The Dawn Treader

I suspect you hear whining because most people aren't environmentalists. Why don't hear cheering? Well I'm not really an environmentalist, but why should I let that get in the way of a sweeping generalization based on a sample size of 1? :)

There's a perception that environmentalists want us all to wear hair shirts while we cook our tofu soup over a dung fire. I imagine that there are some individuals who would like that, and I happily stand up and call them weirdos. The great majority of people concerned with the environment want us to take action because, simply, we're screwing up the planet, quite possibly irretrievably. The concern isn't that all life will die (hugely unlikely), or even that the exact set of animals we currently have will be altered (though that is a sad thing). No, the problem for a great many environmentalists is that we will wreck the foundations of civilization, which is bad because it adversely affects *people*.

So, no cheering because things are happening already to affect those same people, in this case making fuel that many people are forced to depend on for lack of alternatives less affordable. I support higher fuel costs (and I live in England, where it's already not what you'd call cheap at around $7 per gallon), BUT ONLY if alternatives to its use such as more efficient cars, more public transport, widespread cycle routes, etc. are provided. Just making people suffer so that oil producing companies and nations can get richer doesn't help people.

Similarly I want natural gas and electric to be more expensive, with the extra revenue used to subsidize solar heating systems, energy efficiency programs etc. Better we do it when we can control and exploit it (in a good way) rather than have it forced upon us.

My apologies for the lack of fluency in the above (which is 10% down to a too-small edit box, and 90% down to me!) The sentiment you're expressing is exactly the sort of misperception that harms progress on green issues, and I find it desparately distressing. That doesn't make for coherency in my case. So please question what I wrote and I'll try to be clearer.

I don't know if this counts, but when my wife and I see someone filling up a Ford Excursion or other behemoth SUV while we fill up the Honda Civic, we are frequently inclined to mutter "Ha Ha" in our best Nelson Muntz imitation.

Rob,

If oil is cheap then there are very few people willing spend gobs of money to develop clean reasonable inexpensive replacement technology. That's how the market works. The more people whining about the price of oil the bigger the market for alternatives becomes and the more money people are willing to spend to bring that technology into existence and make money selling to that market.

Re: Oil prices
Personally I think it is a good thing that oil is so expensive, and I hope the price rises. However that doesn't mean the increasing price of oil isn't hurting me and my finances, it is. So I'm not going to cheer about it until after the cheaper cleaner technology is in my grasp.

You're not happy at the 25th mile of the marathon, you're happy when you've completed it. Your experience at the 25th mile is probably not one of enjoyment.

Unfortunately, the price of oil is not going up so much as the value of the dollar is going down. Europeans are not seeing the cost of fuel going up anywhere near as much as Americans because they have not been engaging in the Americans' absurd fiscal and monetary policies.

I do not see much for an environmentalist to cheer about. One of the reasons gas is so high is soaring global demand. Even if we are reducing our dependence on oil in the west lets look at global reality.

China-economy is exploding with new money. I was blown away watching a show on the economic boom in China and wathing a Chinese salesman selling a Hummer to a family... WOW! They also have smog clouds in Hong Kong so thick it makes Los Angeles look like paradise.

India-I have spent a fair amount of time there. There is nothing like trying to cram a newer built van into a street that was made for rikshaws, not vehicles. It is a problem everywhere.

Globally nothing is getting better for the environment, just the major players are changing, and unfortunately they are years behind us in cleaner fuel technology. We are not all that far along ourselves though, that is the scarry part.

matt curtis:

I'm afraid you contradict yourself. On one hand, you say that the free market is capable of responding to environmental issues, but on the other hand claim that relatively limited sales of hybrids and other high-efficiency are evidence that it's failing to do so.

The problem is that from a market perspective, "environmentally friendly" vehicles (and other such products) are a niche market, and always will be, until such time as the problems are so blindingly obvious, that it will probably too late to do anything about them.

It's a well-known fact that consumer behavior is short-sighted. So how is "the market" ever going to compensate for that and encourage people, en masse, to look past the short term and into the long-term? In free market capitalism, that sort of thing is vanishingly rare. Maybe you have examples of where people in massive numbers have taken a short-term hit in order to enable long-term progress, and have done so in the complete absence of government intervention, but I sure can't think of any.

The market cares about profit, and profit only. Absent controls like government regulation, "the market" would happily sell your grandmother into slavery if it thought it could make a quick buck. You free-market types accuse "big government" types of thinking government is some magical solution, that solves all problems, and of being blind to the problems with government and regulation. But if you were to look in the mirror, you'd see that you're guilty of precisely the same thing: an unquestioning belief in the Gospel of the Free Market, where society would become Utopia and everyone would get a pony, if only the eeeevil government would get out of the way.

Real life doesn't work that way. Unrestrained "free market" capitalism is every bit as bad as complete socialism. Which is why I argue that the market and regulation must exist in tension, with neither gaining too much influence over the other.

Paul:
The benefits that come from things like oil and coal are already factored into the economy, but the harm that they do is too often missed.

There's an economic term for this: that's called an "externality," and the market sucks, sucks, SUCKS at accounting for them.

