[U.S. Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton told young Europeans at the European Parliament that global economic turmoil provided a fresh opening. “Never waste a good crisis … Don’t waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security,” she said.
Damn you Milton Friedman!
So here’s the “shock doctrine” in action. “Climate change” itself is not actually a crisis that demands immediate action. And in the absence of widespread public demand for action, climate ideologues need a crisis to shove through otherwise unpopular reforms. Of course, imposing massive new taxes (whether implicit or explicit) on energy, and therefore on economic production generally, is a terrible idea during a recession from the depths of which it will take many years to recover. But who cares about restoring the average American’s standard of living? Never waste a good crisis!
Fact free claim: “And in the absence of widespread public demand for action…”
Actual data:
“Do you think the federal government should do more than it's doing now to try to deal with global warming, should do less than it's doing now, or is it doing about the right amount?”
More 61%
Less 10%
About Right 27%
Unsure 2%
ABC News/Planet Green/Stanford University poll. July 23-28, 2008.
Yes. And everybody wants more government spending and also lower taxes. Show me a poll asking people if they're willing to pay the x% price increases implied by a carbon tax and then you'll have something that reflects actual public demand for action.
“Thinking” is a long way from “demand”, and just imagine what the percentages become if the question mentioned energy taxes.
Why do you put climate change in scare quotes, and why do you suggest that it doesn't merit immediate action?
The Conventional Wisdom around Cato and its donors isn't equal to what the “public” thinks and demands, Will.
Talk to some real people, many if not most feel quite strongly about getting the tools to live more energy efficiently.
Yeah Will – this is a rather out of character, anti-science, digression ….
On the one hand, there's this overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the conclusion that C20-21 use of fossil fuels has significantly changed the chemical balance of the atmosphere (more CO2, more methane), and that this change in atmospheric chemistry is changing long running climate patterns (temperature, precipitation, etc). From a public policy point of view these changes present an enormous challenge, and given how little time we have to affect any of this, it qualifies as a crisis.
Crisis' bring about change. That's a matter of historical fact. Some of these changes are forced on us. Some are more considered. Some are unintended consequences; both positive, and negative. But to put climate change in quotes, and to propose that we should ignore it because the prospect of gas prices going up $1 a gallon is too awful to contemplate? That's …. well it's dumb, Will. It's Rush Limbaugh moronic.
Ask them how much they are willing to pay for those tools. $100/$500/$1000/$2000 per year?
The waiting list for a $24,000 Prius at my local Toyota dealer is quite long, Ben.
1. Because people used to say “global warming,” but I guess that was too specific and so we moved on to a completely vacuous term. 2. (a) Climate always changes. (b) I think the costs of the proposed actions will outweigh the benefits.
It will cheer you to know that in my RSS reader this post is accompanied by a Nature Canada “Let's Stop Global Warming” ad.
“Climate change” is used because the models predict erratic weather, which we are already seeing.
You seriously think that the investment required is worse than massive global turmoil? I think investment in a green economy can not only stave off the worst effects of global warming, but also dramatically improve our lifestyles and ultimately improve the economy through new jobs, new manufacturing, etc. I don't see the downside you do.
So a few hundred thousand are willing to pay at most $4,000 to 6,000 premium on a type of good they would have bought anyway. If we said 2 million total had been sold in the US (which is probably way high), then that would leave only the other 98 million or so non-hybrid car drivers that aren't willing to buy a Prius. Also, one would note that other types of hybrids don't sell nearly as well as the Prius.
Nothing anti-science going on here Paul. Just resistance to a campaign to push us into policies that are certain to cause a great deal of harm in order to prevent an incredibly speculative amount of future harm. As I said above, I put “climate change” in scare quotes because it is an utter banality with no specific content. How can “the history of weather” by itself amount to a crisis? I accept global warming. But the right policy depends heavily on the probability of various forecasts. My sense is that it has become too risky rhetorically to pin everything on very uncertain computer models, thus the retreat to a term that allows for an ad hoc adjustment of the theory of future catastrophe no matter what actually happens in the climate record.
There is an indefinite number of potentially devastating catastrophes that would cause “massive global turmoil” at any given time. If you add up all past estimates of these things, it would seem that it is a certainty that we have already become extinct. But we aren't, so I'm skeptical of these estimates. The question is the probability any potentially devastating thing will happen. At some level of devastation, some sufficiently high estimate of its probability, and some sufficiently low discount rate, it seems we should do everything it takes to prevent it. I think the probability of super-high devastation is very low, very far off, and that the correct discount rate advises doing nothing other than waiting for models and mitigating technologies to develop. I understand this is a contrarian position, but I happen to think it's right.
