Here is Allen Sanderson on the virtues (or lack thereof) of minimizing your carbon footprint.
Carbon Footprints
Previous post: Shultz on economics and foreign policy
Next post: Competiton is a Dynamic Process
where orders emerge
EconTalk Podcast
Recent Episodes-
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 12 comments }
It would been nice if the link was to a disinterested author examing his/her own evidence or something that would have rather scientific. Instead it's just another Libertarian PJORourke-ish article swipe at stereotypical evil greenies.
Yeah, but it's great to be able to have someone articulate, in a conversational style, the kind knowledge we should have been taught in high school. Then we wouldn't have so many empty-headed greenies and sanctimonious celebrities.
Yep, another laissez-faire true believer, trying to trash environmentalism. I knew that from paragraph #1, when he trotted out the old canard about "requiring better mileage will cost lives." In fact, many large, heavy vehicles, like full-size SUV's, are highly unsafe, and smaller, lighter cars are also more maneuverable, which contributes to safety.
"…stereotypical evil greenies…"
Evil?! No way! Most true Greens have the favor of the Creator…providing the proper offerings and prostrations are observed.
I think the linked paper is foolish. I'm actually amazed that a libertarian (I think that's his perspective) would disagree with people deciding to place value on the environment. Disagreeing with public policy is one thing, but this guy seems to want to set up a dichotomy between "legitimate" values and "illegitimate" values. The former includes doing things that "make us happy," as if doing things for the environment couldn't possibly do that.
I'm sure it may be PJ O'Rourkeian tongue-in-cheek humor, but I think it's silly. And like I said, I think it's truly dismaying that a libertarian would want to push against a trend of free consumer choice that values the environment.
There is surely no deep connection between libertarianism and opposing the CW on climate change.
I think you misread, mk, I think if you contact Mr. Sanderson and ask him directly you will the get the answer that I see in his writing. He has no problem with anyone "deciding to place value" on the things they choose. I believe that his main problem is that when whackos "decide to place value" they have this intention of passing laws to force others to accept their decisions…..and we on the right believe that that is a no no. Every utterance by the envirowhackos, Gore et. al., make that intention and desire to pass laws perfectly clear.
To:
Gil, Mk, Plac Ebo, muirgeo, and all of the other left whackos;
The major difference that you all will not acknowledge yet we all know to be true (or absolutely ignore because you think you have the moral right) is that the Libertarians and Conservatives believe that they have the moral duty to persuade others to their point of view, and you socialists/communist/liberals/progressives/
democrats all believe that you have the moral duty to pass laws and force people to your point of view.
It is that difference that will always put us at odds. In your religion there is no room or provision for dissenters except before a wall facing a firing squad (see Russian, Chinese, and Cuban history), or at best a rotten prison.
vidyohs,
Libertarias (like me) aren't on the right and we're not conservatives
But yes, if you lot want to buy an electic car instead of a Hummer, go right ahead and good for you. Personally, I'll stick with the Land Rover and we can both accept each others choices and tastes. Certainly I can try and bring you around to the slab-sided mistress, and certainly you can try to concinve me that I need to be greener, that's the way civillised people do things.
What's not ok is when you tell me that I must not drive my Land Rover or masked men will kick my door in at 2am.
What I think the author was getting at was that some seem to believe that the enviroment has an infinite value and that everything else has zero benefit and that these assertions must be forced on everyone else. Certainly the enviroment has a value, but it is no infinite. Neither are benefits like cheaper food or faster travel times worthless. When making decisions we must consider both costs and benefits and weight them together. We must also refrain from forcing people to share our own values.
Oooooooooooo! Grumpy old vidyohs! One thing that must really annoy such right-wing grumps is the way a lot of left-wing types are actually successful in their lives. How nice and easy life would be if all lefties were the stereotypical welfare dependent, pot smoking loser. No one listens to losers, especially lawmakers. They would be annoying but nonetheless harmless like a mosquito that wakes you in the middle of the night. But I'm sure when right-wing types do get their own laws and viewpoints passed it'd be a case where Libertarians say "well we don't approve of it either but at least right-wingers are still going get work done, unlike those lefties whose laws are there to stifle progress period and put us back into the Dark Ages". >:D
…no one listens to losers, especially lawmakers
Really? And there I was, the whole time convinced, that in order to pander to losers one must first have listened to their concerns.
…it will be a case where libertarians say "Well we dont approve of it either but at least right-wingers are still going to get work done…"
The (un)funny thing is, is that to a politician, getting "work done" typically translates into liberty being lost. It is a rare politician who has the default position of repealing legislation in order to get things done.
Another point of contention is this Left-wing/Right-wing political spectrum garbage that is taught. A more proper and realistic spectrum could be called the paternalist spectrum. It would probably be a parabola — perhaps in 3D with a Z-axis — with the apex on top, opening on bottom, with the apex being the point where the individual's desired 'policy' is that of max liberty and minimal government with 'do nothing' legislators.
"…the way a lot of left-wing types are actually successful in their lives…"
I saw one of these successful left-wing types just yesterday. He got out of his 2006 Jeep Liberty, well dressed, and headed into a Starbucks. I was shocked that he only had one bumper sticker on his vehicle…and it wasn't of the pro democrat, Bush is Hitler variety. So, how did I now he was a Lefty? The sticker read, "question consumption", which was pretty odd since he was likely inside the Starbucks getting a four dollar coffee. But, hey, at least the coffee beans were the result of 'fair trade'…not so sure about the Jeep and the clothes, though.
What's not ok is when you tell me that I must not drive my Land Rover or masked men will kick my door in at 2am.
Posted by: Simon Clark
That assumes that what comes out of the tail pipe of your Land Rover has no effects on others. And the fact that it does effect air quality, climate change and even road wear and tear is inconvenient because it throws a wrench into the ideas Libertarians carry about liberty. I have a right to breath air. You do NOT have a right to drive a car. You are granted the privilege to drive. You are given the privilege to pollute my air only so much as we as a society say you can.
Ooh muirgeo you're going to get your proverbial ass kicked on that one! X(
Gil,
Do you have anything useful to say or are you going to continue spewing streams of ad hominens?
Muirgeo,
Last time I checked, tailpipe fumes do not destroy roads. The wheels do some damage, but what I do to the road is between me and the owner of the road. You don't own roads do you? As it happens the government owns most of them which is hardly the optimal condition, but working within that, if they're going to have such a monopoly they cannot abuse such a position by charging excessively or discriminating – a polluting car does not necessarily damage the roads more than any other car.
You don't own the air either. If you want to bottle some up and call it yours, fine, I'll make sure I don't pump my exhausts into it, but the atmosphere ain't yours.
Having said that, my pollution does impose a cost upon you and it's not practical for us to sue each other over such things so a tax would be appropriate. We can't directly reimburse those who have costs imposed on them so instead the taxes would need to be spent on neutralising the effects in a general way, say, planting trees. A carbon tax would be the most appropriate, but if that's too complicated (it involves an equation that I forget) a gasoline tax would suffice. The correct rate for such a tax is, last time I checked, 9%. Beyond that is not an administration of justice but an arbitrary imposition of will by one man upon another, and that is unacceptable.