I forgot another interesting piece of matt curtis's libertarian logic. Were you aware that a problem isn't really a problem worth addressing until consumers recognize it as such, and start spending money accordingly? I didn't know that either. :)

Much to respond to...

Paul, you flatly state that the market is incapable of responding and assert that diesel engines can be modified to prevent 12,000 premature deaths per year. At what expense to the manufactures of those engines? Will those engines be more or less efficient? If less efficient, then presumably more fuel is necessary leading to increases in the expense of operating the engine and higher fuel prices because of increased demand. And how will that impact the rates of premature death? Fewer diesel operated trucks bringing food and medical supplies to regions in need? Higher food costs because of increased shipping costs?

And what about adding a tax on coal burners? The coal-fired power plants will see their profits cut and, in response, raise the price of the power they provide to consumers. How many premature deaths will be caused by power outages or lack of heat or air conditioning?

After I penned the post above, I happened to hear a story on NPR about efforts by environmental scientists in Antarctica to study the impact an increase in water temperature might have on sea life under the ice shelves. Can you guess how the environmental scientists got from their base to the ice shelf? They each hopped onto their snowmobile! And from the account of the reporter along for the ride, they had a blast doing it, "catching air" when they could.

--matt

Tom,

There are simply too many things left unstated in your hypotheticals - a lot of pretty indefinite "what ifs". However, let me suggest a couple of examples of market reactions.

First, I'm sure that you're aware of the present plight of the honeybees which thus far is unexplained. In short, honeybees are dying and no one knows why. Honeybees are, of course, a pretty essential part of our ecosystem and the increasing shortage of honeybees has apparently already threatened the growing of nuts in California. Harvesters and bee owners are facing some potentially very severe consequences. Consumers are as well. Hagen Dasz, which relies on the pollination function of honeybees for many of its ice cream ingredients has launched an effort to discover the cause. Granted, this is a smaller scale problem, accepting the assumptions you propose, than global warming, but the response to is has been significant and quick.

On the global warming issue, the science and conclusions are simply too weak at this point to justify the action called for by environmentalists. Moreover, assuming a global increase in temperature, do we really understand the implications?

Let me ask you two questions. What are the costs of implementing the most stringent restrictions on green house gases? What will those restrictions produce as benefits?

--matt

Paul,

I may have phrased my response poorly, but I did not mean to suggest that the fuel efficiency of the diesel engines modified to burn cleaner would necessarily suffer. Rather, my intent was only to raise questions about what had been considered in coming to the conclusion that 12,000 premature deaths could be prevented.

You discuss fuel efficiency versus performance. I will be the first one to admit that the desire for higher performance is often at least partially driven by ego and simply a desire to drive fast. I will also agree that these reasons stack up pretty poorly against saving money at the pump and potentially lessening our impact on the climate. But, I again go back to my previous assertion: the free market, though imperfect, works better than other economic systems.

I start with the assumption that individuals are imperfect and essentially self-interested. That does not mean that people cannot sometimes overcome self-interest and act for the sole benefit of others. It simply means that as a general rule individuals act primarily for their own benefit and that any economic system must take that into account. Even the desire to act collectively is often based upon self-interest: establishing a police force, creating a military, or instituting a social welfare system is still largely driven by the desire to promote one's own security.

Frankly, from the information you cited about increasing average fuel consumption, it appears that the market is functioning well. Over that 20 year span, there was a period where gas was relatively cheap and many consumers purchsed light trucks, SUVs, and minivans. I expect that data would show that as fuel prices rose over the last two years, the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles also rose. Thus, I would expect that the data for the next couple of years will show that average household consumption leveled out or decreased as more alternative fuel vehicles come onto the roads.

Finally, I am confident that if there is a cleaner, more efficient alternative to fossil fuels, it will be discovered and marketed. The profit motive guarantees it.

A closing question: Please show me in what country and for what market the greatest number of innovations are occurring in fuel/energy technology. Is it the most heavily regulated, or one of the least?

--matt

Please show me in what country and for what market the greatest number of innovations are occurring in fuel/energy technology.

Believe it or not, it's China. :)

tgirsch, I know the hypothetical regarding the imminent destruction of the Earth as a result of pollution or whatever wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to weigh in. If somehow we could KNOW that what you postulated was true, then it would be in everyone's long-term best interest to immediately make the necessary changes. I see no reason at all why this would have to be mandated by the government, again, assuming that everyone KNEW what you said was true.

If you assume, as I think you do, that individuals would not act out of their own self-interest in such a scenario, you do so on the basis of your belief that they are ignorant of the long-term consequences of their actions. Yet this contradicts the very basis of your hypothetical. So the response that I expect from you--that government regulation is the solution--is based on an assumption that is not feasible given the constraints of your hypothetical.

tgirsch,

Well, then, the problem is with your hypothetical. Because how can you on one hand propose that it is a fact that the end of the world is near but on the other hand limit the number of people who have knowledge of that fact? I think your hypothetical falls apart unless everyone believes the same thing. Otherwise, it's just a prediction.

