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger. That’s why we should oppose socialism. But we also don’t believe in inventing dangers that don’t exist.
Wow, I read this whole thread!
Robert T., I hope you stick around on this site and read some of the free materials and/or listen to/watch the free media files. Almost all of your questions are answered here … somewhere … from externalities, to how markets deal with the long-term picture, why central planning/management is always bad, etc.. It’s all here.
But anyway, at this point there’s just too much to comment on. So, how about you pick your favorite argument against free-markets, and let’s see what we can do to change your mind. Otherwise all of my reading will be in vain. And nobody wants that.
TT: Thanks for the Cato link, which I read. I don’t entirely agree with the “oil mission” theme in the second para.
The 12 million bbl/day of US oil imports is a problem in two ways.
(1) it is a major trade deficit contributor. There is no getting away from this one – by my calculations this is a $381 billion outflow at today’s price, and possibly far higher within a few years.
(2) there is a real “energy security” issue. 20% of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz so any sort of blow up in the ME reduces global oil supply by some 17 million barrels. The implications on both supply and price would be immediate and drastic, as we saw in the ’70s. That is why the US keeps a military and diplomatic influence in every significant producer country.
For anyone that does not realise how critical oil is to an economy, the events in the UK in September 2000 should have been a real wakeup call.
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/12/london.fuel.02/
Within the space of 3 or 4 days our entire country seized up solid. Total panic set in as food and essential services simply stopped in their tracks. Even the people who started it all were stunned and called the whole thing off before they were lynched!
The stupid thing about the US is how unnecessary it was to get into the current situation. The US can only keep going by burning 21 million bbl/day, every day. And this is because, basically, everything is so spread out. Large houses are built on large plots so many people have to drive long distances to get to work. Walking to the shops is often out of the question – too far and no sidewalks! All this has happened because oil was cheap and plentiful in the US’s formative years. Free markets are fantastic at drawing down resources but they have absolutely no sense of direction regarding the future.
Europe was luckier. Oil did not exist in its formative years so our infrastructure is more compact. Petrol has always been taxed heavily because (at least until 25 years ago) all oil was imported, hence we value it more. We were no more intelligent in our choices, just luckier (in my view I hasten to add).
Now that everyone KNOWS that oil will have all but run out within a generation or so, responsible governments should be using the time left to restructure their economies in order to power them in other ways. Free market forces might dictate the development of domestic ultra-deep oil wells, drilling in the ANWR and prospecting in the Arctic, but this will just delay the problem and deepen the addiction.
A couple of “oil” links which I visit often:
http://www.energybulletin.net/
http://www.oilnergy.com/1onymex.htm
Plus, interview with Ron Paul, discussing all the same issues as this thread – and running into the same roadblocks re climate change.
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/
Fundamentalist:
1. Especially as we understand that there IS a greenhouse effect, simply establishing that in the past that increases in CO2 levels have trailed temperature changes (readily explainable as oceans warm and CO2 is released) does not allow us to conclude that:
- temperature increases initiated by other factors, and not man, is responsible for the climbing atmospheric CO2 levels; or
- that climbing atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs will not lead to further warming.
There is simply no prior appearance of industrial man in the paleo record for us to look at to say – “see, human activities that add warmth to the climate system have no noticeable effect!”
2. The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied, and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces. For creationists, protecting the world view is paramount. Real scientists of course start with premises, but they generate hypotheses that are productive and can be tested and confirmed or found wanting – even by critics who operate within a creationist mode.
3. “Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38′s from WWII proved that wrong.”
You brought this up before, but have failed to respond to my comments. Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland?
4. I said, “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are not effectively owned.”
You say “No, I don’t agree. Free markets and property rights haven’t even been tried where the environment is concerned.”
I think that mine is the standard Austrian analysis. See http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_1_1.pdf and
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap23sec6.asp
States are NOT responsible for the extinction of most species and the destruction of many fisheries.
Actually, you have merely side-stepped the issue. When you say that “property rights haven’t been tried” for much of the environment, you are essentially conceding the principal point – where resources which are not effectively owned, markets don’t work.
What property rights do you suggest we “try” for the atmosphere, so we get a non-existent market working? Or are you arguing that, since there are no property rights in the global atmosphere by which parties can engage in private transactions to maximize their own utility, then ipso facto there is no need for such rights?
Don’t forget Mises’ and Yandle’s discussions on transition points that I raised earlier.
5. “Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger.”
And not only creationists – but all manner of religious groups, citizens groups and corporate leaders as well, who all care for the planet – even the parts they don’t personally own.
Regards,
Tom
Robert, none of us would deny that there are certainly problems relating to our energy situation – we just think that the problems are largely created by government one way or another. The most glaring example is our grossly expensive and counterproductive military presence.
Markets work very well and will help us to shift gradually away from petroleum when the time comes. Government worrying about energy just serves to muck things up, and to create more reasons for government – know the fable of the tar baby?
Yeah, I saw the interview of Ron and have posted part of it on my blog.
Tom
Robert:
And again the “free market” steps up to be whipped in place of the real culprit: government.
A much more convincing argument is that zoning laws and incentives for new development (as opposed to renovation or reconstruction of old buildings) are responsible. You seem to forget that gasoline is not actually free, and that travel imposes a cost of time. Therefore, what you describe is in no way the result of an optimal and efficient allocation of resources.
TT: “There is simply no prior appearance of industrial man in the paleo record for us to look at to say – “see, human activities that add warmth to the climate system have no noticeable effect!”
