I confess that I don’t keep up with the data on global warming, or even with the debate. Even so, I still have something to say about the issue.
Let’s assume that global warming is happening and that it’s caused by modern human industry and commerce. Is there a case to be made for the United States government to continue to avoid signing the Kyoto Protocol? More generally, is there a case to be made to shrug our shoulders and say “best not to do anything through government about global warming”?
I think so.
One legitimate reason for refusing to endorse massive, worldwide government-led efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is that any such effort will inevitably be politicized. Even if the possibility exists for such regulation to make the world a better place, this possibility is remote compared to the likelihood that grandstanding politicians, special-interest groups, arrogant environmentalists who are intolerant of commercial values, and well-meaning but misinformed voters will combine to generate policies that do more harm than good.
More fundamentally, the relevant question – as always – is ‘compared to what?’ The polar ice caps might well be melting, the earth’s temperature might well be rising, and human industry and commerce might well be the culprit. But this ‘culprit’ is also humankind’s great savior. It keeps us from the fates suffered by the vast majority of our ancestors: famine, plague, filth, drudgery, and ignorance. If global warming is a consequence of capitalism, I agree that it’s likely one that should be registered as a cost (although not everyone agrees that global warming is undesirable).
But if the only way to prevent or slow global warming is through political action, it is neither absurd nor irresponsible to argue that the best course of action is to ignore the problem.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 20 comments }
Good post Don. I feel the same way. I read this a while back and really enjoyed it.
The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming
Sallie Baliunas
March 2002
http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/
" it is neither absurd nor irresponsible to argue that the best course of action is to ignore the problem."
How about this for proof positive:
The US has done more to curtail GHG emissions than the EU, while maintaining higher growth rates. Further, even backers of Kyoto admit that a fully successful implementation (where countries actually meet the deadlines), would cause a very small change in temperature: around 0.7 degrees over 100 years.
The solution to this problem is technological, not governmental. This can be seen in the Prius+ movement for 200+mpg cars:
http://www.calcars.org/priusplus.html
Also, strong research is causing alternative energies to become more competitive. This blog is quite good:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/
There are good reasons for government to stay out. One of the big ones is that the market is making progress faster!
If you really must have government intervention, something more passive like researching new batteries, solar, and fusion would be great.
To those who may agree with Dr. Boudreaux’s position, I ask the following:
What are governments for?
My answer to Camilo's question is: oppression and thievery. That's what governments do better than any other institution. It's their comparative advantage.
"What are governments for?"
The US constitution is a great document. It almost defines our government by what it can't do, which is almost everything.
The enumerated powers exist because government often goes beyond its mission and does some pretty nasty things.
National defense is important, but an aware and prepared citizenry is good.
Rule of law is important.
Camilo,
I'd say in this case the governments role is to get the facts. We know that parts of the earth seem to be getting a bit warmer. We know that the percentage of so-called greenhouse gasses is a bit higher. What we don't know is whether the gasses caused the warming, or the warming caused the gasses. A highly likely counter theory is that the warming is caused by solar activity, a completely natural phenomonon repeated at regular intervals, and that the increase in gasses is the indirect result. The debate has become politicized, but the facts are critical. How exactly will putting people out of work keep the sun from flaring?
A new prius is nice, but I like the space ring of tiny umbrellas idea much more.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/050627_warming_solution.html
$500 billion for the ring vs. $150 billion/yr for Kyoto?
Evan
The role of government should be to establish a military for protecting us from other governments who may want to invade and oppress. Also, protect citizens from those who would use violence against them.
Other than that I can't think of much use for government. A robust military and a minimal domestic police force should be the extent and scope of its role.
nmg
Wouldn't carbon-credits be a good value-neutral possibility (the only value this solution assumes is environmental protection)?
Wouldn't it be equivalent to a partial privatization of the air and isn't private property the best guarantee of resource protection?
Surely the American government is there to prevent other nations from instituting socialist and protectionist policies, by political, economic or military intervention?
Ah, yes, as you say: oppression and thievery…
>>
Im sorry but the above quote is not true…they have broadcast that the co2 emitted by the US has gone down during bush's terms…it is not true…co2 has continued to go up…
but what has come down is co2 per gdp..
and that is because so much of production has been exported to china and we resale the merchandise and our co2 doesnt rise..
china's does tho..