And if everyone believes--really knows--that the world is going to end, what evidence is there that people would not act rationally? Self-interest would drive people to do what was necessary to prevent the end of the world.

As to your smoking comparison, once you introduce psychotropic chemicals to the equation, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Sure, you can say that Americans are "addicted to oil," but that's like saying we're addicted to toothpaste. If we found out tomorrow that using toothpaste was going to kill us, people would stop using toothpaste. And even if the comparison to smoking is apposite, I'd quibble over whether "knowing" that smoking is bad for you is the same thing as "knowing" that the world is going to be destroyed.

Well, then, the problem is with your hypothetical. Because how can you on one hand propose that it is a fact that the end of the world is near but on the other hand limit the number of people who have knowledge of that fact?

Huh? I don't see any apparent contradiction here. The smoking example, despite your attempts to dismissively wave it away, is a perfect counterexample to what you're talking about that. But if you don't buy that, then fine: fried food.

If we found out tomorrow that using toothpaste was going to kill us, people would stop using toothpaste.

Sorry, but the only way that happens that way is if toothpaste kills us very quickly, and there's a readily accessible replacement. People in the aggregate react to easily-identifiable imminent threats (real or imagined), but when it comes to slow-moving, long-term processes, not so much. This seems to me to be self-evidently true, and I'm shocked that anyone would dispute it. The examples of both types are numerous.

I'm a little confused by your comments on knowledge, Steve. Most of the people who visit this site would say that there is no greater truth than God's love for us through Christ, yet a majority of the world doesn't *know* that. For us to really know something universally (or as near as makes no difference) it has to be almost blindingly obvious, on the order of the world being round obvious. I'd suggest that if the world ever reached the point where we really knew that it was doomed, it would already have made 'The Day After Tomorrow' look like 'A Year In Provence'.

It seems to me that we have 3 choices when faced with possible climate change. We could assume it's just not true, until we're proven wrong. That's tempting, but the price we'd pay *could* be devastating. We could embrace it wholeheartedly, immediately shut down anything that produced any carbon, and live like Buddhist hermits. That might be exactly the right thing to do, but the costs attached with it are so high that it's not clearly better than doing nothing.

That leaves us with a middle path. We can see the logic behind the idea of global warming, we can see that there's at least some evidence for it, but we can also reasonably believe that the case isn't yet proven. Inaction in such a framework becomes untenable; waiting until we really knew would put us so far in the hole that we'd never dig our way out. But going all-out is also out of the question. So then we start to make changes in those things that are essentially free (fuel-efficient cars, low-energy lightbulbs, solar water heating etc.)

The problem with waiting for the free market to do this, as previously stated, is that free markets are almost entirely useless at taking precautions over the long term. Lots of companies use forms of hedging to protect themselves in the cost of fuel, financing and other staples. But the longer out they make that 'bet' the more likely they are to be undercut and put out of business by a company that doesn't bother with the cost of the hedge. And that's just an attempt to protect themselves against things everyone agrees on; a company that tries to hedge against climate change better have some serious reserves, because in the short term it might as well burn the money.

To reply to another post - I've often seen the idea of a factory upstream from another paying for the damage it causes to the downstream factory's water supply. It's a fine idea, and I'm sure it wouldn't take more than a decade or two for the parties to agree on a suitable figure in that one case. The bigger problem is that most externalities are really external. For example, that same factory is emitting pollution that is limiting the growth of trees in a 10 mile radius. How much should the factory pay the landowner per inch of growth lost, when the trees are there for the landowner to enjoy, not for timber? And how much should the 2 million people who live downwind of the factory, who are having their lives shortened by up to 3 hours by the pollution caused? Working something like that out across the globe makes climate modeling look as challenging as tic-tac-toe!

Steve:
The problem is, I guess, with what it means to know something. I'm saying that I don't think you can propose that something like the end of the world is known and then limit the number of people who know it--because ignorance and knowledge are mutually exclusive.

Huh? First of all, let's do away with talking about the "end of the world." Second, there are lots of things that are true that are largely unknown or misunderstood among the general public. Why would you expect this not to be the case here?

The fact is you can't find a perfect real-world analogue to your hypothetical because there are too many variables that go into it.

That it's not perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't be answered. For the sake of argument, it's intentionally simplified. That's the whole point, actually. If you want to reduce the number of variables that go in, fine, then let's get specific (pulling numbers out of the air): Suppose we need to reduce the total worldwide production of CO2 by 20% within the next ten years, or else there will be a 30% reduction in rainfall. How does "the market" address this? The market wants to get money now while the getting is good. And the longer term investors will simply start buying and hoarding water and water rights like a commodity.

And by the way, "government agencies" are way behind the curve on "knowing" about global warming and the bad consequences thereof. Scientists have been warning us about this for more than two decades!

But ultimately, the problem here is that truth is not a democracy. What's true is true, irrespective of how many people know the truth. If you're a Christian, you probably "know" that Christ died for your sins, and that Christianity is the One True Religion(tm). Yet more than two thirds of the world still doesn't "know" that. Does that make it less true, in your estimation?

