“Could someone finally explain why is it not politically feasible?”
It has to do with the fact that the Libertarians in the video, or Tokyo Tom, or Jon Adler do not represent the vast amount of people who call themselves Libertarian. They are the outcasts, even though they represent the real values that started the movement in Europe and same values that traveled across the Atlantic, and that is, maximizing individual freedom within the framework of an open society. Libertarian-ism these days isn’t much more than corporate freedom impeding on individual freedom. CATO isn’t out for the individual, they are out for the people who fund them.
No, you are asking why it isn’t feasible if libertarians can agree with someone like Hansen. I’m just telling you that the people who agree with Hansen are in vast minority of libertarians, so we are still talking about a very small group of people. No political force, as of yet. but if your point is that the idea can have appeal if presented to a broad group, I would agree.
We’re discussing Libertarians and their solutions. In particular the difference between what you here from Libertarian think tanks and people like, Jon Adler or Tokyo Tom. And you don’t have to “deny the science” either. You can downplay the risk or cherry-pick evidence to fit a particular policy idea.
It’s a start; it’s good they recognize there are cases where market failures justify government intervention. However, it is disappointing that the only impact of global warming they recognize is sea level rise. There’s lots more than that to worry about, and lots of it (including potential for massive crop losses) cannot easily be fixed by just making people richer.
From a former skeptic and a libertarian (grypo’s right, these variety of libertarians are rare – most are very religious in their anti-government convictions):
AGW poses a direct threat to some forms libertarianism and right-wing capitalism. I think that this may have played a strong role in my personal AGW skepticism, and perhaps inotherlibertarians. As I discussed in a previous blog post, values can determine whether someone considers themselves a libertarian, liberal, conservative, etc. One important value of libertarianism is the desire for smaller government. This rubs up against the problem of AGW. If the problem of AGW is real, and if we have any hope of solving it, we would most likely require development of gross regulations from governments. This is exactly what is going on right now in Copenhagen. Those who find regulations unpalatable, when faced with AGW, will have strong psychological pressure to find themselves in what I call the AGW skeptic spectrum: deny the existence of rising global temperatures, doubt the fact that it is man made, skeptical that cutting back emissions can help, and finally, question the idea that cutting emissions can help or is economically feasible. It is for this reason that I think that the AGW has unfortunately been split down the house between the political left-wing and right-wing. Once a topic has become left-wing vs right-wing, the argument is no longer scientific, it is political. Points are scored not by evidence but by embarrassing ‘gotchas’ like the recent climategate scandal and by rhetoric. Another problem is that people will have the additional incentive of falling in line with their political party of choice, which for some people is their primary social group. Anecdotally, when someone tells me that they are accept AGW, or do not, I can usually guess where their political allegiances lie. As someone with libertarian/right-wing values, I’ve learned to accommodate the inconvenient truth of AGW. I think the turning point may have been learning about arch-skeptic (and libertarian) Michael Shermer’s about face on the issue. The fact that the founder of Skeptic Magazine could not remain an AGW skeptic made me re-examine my personal AGW skepticism. It made me take a fresh look at an issue that I realized may have been clouded by subconscious influences. After reading debunkingafterdebunking of poor AGW skeptic arguments, I had no more excuses. Just as some religious people find ways to accommodate the fact of evolution, I found ways to accommodate global warming despite my political views. As the president of a local skeptic organization I’m often asked if I’ve ever changed my mind due to scientific evidence, I’m proud to say that in this case I did. But I didn’t write this post to pat myself on the back. This has taught me that one should be skeptical of their beliefs, especially if they fit with one’s world view. Hopefully, this will encourage others to be take an honest second look at AGW science. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/14/jonathan-abrams-on-climate-change.aspx
“You can downplay the risk or cherry-pick evidence to fit a particular policy idea.”
And you can over state the risk and make up solutions out of whole cloth as well.
You really don’t advance your position by characterizing people the way you do.