I appreciate the desire that there be no tradeoffs but “investment in a green economy” is almost certain to leave us poorer than we'd otherwise be.
Taxing carbon is better than taxing, say, capital or wage income. Obama's proposal (which will not pass as intended anyway) makes a carbon tax revenue neutral by returning money to taxpayers. What do you have against that? Maybe you prefer a carbon tax instead of cap-and-trade, but this is already straining the limits of political feasibility.
I'd be happy with a revenue-neutral carbon tax returned through cuts in capital gains or the payroll tax.
When you live in the Midwest, the climate is *always* erratic.
To recapitulate a point that's been made elsewhere – “uncertainty” in the computer models is not your friend. The chance that things will work out very badly is just as high as the chance that things will work out very well. In the later case, we've wasted a little money. In the former case, which is just as likely as the predicted worst case, things will go very, very badly indeed.
I don't know if you have read it, but Jared Diamond's _Collapse_ documents what happens to civilizations faced with environmental catastrophe. The position we are in is novel in terms of its scale, and scope, but it is a familiar story in terms of it's basic narrative. A human civilization approaches the limits of what it's ecosystem can support. Some civilizations adjust; they kill all their pigs, make infanticide a normal social practice, move away from the volcano. Others don't. Sometimes the circumstances they found themselves in proved impossible to overcome.
From my reading, the civilizations that survived had three things in common. First, they recognized their peril and actively worked to overcome it. Second, they tended to be less hierarchical societies capable of making adjustments. And third, their 'crisis' was such that it included the possibility of some resolution.
I'd like to see the carbon tax made revenue neutral by cuts to state and local sales taxes. The carbon tax will be regressive. It makes less sense to me to balance a regressive tax increase with a progressive tax cut. Sales tax cuts will also have the effect of retail price stabilization. Firms will pass on their increased costs in the form of a price increase. Neutralize this with a retail price cut. Also – goods and services which are inherently more energy efficient in their manufacture and distribution will benefit, as they will become cheaper.
Screw it. Why not pass on all the carbon tax revenue directly to local and state governments?
That should read – “just as likely as the predicted best case” – of course.
Point well made, Will. Naomi Klein clearly has the Shock Doctrine backwards. That said, I think the returns to your time and energy spent on the comments section are quickly diminishing.
First, I think that the debate regarding cost-benefit that Will brings up is separate from where many tend to drift via heated emotions, as it were, over Climate Change (to be spoken – “GINGIVITIS!”). There are scientists not in the direct employ of evil corporate overlords who think that the warming we're experiencing is not solely the cause of humans, indeed, some say 95% is due to naturally occurring water vapor. These men, like the 200 economists who opposed the stimulus, are not cranks, but are meant to appear as such. The scientists who think we are causing climate change have valid points as well.
But infinitely more important than being anti or pro science, or even what you believe about global warming, is the fact that scientific fact is not, and was never meant to be determined via “consensus”, the bandied about phrase used to deploy arguments for the devastating economic legislation Will speaks of. Regardless of probability, there is some serious moral hazard to defining a field, previously categorized by its determination of the truth via provable hypotheses, by mob rule. If that were the norm, progress would have halted at the public forums which declared some of our greatest minds certified lunatics at best, heretics at worst. The problem with climate change, is it is nearly impossible to submit to scientific tests and proofs. To label those who disagree with the hastily and misleadingly assembled IPCC corrupt hacks, and thence declare the debate over is to me one of the worst inclinations of a supposedly advanced people, and displays a truly craven venality behind those who believe in global warming.
I also see a lot of people carrying their own recusable bags into my local grocery store, Ben.
And I don't hear anyone squealing about the city-wide recycling effort, either.
Face it, “Green” is now a far more popular political movement than Libertarianism ever has been.
Why let your jealousy, a different kind of Green, bias everything you write?
There are people who deny the germ theory of disease. There are people who hold that Einstein was a crank. There are people with PhDs who reject Evolution by Natural Selection. Cool Cal – do you think these people are “cranks”? I do.
People don't want to pay it, they want rich people and corporations to pay for it. That's really the point of the Shock Doctrine: pushing through policies that go against the basic well being of the average person and benefits a few in power. I don't think you have a strong argument that this is going to be the case, especially since the loudest voices against this are claiming that Obama's trying to bring Socialism to the US. That's the exact opposite direction of pro-Capitalist shocks.