And now I see, with embarrassment, that Paul has already taken that exact same line of argument. Which should tell you that the flaw in your reasoning was plainly obvious. :)

If we don't attribute perfect knowledge to everyone, then your hypothetical can't be tested because there are too many variables.

You've just made all hypotheticals disappear in a puff of logic. Nobody (except God, if you believe in him) has "perfect knowledge." That doesn't mean we can't act based on the best knowledge we do have. By the way, if "the market" relies on "perfect knowledge" to work properly, that might explain why it messes up so badly from time to time!

I realize that I'm not getting my point across, so I'll say one last thing and then cross my fingers. When I discuss having perfect knowledge, I do so in the context of the hypothetical proposed by tgirsch, which, I believe, is the following:

Assume, just for the sake of argument, that anthropogenic global warming is a real problem, that it is overwhelmingly caused by human consumption of carbon-based fuels, that its consequences will be very bad, and that the only way to stop it is to drastically reduce human consumption of fossil fuels within the next five to ten years.

Please don't take anything I say to be about actual global warming--I think I've been very clear about this, but I am confining my comments to tgirsch's hypothetical because I think it is flawed in a way that he refuses to acknowledge. If we assume, as we must to test the hypothetical, that we can somehow know that the consequences of global warming "will be very bad," then I am trying to understand what it means to have that knowledge. If it merely means that some number of humans (less than all) have some evidence (less than absolute certainty) that global warming will be bad unless habits are changed, then I submit that this is inconsistent with true knowledge of a future event, and the hypothetical is worthless because it has too many variables. Stepping outside the hypothetical, we normally don't have that kind of perfect knowledge about anything in the world, as some of you have pointed out. Yet, again, remember that I am discussing the meaning of the hypothetical.

If, instead, we define the knowledge in question as complete knowledge by all humans of all of the ramifications of unchecked energy use, then I don't think there can be any doubt that we would all simply change our behavior. Again, please note how I am commenting only on the hypothetical--that seems to have thrown some of you off. My overall point, thus, is that the hypothetical, which I imagine tgirsch thinks is a clever way to trap those who don't favor additional government interference, actually does nothing of the sort. Rather, it is either (a) a ridiculous exercise in which a critical term is defined in contravention of its typical definition or (b) an example of how the free market works in the ideal sense.

Steve Clarke:

I'm afraid you're still not making any sense. Knowledge is not relevant to the hypothetical at all. Truth is. But let me revise the hypothetical slightly to try to address your objection. Suppose you knew, with 99% certainty, that global warming was real, that it was primarily caused by human CO2 production, and that if left unchecked, the results are likely to include dramatic increases in drought, famine, and disease. What actions would you recommend to correct the problem? What others believe does not sway you: you are absolutely convinced. If it helps, put yourself in a position of power: make yourself emperor of the world. What do you propose?

As to your suggestion that if everyone had "perfect knowledge" that global warming met the criteria I listed above, then everyone would magically change their behavior for the better (and by enough of a degree to make a real difference), I disagree with that, too, on the basis that people are by nature short-sighted, and that when their short-term interests and long-term interests are in apparent conflict, they almost always act in accordance with their short-term interests, irrespective of their relative weights or importances. But I also submit that this hypothetical is far more absurd than anything I've suggested. (Further, I submit that your "knowledge" objection could be thrown out as an objection to pretty much any hypothetical that anyone suggests, as a means of avoiding addressing it directly.)

Again, I return to the fried food example. Everybody "knows" that fried food is bad for them, but they really don't know just how bad, or precisely how and when this will affect them. So, against your claim that people will act in their own self-interest, in this case, they don't -- at least, not their long-term self-interest (health); instead, they favor their short-term interest (they like fried food). Unless it's something abundantly clear, precise, and immediate (e.g., if you eat this, you'll die within an hour), it doesn't have the huge impact on behavior that you seem to think it does.

What I've described in my hypothetical, on the other hand, is very close to being true today. The overwhelming weight of expert opinion is in concurrence that the CO2->Warming connection is real, and that the consequences of continued warming will be far-reaching and largely very bad for humanity. Models predict more severe weather, periods of extended drought, rising sea levels, etc. There are very few credible experts who dispute these predictions, and of those few, most are on the payroll of the hydrocarbon energy industry, a serious conflict of interest.

Further, Republican strategy guru Frank Luntz authored a now-infamous memo advising GOP candidates to work to cast doubt on the science of global warming, because if people believe global warming is a real problem, Republican policies look bad and lose. He recommended strategies similar to those used by tobacco firms for years, as they denied the science of a link between smoking and cancer. So it's not as if I'm imagining this concerted effort to distort the science.

(In case Matt Curtis is reading, and wants to demand a cite, here:
The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

...snip...

The environment, the memo says, "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable".

Matt - I remain puzzled by your response! Let me try to use another example to illustrate my confusion. We don't *know* that capitalism is the right economic/political path to follow. The vast majority of (at least Western) economists think that it is, though they vary widely on any number of parameters that play into it such as regulation. We have evidence that, while not conclusive, is sufficient to convince these knowledgeable people and many others. We have models that we know are flawed, but still seem useful in making general predictions, and they predict that capitalism is 'a good thing'.