You’re avoiding my point. I asked how much of the current release of CO2 is natural and how much is human? No one denies that humans release CO2 into the atmosphere. No one denies that CO2 is a GHG. The question is 1) how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human activity and 2) how much of global warming is caused by natural processes, such as warming of the oceans, and how much by GHG’s? If you don’t know the answers to those questions, then you can’t know that cutting back on human production of CO2 will reduce global warming.
TT: “The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied,…”
And evolutionists don’t? The “big bang” postulates an entire universe popping into existence out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that? It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Biological evolution violates the law of biology that life cannot come from nonliving matter. No evidence exists that it can or has. There are hundreds more examples of where evolution violates the laws of physics and biology.
TT: “…and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces.”
You’ve just described the “science” of evolution very well.
TT: “Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland?”
The science of ice cores isn’t rocket surgery. They count the layers of ice like you count tree rings. They assume each layer is one year. But creationists have shown them that that assumption is wrong. That’s really all there is too it.
TT: “I think that mine is the standard Austrian analysis…When you say that “property rights haven’t been tried” for much of the environment, you are essentially conceding the principal point – where resources which are not effectively owned, markets don’t work.”
I don’t think you understand Austrians. The solution to the problem of commons is not greater government control, but getting rid of the commons by establishing private property. The air presents a more difficult property issue, but not one that can’t be solved, as many Austrians have shown.
Fundamentalist:
1. Good questions, but no, you’re the one changing the topic. The paleo record is of great use, but we can’t pretend that it trumps our own activities. And what we do know is cause for more concern, not less. As Wunsch says, if our CO2 leads to warming that then warms the oceans, we get an amplifying effect, as the oceans release more CO2 (and their sink effect is also curtailed).
If you don’t deny that humans release CO2 into the atmosphere or that CO2 is a GHG, then you must acknowledge that we are contributing to warming. Great! We’re making progress.
What is the relative size of our contribution and what is the efficacy of measures to moderate CO2 emissions are important, but different, questions.
2. Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not. But if you have good evidence for that, of course I’d be interested.
3. I see, you really do think that the scientists who generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland ARE deluded, that ice core “data” rests only on a simple counting of annual layers that creationists have decisively proven wrong. Please give us the cites?
The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers. I offer for you this discussion the following lay-friendly pieces:
The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s
Flood Was Not Global, http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf
Ice Core Dating, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
4. “The solution to the problem of commons is not greater government control, but getting rid of the commons by establishing private property. The air presents a more difficult property issue, but not one that can’t be solved, as many Austrians have shown.”
You are right that governments are typically NOT the best answer and more often a serious impediment to solutions to commons problems, but they sometimes provide serviceable, if excessively costly, solutions – as witness the heavily regulated environmental cleanup since the 1960s.
As a matter of nuance, I imagine you will acknowledge that Austrian do not insist on PRIVATE property, but that complex communal property systems – of the types still seen in many places around the world and that Native Americans had developed – are just as acceptable.
Yes, the air presents very difficult problems indeed – but I haven’t seen any private property solutions advanced here. Perhaps the answer lies in the direction of group action rather than purely individual rights? Maybe if we consider carefully, we might realize that we already have some useful institutions.
TT: “If you don’t deny that humans release CO2 into the atmosphere or that CO2 is a GHG, then you must acknowledge that we are contributing to warming. Great! We’re making progress.”
If I didn’t know that humans contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, or that CO2 is a GHG, I’d be kind of stupid, wouldn’t I? So no, we haven’t made any progress. Human contribution to GW is so small as to be laughable to anyone who knows the science. Eliminating all human contribution of CO2 would not change the climate at all.
TT: “Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not.”
Again, I’d be pretty stupid to believe what you wrote. What you’re doing is twisting my words to make them sound ridiculous and then claiming that’s what I said. It’s a technique for getting out of an argument when you know you’re losing, but most people outgrow it when the leave junior high. I think I’ve explained my position on science well enough.
TT: “The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers.”
If you want the best information on the science of dating ice cores, visit the chapter on it in the online book “In the Beginning” at http://www.creationscience.com.
Scott D
*************************************************
And again the “free market” steps up to be whipped in place of the real culprit: government.
*************************************************
I wouldn’t blame either in isolation. The US developed the way it did because of ample land, ample domestic oil and the timing – the fact that cars could be mass produced during the US’s “expansion” phase.
There is some evidence of skullduggery in the shift to the automobile on the part of the big oil and auto companies, but it would have happened anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
I’m not so interested in looking back as looking forward. We are in 2007. We have oil above $89, continuing a run up that started in 2000. And hanging over it all the shadow of climate change.
The domestic “free market” depends increasingly on the government and the military to maintain the external status quo (i.e. dollar hegemony through oil priced in $). On this basis I share your critism of the government, but it is history and I doubt you would want to see your soldiers, diplomats and foreign corporate interests brought home. Put simply, you cannot now manage without a large and powerful state to maintain global power.
Unfortunately the situation is becoming increasingly untenable. Power is shifting to the developing nations (China, India) and to the big oil producers (Russia, the ME countries). Meanwhile the $US is sliding against the Euro – once at parity, it touched $1.4305 today – and an increasing amount of oil is now sold in currencies other than the $.
The US needs to find a way to navigate out of this deteriorating situation. Government can choose whether to pile more resources into the “oil mission”, or alternatively start to wean the US off oil through taxes and subsidies. Whatever they decide, the so called “free market” will follow like a well trained herd of sheep.