And ray, the rise in sea level isnt the only impact we recognize. However, I do kinda recall that the most devastating effects are from that particular damage mechanism. If I have to compare the accuracy of crop forecasting models to sea level models, I think I’d be on pretty good ground saying that the sea level predictions stand on a more solid foundation than agriculture damage models. However, I’m open minded if you care to point me to studies that compare the skill of those respective models.
Yes, I too am curious about these massive crop failures in a warming world with expanded crop ranges, longer growing seasons, more precipitation, and free fertilizer.
“And you can over state the risk and make up solutions out of whole cloth as well.”
Yes, but here we are talking about Hansen’s approach of tax dividend or revenue neutral carbon taxation.
“You really don’t advance your position by characterizing people the way you do.”
The way in which people form their opinions on policy does not happen in a vacuum, it happens within the self identified political context. I think my thoughts on this are pretty fair. I put the blame on adjustments made to scientific understanding and Pollyanna economic scenarios from privately funded think tanks. I find the Libertarian principles to be ethically sound and a way forward toward broad agreement mitigating action through market taxation and nuclear/renewable replacements based on local infrastructure from region to region. It’s the bastardized version of these principles that hurt cooperation.
They describe what many “deniers” (including myself) think. Yea it’s warmed some and we are partly reponsible, but aren’t convinced there is any looming catastrophe requiring massive intervention (“make sure this is a real problem”), and let’s also be realistic about the unintended consequenced (“not keep poor people poor”) and recognize the value of wealth (“turn Bangledesh into South Florida”).
I’m thinking these guys are your typical wait-&-seers (though they don’t say it). They certainly weren’t animated about *doing something* and *doing it now*.
Not sure why Morano would be exercised about this.
My kind of thread!
Which of course begs the obvious followup: “How does a libertarian turn Dhaka into Miami?”
At least they are discussing policy, and not denying the science in order to avoid policy suggestions they don’t like.
All sorts of people agree with tax-dividend approach, from Hansen to libertarians, I guess it covers pretty much the whole spectrum.
Could someone finally explain why is it not politically feasible?
“Could someone finally explain why is it not politically feasible?”
It has to do with the fact that the Libertarians in the video, or Tokyo Tom, or Jon Adler do not represent the vast amount of people who call themselves Libertarian. They are the outcasts, even though they represent the real values that started the movement in Europe and same values that traveled across the Atlantic, and that is, maximizing individual freedom within the framework of an open society. Libertarian-ism these days isn’t much more than corporate freedom impeding on individual freedom. CATO isn’t out for the individual, they are out for the people who fund them.
Are you really suggesting that political feasibility depends on the position of “true” libertarians?
No, you are asking why it isn’t feasible if libertarians can agree with someone like Hansen. I’m just telling you that the people who agree with Hansen are in vast minority of libertarians, so we are still talking about a very small group of people. No political force, as of yet. but if your point is that the idea can have appeal if presented to a broad group, I would agree.
#5. Hmm. I’m a Libertarian and I’ve yet to run into a living and breathing one who denies the science.
We’re discussing Libertarians and their solutions. In particular the difference between what you here from Libertarian think tanks and people like, Jon Adler or Tokyo Tom. And you don’t have to “deny the science” either. You can downplay the risk or cherry-pick evidence to fit a particular policy idea.
It’s a start; it’s good they recognize there are cases where market failures justify government intervention. However, it is disappointing that the only impact of global warming they recognize is sea level rise. There’s lots more than that to worry about, and lots of it (including potential for massive crop losses) cannot easily be fixed by just making people richer.
