I’ve had several comments to the effect that my position on climate change policy ignores information from climatologists; that it is ignorant of scientific observations. In case my previous posts on the matter (for example this) haven’t been clear enough, let me state my actual position so that the discussion can start from there, instead of from what people presume I believe. I should also say in passing that fellow Libertarian Reason blogger Stephen Graham may have his own opinions on this matter and I don’t claim the below to speak precisely for him (he can weigh in himself through comments to clarify).
1) Climate change may be occurring and may not be principally human caused. A human-caused greenhouse effect is at least possible and at most evidential. But we know that the climate can cool down and warm up itself without any human activity whatsoever, so our influence may not be as great a factor as the Left are keen to suggest.
2) Climate change may be occurring without provoking cataclysmic results. There are varying degrees of catastrophe predicted by climatologists in the event that our warming trend continues. It goes without saying that the graver predictions are not the only predictions; to say that the most serious consequences of climate change possible are inevitable is to exaggerate greatly.
3) Climate change that is caused by current human industrial activity will not be caused by such human activity in the near future, because our industries are changing to such an extent that their ecological impacts will be virtually negligible within 50 years.
4) Points (1) through (3) are irrelevant to government policy. The government coercion we are being asked to comply with is immoral, this due to my belief that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights (ie. that individual actions should be free from coercion as long as they do not infringe on the equal rights of other individuals).
None of the above contradicts the global climatological record, nor does it contradict many of the scientists that have spoken on the matter. What’s interesting to me is the manner in which leftists cast my views as ignorant of the discipline of science, when they themselves are so blatantly ignorant of the discipline of economics!
Free market economics state that, as the costs of fossil fuels increase beyond our willingness to pay, a combination of market trading adjustments, industry innovation and consumer demand will inevitably provide solutions to our energy usage which do not involve fossil fuels.
Thus economics happens to be the branch of knowledge most pertinent to the issue of climate change as it relates to politics. Unfortunately the Left are too busy thinking up further infringements of liberty to notice.
John Wright
9 responses so far ↓
1 Greg, Sacramento, CA // Jun 13, 2006 at 8:39 am
You are placing a lot of faith in corporations and what they can bring us. They just want to make a profit. The problem happens because their profiteering doesn’t square with what is good for the enviornment. It’s not that you are ignorant of science, but your solutions rely on people changing voluntarily. Sadly companies won’t do that, so we have got to incentivize.
2 jeff........... // Jun 13, 2006 at 11:10 am
LOL! Taking some flak I see. Surely they understand that your position on climate change isn’t as absurd as bill clinton’s when he says today that Bush is to blame (isn’t he always?) for hurricanes!!!!!!!!! LOL!
3 JEFF // Jun 13, 2006 at 11:12 am
btw I would be interested in Stephen Grhams opinion too, I am interested in libertarian policies on these sorts of things. (stephen’s articles on here are awesome) There are people on all sides of the fence that don’t know what they’re talking about.
4 John Wright // Jun 14, 2006 at 8:49 am
Greg- ‘Profiteering’, as evil as you make it sound, is responsible for most of the major advances in human health, industry, social virtuosity and quality of life. My solution doesn’t require the free market to do anything it hasn’t always done before - and I suggest that only someone with certain idealogical liabilities would think that the solely effective way to ‘deal’ with climate change is to “incentivize” - ie. force people at gunpoint to cooperate with one particular interpretation of the science. By the way, I should also mention that the vast majority of those methods of ‘dealing’ with climate change will make little, if any, impact on the problem anyway! I think leftists are more in love with the idea of big government providing such solutions. Idiotic.
Jeff- It appears you’re right about Bill Clinton blaming Bush on the hurricanes in a speech on Monday. Any credibility the guy had remaining is surely looking shaky now.
5 Greg, Sacramento // Jun 23, 2006 at 2:25 pm
So your answer is simply to drill everywhere you can for oil, such as the ecologically fragile Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, propping up an unsustainable energy model for as long as we can before the magic of the same industry that’s been causing the problem in the first place suddenly provides the way out? Forgive me if I can’t take you seriously.
6 John Wright // Jun 23, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Greg- Do you know what percentage of the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge would be utilised in any potential drilling operation there? 10 percent? 3 percent? The answer is 0.0001 percent: that’s a measly, microscopic, infinitesimal 2000 acres out of ANWR’s total 20,000,000. By the way, concerns over the welfare of the caribou that live there are unfounded: their numbers have tripled since the pipeline from neighbouring Prudhoe Bay was constructed (they bask in its warmth and raise their young nearby). I’ve heard that environmentalists are concerned about some “ecologically fragile” flora and fauna growing up there. Do you think 19,998,000 acres would be sufficient unsullied sanctuary to ensure their survival? Or might they require more? How big are these weeds anyway?
And you haven’t been paying attention. The market is already providing the way out of our reliance on fossil fuel - though it’s too slow for Antsy Al Gore and his ideologically impeded compadres. Since you’ve clearly bought into their dogma and probably weren’t aware of these pertinent facts, I’ll do as you suggest and forgive you.
7 S Quinney // Jun 28, 2006 at 11:29 am
Greg this article makes a lot of sense, you’d do well to re-read it.
8 Jeff // Jul 27, 2006 at 7:14 am
LOL John ‘how big are these weeds anyway’ LOL
9 Anonymous // Aug 30, 2006 at 2:18 pm
OMG John that reply was killer!!!!!!!!!!
Leave a Comment