Now you seem to be suggesting that we abandon capitalism because we don't, and indeed probably can't, *know* that capitalism is the right choice. I won't bother wasting the pixels here, but I think I could quite easily modify the 6 questions you ask to apply to the theory of capitalism.

Now I'm sure you could come back with the (very reasonable) defense that we have to have some sort of system, that there is really no such thing as no system; the choices we make inevitably aggregate to something that theorists could put a label on. I'd agree with you 100%, and then point out that we're doing the same thing with the environment. We already have an environmental policy, it's just a staggeringly stupid one. Even if you think that we happened to luck out and grow up on a world that will automatically compensate for any abuse we throw at it, literally burning oil, a limited and valuable resource, for fun has to count as stupid.

Paul,

It appears that you largely misunderstood my last post - probably due to my inartful statement of my positions, critiques, etc.

I addressed a number of things including the hypothetical posed by Tom. First of all, let me say that I do not disagree with you that using hypotheticals, assuming certain things to be true, can be a useful way of testing possible courses of action. In fact, I do it all the time in my line of work.

Your concern appears to be with my addressing the degree of knowledge possessed by the U.S. or the World of the facts assumed in the hypothetical. I asked that question not to raise the issue of perfect knowledge, or, in that part of my post, to challenge the linkage between knowledge and fact. Knowledge, whether it is correct or incorrect, plays an essential part in the market. Consequently, in addressing a hypothetical that makes certain assumptions and asks for a description of how the market would respond to the assumed facts, it is necessary to make some assumption about what is believed by market actors. You simply cannot begin to assess what the market response would be until you make some assumption about the beliefs of its actors. For purposes of answering Tom's hypothetical, it doesn't matter whether the beliefs are actually true, but it is essential to know what the actors are assumed to believe.

The latter part of my post was unrelated to the hypothetical other than that the issue arose during discussion of the hypothetical. That issue was Tom's correct assertion that truth is independent of what someone believes to be true, and his additional correct assertion that truth is not subject to a democratic process. I took issue with his later post suggesting that the issue of global warming and its cause is settled because of the scientific consensus and the conflicts of interest possessed by its naysayers. I won't go on about the latter assertion other than to say that it is a classic fallacious argument (an ad hominem).

The first point he made, however, is simply the suggestion that the thing (global warming caused by man) must be true because so many scientists say it is. This assertion was clearly in contrast with his previous correct statements that truth or fact is not a popularity contest or subject to a vote.

What I am ultimately arguing in this thread is the following: (1) the free market, as a general rule, is better at responding to and addressing problems than government regulation; (2) that no system, including the free market, is perfect; (3) that choosing to address certain problems with government regulation is usually destructive of the overall free market system because it has an impact on incentives (the idea that if you bail out one company because of the likely bad effects on the economy caused by its failure, makes the market more likely to take unwarranted risks because of the expectation that there will be another bailout in the future); (4) that there are other interests at stake, such as liberty, that are better preserved by the market; (5) that those other interests are often more important than whatever harm the market might allow without government interference; (6) that perfect knowledge about future events is unobtainable; (7) that neither the market, science, nor government will ever possess perfect knowledge concerning future events; (8) that it is unnecessary - even ridiculous - to require perfect knowledge before determining a course of action; (9) the global warming crowd has rushed to conclusions for which there is not currently sufficient support, both as to the causes and effects of global warming; (10) that proponents of government action to address global warming have not adequately considered the consequences of their proposed actions or possible alternatives; and (11) it is frankly ridiculous to suggest that there is insufficient motivation within the private sector to come up with alternative energy sources that are renewable and/or cleaner.

--matt

matt curtis:

Again, if only you demanded that level of certitude for things like starting wars with foreign countries...

Seriously, I direct you to Paul's response concerning hypotheticals. The point of a hypothetical is to intentionally simplify: to start from the generalities and work toward specifics. I continue to view your demand for detailed specifics (which will likely lead to another demand for even further specifics) as away of avoiding the overarching general question. It's frankly disingenuous.

But just for fun, I'll take your points one by one:

(1) What are the bad things that will necessarily happen if we do not implement changes such as those proposed by Kyoto?

I believe I've already mentioned some of these, but you're looking at extended periods of drought in some areas and the subsequent shortages of fresh water (also hydroelectric power implications in the west); increasing strength and frequency of severe storms; sea level increases threatening coastal areas; the extinction of coral reef ecosystems (harming both the tourism and commercial fishing industries); increased occurrence of disease (warmer temperatures are more hospitable to many pathogens); greater problems with insect infestation; just to name a few.

(2) What segment of the World's population (or just the U.S.'s) will recognize and agree?

Seriously? Does it matter? In an even broader hypothetical, if X is the right thing to do, should we do X, or wait for everyone else to do it first?

A more serious response, however, is to take action here in the US, and use our still-substantial economic power to influence our trade partners to make similar changes.

(3) What specific changes are necessary?

A substantial reduction in CO2 output. As previously mentioned, the two best ways of doing that are investments in renewable (non-fossil-fuel) energy sources like wind, wave, and solar, and improved efficiency.