She's late! Rahm beat her to the punch!
Dude, this has nothing to do with jealousy. I have no doubt that greenness is fashionable. I do have strong doubts that any polity is willing to make any serious sacrifices in the short and medium term in order to avert climate change.
I take it you don't have children, Ben?
Wow I never thought I would be the lone voice here on flybottle crying for free markets, not taxes. But here it is: carbon markets, not carbon taxes. Trade it, don't tax it!
Because those local governments aren't at all well supervised and can be just as bad if not worse in aggregate with waste as the feds. At least with the Fed govt, you can centralize watchdoging.
“the lone voice here on flybottle crying for free markets, not taxes.”
Webgrrl – it's not a free market. It's a collection of government regulates and imposed mandates.
Sure. There isn't a percentage sign anywhere. But it's still state confiscation of the products of your labor.
The Obama government plan – to annually sell carbon credits and then allow them to be traded freely? It's a tax!
Delusional people never cease to amaze me. Somehow the government demanding something by law is 'the free market'. Orwell would be proud.
There is at least one strawman in “'climate change' not needing immediate action.”
The moderate course is to start a trip of 1000 miles with a few steps. The suggestion that we don't know enough, or don't have the money, to make those few steps, is wrong.
“Climate change” is a bogus issue. Even it was real (which it isn't) it is laughable to think that some kind of centrally planned (i.e. socialist) government action would fix the problem. Politicians have no real interest in “fixing” or “saving” anything – it is in their interest to find, invent and exacerbate crises. Public panic is what gets the vote out, and fear is the fuel that allows politicians to seize more power and money. “Give me all your money or the planet gets it!” LOL.
The leftards whip up fear over climate change in order to win elections and transfer billions of dollars to their pals, and the rightards lie about the problems of the middle east, N. Korea, etc. so they can win elections and transfer billions of dollars to their pals in the arms and energy industries. They're all socialists – one leaning more toward the communist side, one tending to fascism, but their tactics and their goals are exactly the same. Find a problem where none exists, whip up the brainless partisan stooges into a frenzy, scare the public, get your hands on the wheels of power, distribute the loot to your friends. Repeat.
I don't know if you are referring to the constantly evolving field of quantum physics, which at certain points has caused a few of Eintein's theories to fade into academic obsolescence, or the Nazis who rejected his science outright simply because he was a Jew. But in terms of Evolution by Natural Selection – this is a field that has do do with so many different disciplines from anthropology to archeology to cellular biology to genetics. There are certain aspects of Evolution which are theoretical, albeit highly credible in comparison to Young Earth Theory, and others which are in fact, VERIFIABLE IN A LABORATORY, such as those dealing with cells, bacteria, and the like. Generally if someone rejects an entire field, which consists of both theory and proven fact, it seems he is ignoring the complexities of the situation for other reasons. Likewise, if one equivocates deniers of a field who conflate testable hypotheses and theoretical anthropology and those who question the untestable assertions of an inherently unprovable hypothesis, I would say he is guilty of the same generalization that Evolution deniers are when they ignore the difference between “Darwinism” and “Evolutionary Biology”.
In short … it's apples and oranges.
“A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming.[49] A summary from the survey states that:
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”[50] “
If 97% of volcanologists said to evacuate a town because a volcano was going to erupt, would you ignore them?
If 97% of astronomers said an asteroid was going to hit at a certain area, would you stay in that location and just hope the 3% were right?
If 97% of meteorologists say a cat-5 hurricane is going to touch down on an area, someone stays and the hurricane happens not to hit, is that someone a genius?
All of this discussion is the epitome of contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism, and argument because the people advocating a change happen to be on the other side of the political spectrum.
OK. I say, improve the computer models. Paint some roofs white.
“A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming.[49] A summary from the survey states that:
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”[50] “
If 97% of volcanologists said to evacuate a town because a volcano was going to erupt, would you ignore them?
If 97% of astronomers said an asteroid was going to hit at a certain area, would you stay in that location and just hope the 3% were right?
If 97% of meteorologists say a cat-5 hurricane is going to touch down on an area, someone stays and the hurricane happens not to hit, is that someone a genius?
All of this discussion is the epitome of contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism, and argument because the people advocating a change happen to be on the other side of the political spectrum.
OK. I say, improve the computer models. Paint some roofs white.