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press257.html
CO2 emissions HAVE gone down during President Bush's first term but the entire impact was due to the 2001 recession. The picture and some explanation is here: http://www.env-econ.net/2005/12/un_ghg_emission.html
And I'll add one to "what are governments for": correcting negative externalities. Maybe a higher gas tax could go a long way toward reducing GHG emissions.
Manual Trackback: 'Global Warming? Just ignore it.' http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/12/global-warming-just-ignore-it.html
The libertarian position on Global Warming is somewhat different. It was well summed up by George Reisman at the end of his 1990 article 'The Toxicity of Environmentalism,' and his position on Global Warming is reprised today by Cafe Hayek:
We're trying to decide "how bad" things will be for future generations, and trying to decide policy on that basis. Of course uncertainty will deflate policy efforts. It will always be seductive to say "hey, those guys will be ok" and then party on in our lives.
Or it's too easy for a few "bad actors" to think that way, and undo the voluntary CO2 control of many.
One role of government that hasn't been mentioned, at least explicitly, is to establish the Rule of Law. But once the framework has been set, once the procedures are in place, once the checks and balances are established, then government should stay the hell out of the Markets and let them do what only they can do: efficiently allocate scarce resources.
And, now, somewhat hypocriticaly, I'll second John Whitehead's call for a price FLOOR on gasoline. Let's keep those gas prices at, say, $2.50/gallon so that the economic incentives remain stable for those marvelous technologist inventors to do their thing. All some of those technologies need is an economy of scale to really take off (and thus bring the price down). Then we can get the hell out of the Middle East…
wouldn't a reasonable use for government be to prevent independent selfish agents who find themselves in a prisoner's dilemna from "defecting". Or if not prevent, at least provide suitable incentives to cooperate, thus yielding the outcome of maximum utility for all parties?
If the results of global warming are disastrous, we will look back on it as a classic prisoner's dilemna.
Ivan asks "what are governments for?"
Governments are for giving favored individuals power over out-of-favor individuals and providing them with perks that they cannot earn (and do not deserve) in a free market.
Those who have read Hayek know that government is incapable of providing us
with many facts.
Whatever the problems with climate change,
politic action is not the only way to slow or prevent it. To suggest so only feeds the statist impulses of the eco-fascists.
Travis
OK, you got my attention (in an amused way) with the "eco-fascists" line. When was there ever an "eco" with "fascist" power?
I'm a moderate in most things, and I'd be willing to entertain "non-statist" solutions, but it stikes me a lot like the old nuclear disarmament problem. Are you really endorsing unilateral carbon disarmament? Doesn't that encourage the opposite response in other players?
International treaty strikes me as a lot like multilateral disarmament … I'll do it if you will. Much more workable, IMO.
While, in certain cases, privatization may compel environmental protection, that only occurs when protecting the environment in question is good for a business in the short term.
Since it's cheaper just to toss waste chemicals into the atmosphere and let someone else deal with them, government protection of the environment is necessary to protect the innocent from injury which is undeserved and beyond their control (the purpose of government).
I think global warming is in evitable, who's to say the ice age is over, I think the world is still changing from that age.
Now imagine if you will, that civilization and the industrial revolution started around the time of the beginning of the end of the ice age, would you want to be one of those stupid protesters who built a meager existence on the top of a retreating glacier, all you have is melting , your ice couch, ice bed .etc… Now everyone starts yelling it’s all our fault! Look, to our horror there’s that gross dirty green land taking over; oh please stop global warming the fools scream!
Now lets say IF global warming is due to civilization and it is us to blame for the warming who of you are naive enough to think mankind can stop it by letting the government throw trillions of tax dollars at it.
The only way any of us might make the dent is if EVERY PERSON in the world was to stop driving fossil fueled vehicles, however every time some mass made electrical car is sold to consumers the mega oil companies shut it down before it gets out of hand. Eg:(the oil companies took all 1999 GM EV1s out to the desert and crushed them) And as if the 3rd world counties (the biggest polluters) would stop or even help out.
The question is, are you willing to give up your wheels forever and for no money? Me either! Also let’s say every one gets an electrical car, then it gets plugged into your house, your house uses more electrical power, where does your house get its power? From maybe a coal burning power plant or a diesel power plant.
Also this is one of the coldest years in Alberta that I can remember, that’s got to be because of global warming… not!
And everyone always wishes it was warmer not colder, so what’s the big deal!
Well that’s my rant, later Todd out.