(4) How will those necessary changes impact global warming?

They will slow the rate at which the planet warms, hopefully buying time to improve technology to a point where more dramatic improvements can be made.

(5) What are the costs, including externalities, of implementing the necessary changes?

Already asked and answered, although nobody can predict this with certainty. Also, people in glass houses, and all that: "the market" would do an even worse job at figuring this, because the market cannot account for externalities unless forced to by external influences, such as your proposed regulation.

The biggest direct cost is that energy becomes more expensive in the short term, although in case you haven't noticed, that's already happening anyway.

(6) What are the costs, including externalities, of doing nothing specifically targeted at global warming?

Your math is as good as mine (and probably better). What would the cascading costs be of dramatically reduced agricultural production? Of a nationwide fresh water shortage? Of disease and infestation?

Not because knowing something makes the something more or less true, but because the free market does depend on knowledge, imperfect as it may be and most times is.

Actually, I would argue that vast segments of the free market depend on a lack of knowledge. Watch an hour's worth of cable television, and pay attention to the commercials. How many of these are relying on consumer ignorance? A surprisingly high percentage. (Lipozene and Enzyte spring to mind, but I'm sure you can come up with other examples without working too hard.)

But setting that aside, you're basically making my point for me. The market cannot act on what it does not know, and the market sucks at "knowing" long term things of any kind. The market exists to maximize profit in the short term, and worry about tomorrow, well, tomorrow.

That knowledge is equally critical to government action.

Here I think you're abusing the term "knowledge" a bit. Or, at a minimum, you're conflating two very different examples of who knows what. Something has to be widely known and generally accepted among the general public before the market can do a damn thing. Not so with organizational action (whether the organization is a company or a government doesn't matter here). All you need is a group of experts who can discern the truth and develop a plan of action, and then empower them to act on that plan.

Surely you wouldn't rely on "the market" to decide whether or not we should drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. So why should a looming environmental crisis be any different than a looming military crisis?

You do agree, do you not, that whether it is the private sector or the public, making the wrong decision can often have disastrous consequences despite the motivation behind the action?

Of course I agree, but so what? Do you agree that the inaction owed to analysis paralysis can also lead to disastrous consquences? Fortunately, real life doesn't conform to those two extremes. There comes a point at which we can deem a course of action to be both worthwhile and worth its inherent risks, and with global warming, we hit that point over a decade ago.

If you're in a war zone and you hear a bang, do you take cover? Or do you wait until you're absolutely certain what you heard is gunfire and explosions?

So is it the seriousness of a particular problem that determines whether government or the market is better suited to deal with it?

No. I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension, frankly. It's not the "either or" scenario that you pretend it is, nor have I ever claimed any such thing. The seriousness of a problem determines the extent to which government should involve itself in the search for solutions, yes. But nothing about that government action prevents private enterprise from also searching for such solutions.

Unrestrained government wiretaps and other surveillance would undoubtedly better protect us from those that would do us harm.

At the risk of digressing, I actually question that assessment. For all intents and purposes, we have that right now, and all it has resulted in is a much larger chaff-to-wheat ratio.

The point is, even if some contemplated government intervention would better achieve one goal, we still reject it because it harms a separate interest.

Of course that's true. There's always that balance to be considered. That said, I think it's a giant stretch to try to pretend that taxpayer-funded wind power plant construction (for example) is anything remotely like setting up a surveillance state in which the right to privacy of law abiding citizens is effectively nullified.

Frankly, I do not believe we are even at the point in the science (and I use that word somewhat lightly here)

This serves only to underscore your ignorance of the science.

Frankly, if the decision ultimately comes to liberty or more government, I'll choose liberty and live with the consequences (whatever the global warming models currently predict today, or what they will predict next week).

Setting aside the fact that you're far from the only one who will have to "live with the consequences," the models you cavalierly disparage have been right a hell of a lot more than they have been wrong, and in most cases where they weren't sufficiently precise, their estimates were too conservative. I have a book from 1996 that discusses global warming, and its predictions are remarkably on-target. A few misses on degrees of precision, but there aren't any that turn out to be exactly wrong.

You seem to be saying here that we know global warming is occurring and it will be bad because the majority of scientists say so. I'm afraid that's not good enough to me. True science has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. It is not a popularity contest.

No, science is not a popularity contest. It's a meritocracy. That is, those ideas which have merit become accepted by qualified experts, and those that don't are rejected by those experts. Once in a great, great while in modern science, the consensus turns out to be wrong, but on the whole, they have an excellent track record.*

Even Newton wasn't wrong about the laws of gravity; he was simply imprecise. And to the extent that he was "wrong," Einstein and Bohr are also wrong. But we don't ignore gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics just because a certain degree of uncertainty still exists concerning them, even though we know that none of these is 100% accurate.

All that said, if scientific consensus isn't a good analog for lay people to determine what the science says about highly complicated subjects, then what in the world ever could be? In your effort to disparage the science concerning global warming, you're in effect disparaging the entire scientific method.