From a former skeptic and a libertarian (grypo’s right, these variety of libertarians are rare – most are very religious in their anti-government convictions):
AGW poses a direct threat to some forms libertarianism and right-wing capitalism. I think that this may have played a strong role in my personal AGW skepticism, and perhaps in other libertarians. As I discussed in a previous blog post, values can determine whether someone considers themselves a libertarian, liberal, conservative, etc. One important value of libertarianism is the desire for smaller government. This rubs up against the problem of AGW. If the problem of AGW is real, and if we have any hope of solving it, we would most likely require development of gross regulations from governments. This is exactly what is going on right now in Copenhagen. Those who find regulations unpalatable, when faced with AGW, will have strong psychological pressure to find themselves in what I call the AGW skeptic spectrum: deny the existence of rising global temperatures, doubt the fact that it is man made, skeptical that cutting back emissions can help, and finally, question the idea that cutting emissions can help or is economically feasible. It is for this reason that I think that the AGW has unfortunately been split down the house between the political left-wing and right-wing. Once a topic has become left-wing vs right-wing, the argument is no longer scientific, it is political. Points are scored not by evidence but by embarrassing ‘gotchas’ like the recent climategate scandal and by rhetoric. Another problem is that people will have the additional incentive of falling in line with their political party of choice, which for some people is their primary social group. Anecdotally, when someone tells me that they are accept AGW, or do not, I can usually guess where their political allegiances lie.
As someone with libertarian/right-wing values, I’ve learned to accommodate the inconvenient truth of AGW. I think the turning point may have been learning about arch-skeptic (and libertarian) Michael Shermer’s about face on the issue. The fact that the founder of Skeptic Magazine could not remain an AGW skeptic made me re-examine my personal AGW skepticism. It made me take a fresh look at an issue that I realized may have been clouded by subconscious influences. After reading debunking after debunking of poor AGW skeptic arguments, I had no more excuses. Just as some religious people find ways to accommodate the fact of evolution, I found ways to accommodate global warming despite my political views. As the president of a local skeptic organization I’m often asked if I’ve ever changed my mind due to scientific evidence, I’m proud to say that in this case I did. But I didn’t write this post to pat myself on the back. This has taught me that one should be skeptical of their beliefs, especially if they fit with one’s world view. Hopefully, this will encourage others to be take an honest second look at AGW science.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/14/jonathan-abrams-on-climate-change.aspx
“You can downplay the risk or cherry-pick evidence to fit a particular policy idea.”
And you can over state the risk and make up solutions out of whole cloth as well.
You really don’t advance your position by characterizing people the way you do.
And ray, the rise in sea level isnt the only impact we recognize. However, I do kinda recall that the most devastating effects are from that particular damage mechanism. If I have to compare the accuracy of crop forecasting models to sea level models, I think I’d be on pretty good ground saying that the sea level predictions stand on a more solid foundation than agriculture damage models. However, I’m open minded if you care to point me to studies that compare the skill of those respective models.
Yes, I too am curious about these massive crop failures in a warming world with expanded crop ranges, longer growing seasons, more precipitation, and free fertilizer.
“And you can over state the risk and make up solutions out of whole cloth as well.”
Yes, but here we are talking about Hansen’s approach of tax dividend or revenue neutral carbon taxation.
“You really don’t advance your position by characterizing people the way you do.”
The way in which people form their opinions on policy does not happen in a vacuum, it happens within the self identified political context. I think my thoughts on this are pretty fair. I put the blame on adjustments made to scientific understanding and Pollyanna economic scenarios from privately funded think tanks. I find the Libertarian principles to be ethically sound and a way forward toward broad agreement mitigating action through market taxation and nuclear/renewable replacements based on local infrastructure from region to region. It’s the bastardized version of these principles that hurt cooperation.
They describe what many “deniers” (including myself) think. Yea it’s warmed some and we are partly reponsible, but aren’t convinced there is any looming catastrophe requiring massive intervention (“make sure this is a real problem”), and let’s also be realistic about the unintended consequenced (“not keep poor people poor”) and recognize the value of wealth (“turn Bangledesh into South Florida”).
I’m thinking these guys are your typical wait-&-seers (though they don’t say it). They certainly weren’t animated about *doing something* and *doing it now*.
Not sure why Morano would be exercised about this.
@ 7
if your point is that the idea can have appeal if presented to a broad group, I would agree
Good! Clearly the idea never was presented to general public. I wonder why. Any takers?