Conservative/Libertarian economics and anthropic global warming

[popeyespappy]

It’s been my experience that many conservatives and libertarians deny anthropic global warming. I believe this line of thinking is affected by belief bias with its roots in objections to proposed policies that would limit emissions of greenhouse gasses. I this thread I would like to discuss not the science of anthropic warming, that has been discussed in other threads, but the economic consequences of man-man climate change and how that effects the basic precept of property rights.

In his paper TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS SERIOUSLY: THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, libertarian lawyer Jonathan H. Adler argues the point that the do nothing attitude about climate change currently favored by conservatives and libertarians is a serious transgression against the property rights of those who stand to lose the most economically from such change. In the paper he concludes that advocates of free market environmentalism (FME) need to adjust their thinking.

This essay has argued that if FME advocates truly take property rights seriously, and reject utilitarian justifications for violating property rights, then they should reconsider their approach to global climate change policy. The focus on net welfare and other concerns in the context of climate change by many FME advocates represents a rejection of the libertarian principles upon which FME is based. There is nothing inconsistent with FME about opposing draconian emission-reduction policies or other mitigation measures that are unlikely to address the threat of climate change. But identifying policies to oppose is no substitute for identifying policies to support. While continuing to oppose global regulatory schemes, which may pose their own threats to property rights and individual liberty, FME adherents should consider the viability of various international compensation or indemnification mechanisms. An international liability regime, for instance, might come closer to realizing FME principles than the status quo.

[Minimalist]

When Void shows up.....it's the middle of the fucking night in New Zealand I guess....he'll explain all about how the invisible hand of the market will save us from global warming if we just let crooked corporations steal everything that isn't nailed down.

His invisible hand of the market is a lot like the theists invisible sky-daddy....although he denies that!!

[popeyespappy]

I keep hoping to get a libertarian to bite on this but so far no joy.

[Minimalist]

Give Void a little time. He thinks he's a true libertarian....unlike the republicolibertarianazi scumbags we have in the US.

I wasn't kidding about New Zealand....that's where he is.

[Ashendant]

Well

[reverendjeremiah]

waiting for void or Adrian to show up in 5.....4....3....2....

[theVOID]

It’s been my experience that many conservatives and libertarians deny anthropic global warming. I believe this line of thinking is affected by belief bias with its roots in objections to proposed policies that would limit emissions of greenhouse gasses. I this thread I would like to discuss not the science of anthropic warming, that has been discussed in other threads, but the economic consequences of man-man climate change and how that effects the basic precept of property rights.

In his paper TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS SERIOUSLY: THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, libertarian lawyer Jonathan H. Adler argues the point that the do nothing attitude about climate change currently favored by conservatives and libertarians is a serious transgression against the property rights of those who stand to lose the most economically from such change. In the paper he concludes that advocates of free market environmentalism (FME) need to adjust their thinking.

I agree with that, I've held this position for some time, environmental damage effects property rights and our right to life, as such the government has a role in preventing the thwarting of rights, though I don't believe government are going to come up with a solution nor is their proposed method of planned development going to be the best use of resources for solving the problems and that the demand for resource efficiency as energy prices rise and fossil fuel reserves are depleted is going to be the main driving force behind any change - As such the best policy would be to remove taxes on efficient consumer and commercial goods making them more viable.

The government has a role to prevent someone else from 'dirtying my shit' as Freidman put it, Because it is unfeasible for individuals to seek compensation for the cost imposed upon them the government have a responsibility to enforce the rights of others in penalizing or dismantling institutions that thwart such rights.

When Void shows up.....it's the middle of the fucking night in New Zealand I guess....he'll explain all about how the invisible hand of the market will save us from global warming if we just let crooked corporations steal everything that isn't nailed down.

His invisible hand of the market is a lot like the theists invisible sky-daddy....although he denies that!!

The 'invisible hand' is nothing more than people pursing their own interests and capital being most efficiently used to cater to the greatest demand, that rather than the government planning the economy in such a way as to suit the agenda of elected officials with a 'we know best' elitist attitude we should let people pursue their own ends and only intervene to stop them imposing their will on others or punishing them if they do so.

It has absolutely nothing in common with a top-down designer approach such as God, it is instead the idea that central planning and enforced authority should take place that more resembles the proposed role of God in evolution.

Your thinking that all corporations do is steal stuff is bullshit, it stems from your sense of entitlement. You are only entitled to your life, your property and to freely pursue your goals so long as you don't do so by imposing your will on others - If you are free to do that then nobody is "stealing" from you.

The way you use the word 'steal' is to rob it of all real meaning, stealing is the removal of property from your possession against your will. If you really think that is happening to you then go take them to court and stop bitching on the internet about it.

[popeyespappy]

It’s been my experience that many conservatives and libertarians deny anthropic global warming. I believe this line of thinking is affected by belief bias with its roots in objections to proposed policies that would limit emissions of greenhouse gasses. I this thread I would like to discuss not the science of anthropic warming, that has been discussed in other threads, but the economic consequences of man-man climate change and how that effects the basic precept of property rights.

In his paper TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS SERIOUSLY: THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, libertarian lawyer Jonathan H. Adler argues the point that the do nothing attitude about climate change currently favored by conservatives and libertarians is a serious transgression against the property rights of those who stand to lose the most economically from such change. In the paper he concludes that advocates of free market environmentalism (FME) need to adjust their thinking.

I agree with that, I've held this position for some time, environmental damage effects property rights and our right to life, as such the government has a role in preventing the thwarting of rights, though I don't believe government are going to come up with a solution nor is their proposed method of planned development going to be the best use of resources for solving the problems and that the demand for resource efficiency as energy prices rise and fossil fuel reserves are depleted is going to be the main driving force behind any change - As such the best policy would be to remove taxes on efficient consumer and commercial goods making them more viable.

The government has a role to prevent someone else from 'dirtying my shit' as Freidman put it, Because it is unfeasible for individuals to seek compensation for the cost imposed upon the government have a responsibility to enforce the rights of others in penalizing or dismantling institutions that thwart such rights.

So how do you propose the industrial world compensate those whose property rights are negatively affected by anthropic global warming? The worst of which will probably be at some point in the future when those of us who are currently contributing the most to the future damage will be dead and beyond caring.

Also, did you know the US government is currently sitting on about $50 trillion worth of weapons grade nuclear material that could be converted into fuel for highly efficient 4th generation breeder reactors?

[theVOID]

There is no sensible mechanism by which industry and individuals can negotiate their own compensation.... "Because it is unfeasible for individuals to seek compensation for the cost imposed upon the government have a responsibility to enforce the rights of others in penalizing or dismantling institutions that thwart such rights."

Great, now go tell them to sell their nuclear grade reserves to power plants or promise them to entrepreneurs who build plants, you would have lots of relatively cheap and efficient fuel... But the chances of your government actually doing that are pretty slim.

[popeyespappy]

There is no sensible mechanism by which industry and individuals can negotiate their own compensation.... "Because it is unfeasible for individuals to seek compensation for the cost imposed upon the government have a responsibility to enforce the rights of others in penalizing or dismantling institutions that thwart such rights."

So either the government puts limits on the production of greenhouse gasses or places taxes on said production that would be used to compensate victims?

Great, now go tell them to sell their nuclear grade reserves to power plants or promise them to entrepreneurs who build plants, you would have lots of relatively cheap and efficient fuel... But the chances of your government actually doing that are pretty slim.

Actually that’s what a group of US climatologists have been advocating for years. Unfortunately their contributions to political PAC funds pale in comparison to big energy.