Global warming either is occurring due to man, or it isn't, and it matters not one whit how many people believe it is.

I agree with that. But what's the best way we have of finding out whether or not that's actually true? Oh yeah, right, the scientific method, the very thing you just disparaged. Again, if scientific consensus means "nothing," then how on earth are we ever to know anything?

So all of this appears to reveal a much more fundamental question: Just exactly how much certitude do you need? What level of proof must be met before you concede that government action is wise? Apologies in advance if this hypothetical question doesn't meet your rigorous standards for level of detail. ;)

Summing all of this up, I stand by my original contention that your objections to global warming -- and the objections of the overwhelming majority of those who deny AGW -- are primarily political in nature, and not scientific.

* - The beauty of the scientific consensus, by the way, is that in those highly unusual cases where it turns out to be wrong, the consensus changes. And it does so for a very specific reason: somebody (or, more likely, a group of somebodies) builds a detailed and compelling case for the new understanding, which supplants and replaces the old. Global warming has been hotly debated for over two decades, and despite the fact that there's a whole lot of money and prestige waiting for anyone who can conclusively prove it wrong, nobody has yet been able to do so. Beyond just that, the case for global warming and AGW has only gotten stronger in the face of increased scrutiny over the years.

But it's crystal clear that all the evidence in the world won't be enough to convince those whose political views demand that they pretend it's not really a problem...

Steve Clarke:
Any economist worth his salt will tell you that free market principles break down when there are information assymetries. With perfect knowledge, there are no such assymetries. What tgirsch apparently doesn't want to admit is that his original hypothetical relies on such assymetries.

If I'm following you here (and I may not be), this is essentially correct. But what I'm arguing is that there will always be information asymmetries with respect to complex problems, which is why the market cannot properly respond to them on its own.

When you assume perfect knowledge, you render the hypothetical completely useless, because you're not just assuming a scenario that does not exist, but one that simply cannot exist. That's an important difference.

The other issue is that your view of the market seems to be ignoring the "bad actor" problem. If there's a problem (of any kind) that requires a dramatic change in the status quo, there will always be parties who are making a lot of money off the status quo, and who stand to lose a lot if that status quo changes. There's tremendous market incentive for those parties to do anything in their power to preserve the status quo, up to and including obfuscation. That's not just hypothetical, by the way -- there's a long and storied history of it actually happening, with cigarettes, CFCs, and global warming being just three examples. I've even linked to GOP strategists explicitly recommending that course of action!

And I submit that assuming perfect knowledge is no more absurd than assuming the certainty of a future event.

Which is why I took the certainty out of the equation. Make it 99% certainty, rather than 100% certainty. You need to address my revised hypothetical.

matt curtis:

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're just being disingenuous now. The whole point of my hypothetical was to pretend, just for the sake of argument, that you became convinced that AGW is a real problem, and to find out how you would propose dealing with that problem with no or extremely minimal government involvement. But you keep circling back around to "the science isn't in yet," and that's the very definition of ducking the question: I'm telling you to assume that it is for the sake of argument, and you're patently refusing to do so. If that's not being evasive, then what is?

Setting all that aside for a moment, there's another question that lies underneath all this. It's becoming increasingly clear that you take the falsity of AGW as an article of faith. You've already essentially stated that all the scientific consensus in the world wouldn't be enough to convince you. So if the overwhelming majority of the world's qualified experts coalescing around a single opinion isn't enough to convince you, I ask again: What on Earth ever could be good enough?

This is yet another reason why I'm accusing you of being disingenuous: You're setting the burden of proof for AGW impossibly high. And I stand by my accusation that your dismissal of AGW is not born of legitimate scientific objections to the theory, but of a conflicting political philosophy.

You seem to be operating from the assumption that those who advance AGW theory do so because they want more government regulation, when in fact that's exactly backward. At least in my case, I want government regulation in this area because I can conceive of no other solution that would do enough, quickly enough, to have a real impact.

Tom,

I think you and I both need to take a breath. We're both getting a little sarcastic rather than dealing honestly with the debate.

I would love to simply answer your hypothetical, but simple desire doesn't give me the information needed to answer it. That was the reason for the questions - that you first invited and then suggested was a way of avoiding answering the hypothetical.

Let me tackle one of your assumed effects of global warming. First, however, I am going to insist that the degree and nature of the knowledge possessed by the market be assumed. Let's say that there is a consensus in the market that whatever "bad" effect we're addressing will occur (assuming no knowledge means no market reaction, but also calls into question the accuracy of the predicted effect; while assuming perfect knowledge is ridiculous but also means that the market would, without question, respond appropriately).

"extended periods of drought in some areas":

Presumably, this means less agricultural production in these regions and rising costs due to shortages or relocation of agricultural production. For the sake of argument, let's assume that none of the agricultural production is shifted to those areas of the globe that currently underproduce or have lower living standards; all of it is shifted to regions where the standard of living is already quite high (Let's also not forget that vast areas of the Western U.S. became agricultural centers because of the commerical irrigation of otherwise arid land.).

Rising prices have what impact on consumers? They either lower their demand - difficult with something like food - or they modify their behavior. So, how might they modify their behavior? They might buy less of one thing and more of another. They might devote more of their budget to food while decreasing the amount of their budget that goes to gasoline either by using less (presumably beneficial to the global warming problem) or by trading in their gasoline powered car for a hybrid (also presumably beneficial). What about the growers? Will they be motivated to increase efficiency and cut costs (fuel costs included)? What about other commercial enterprises? Will they have increased incentives to develop more drought resistant crops - benefitting even those historically drought ridden regions?

Now, you might respond that these are all actions taken only after some bad effect. But, of course, the entrepreneurs who are successful (and I am sure we can agree that there is an entrepreneurial spirit within the U.S.) are those who are ahead of the times. They are able to forecast a future need or desire before it's so commonly known that everyone would find a similar solution. They profit by being first, not by being one of many. They profit by taking risk where there is significantly less than a consensus. The individual or comapany that is able to make solar power an economic and reliable source of energy will profit significantly.

You state that the market cannot rationally and effectively react to your hypothetical because the market is terrible at accounting for externalities. But, why is the scientific community or Capitol Hill, in your opinion, any better at accounting for externalities? Have you ever heard the term, "the absent-minded professor"? Have you ever met someone who was incredibly smart, but who you said lacked common sense? Have you ever heard the term, "ivory tower." Granted, these are all generalizations, but they refer to those who, in a sense, are unable to recognize or deal with externalities. Perhaps you can provide some evidence at how government or science is more capable of dealing with externalities than the market and explain why that is the case.

I do not disparage the scientific method. Quite the contrary, I am a strong proponent of the scientific method. And that is precisely why I am so frustrated with the nature of the statements made by the global warming crowd. The scientific method is largely ignored in a rush to judgment and criticism is not addressed on its merits but shouted down - almost as if to criticize is to be heretical.

How much of your conviction that global warming is occurring due to man is based upon the stated conclusions of the scientists and environmental groups who say it is?

--matt

Matt - I read your 11 points with interest, not least because I agree with most of them. But let me just pick up a couple:

(9) the global warming crowd has rushed to conclusions for which there is not currently sufficient support, both as to the causes and effects of global warming

tgirsch has made this point at least twice, but it's such a good point that I can't help but chip in. It's entirely possible for people to rush to conclusions like this, especially when those people are poorly informed. Scientists are, broadly, people, and as such are not immune to such errors of enthusiasm. But when we have so many *knowledgeable* people who are convinced by the evidence, and so few *knowledgeable people who are not, then whether you or I are convinced is almost irrelevant. In fact it's worse than irrelevant in some ways, because it's demonstrably blocking action that it seems probably we need to take now.

I have no problem with a climate Galileo coming forward and showing the science community at large where we've gone wrong (in fact I'd love it; I'd really rather not have to spend the rest of my life wearing hessian and burning dung in my Yurt). All I ask of those with the Galileo complex is that they exhibit the same characteristic Galileo did, which is being right! That's entirely different from being loud, or populist, or even convincing.

(11) it is frankly ridiculous to suggest that there is insufficient motivation within the private sector to come up with alternative energy sources that are renewable and/or cleaner.

Risking civil debate for a moment, it is frankly ridiculous to suggest that this is frankly ridiculous. The private sector does not need to care AT ALL whether an energy source is renewable or cleaner. It only has to care whether it is the most affordable, and whether they can use it without breaking the law. Tgirsch briefly mentioned CFCs, which are a great example. They were used at first because they worked well, were cheap, and there was nothing to stop their use. Once science showed pretty clearly what the effect of their use was they continued to be used as before because neither of the key criteria had changed. An alternative was found, and I believe some machines may even have been sold to particularly concerned citizens because there was the sort of market that you allude to. But it wasn't until government *made* the manufacturers switch that any significant change happened, even though the proof of harm was clear.

I don't blame the fridge manufacturers for that, btw (well, not entirely). They are only one part of the free market, the other main constituent being the consumer. And the sad failing of consumers is that we don't care about problems that don't smack us around the head. As obvious as the problem of ozone holes was, it wasn't nearly obvious enough for someone comparing fridge prices at Best Buy.

A very recent though minor example is plastic bags. A news program this week visited Midway island, where 2-3 million birds of a particular species live (sorry, that's the point where I turned it on so I'm a little hazy on that fact). Based on their research the scientists claim (reasonably) that there's probably not a bird on the island that doesn't have plastic in its stomach, and that there are huge numbers of deaths because of that. That's just one example on one island in the middle of nowhere; scale that up globally for thousands of different animals and environments, and it becomes clear that saying we need a solution yesterday is an understatement. But we still consume millions of plastic bags every week, and they're a tiny fraction of overall plastic use. Consumer activism has started to drive some change from both government and industry, but if we wait until consumer pressure/demand alone changes the market we risk waiting until we've lost too much.

This is, incidentally, why I don't worry about over-enthusiasm for the greening of the economy ending up breaking it. People are fantastically good at apathy. Amazingly they may even surpass politicians in this regard. Add in the 'bad actors' and entrenched interests and we have all the drag factors we could ever need.