Freedom and the environment
Political, Law ·Saturday December 19, 2009 @ 07:04 EST (link)
I asked a "global warming alarmist" former colleague for a book to read that was the sine qua non to convince me of the imminent danger of global warming, and the need to use force to make people pay to reduce or reverse it. He recommended I read chapters 11-12 of Carl Sagan's Billions and Billions, which I did. Unfortunately (to some), I have not now seen the light and dedicated my life to gunning down SUV drivers to save the planet; but here are my impressions of the work.
Chapter 11 starts with some basic definitions of fossil fuels, how their burning causes the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and this carbon dioxide creates a "blanket" in the sky which allows sunlight through but keeps radiated infrared light in, raising the temperature of the earth. He also notes that such a blanket is necessary to an extent, since the temperature with no such buffer would be -20°C (with it, it's 13°C). But then the first big red herring is thrown out: Look at Venus; it should be a pleasant holiday planet, but because of global warming its temperature is 490°C! Ummm… where to start with the holes in such an attempted parallel? Sagan ought to know better; we may certainly presume malice rather than stupidity. Then comes the fact that during the entire twentieth century, the burning of fossil fuels is only claimed to have increased the average temperature of the earth by a few tenths of a °C. Alarm! Wake the neighbors! Not exactly; and that's even supposing that it wasn't caused or influenced by other events. Many events and predictions are then listed, but with the caveat that:
None of these trends by itself is compelling proof that the activities of our civilization rather than natural variability is responsible. … Balance all the positive and all the negative feedbacks and where do you end up? The answer is: Nobody is absolutely sure.
Which is a refreshingly honest statement from such an evangelist.
Now, I'm not going so far as to say there isn't global warming, but if this book is supposed to be the shocker packed with facts to convince a disinterested observer, it falls flat on its face. And perhaps you want to preach a better book; Billions and Billions isn't the true Scotsman; we've come farther in the 12 years since it was published, etc.; I'm willing to read more, but other suggestions are going to be put well down the priority list since this was such a disappointment and there are more sagacious authors on my list that I'd rather read. And if Pascal's original wager isn't enough to cause the heathen to turn to God from idols, his version certainly isn't enough to turn individuals from freedom to a green enslavement.
The second chapter, 12, "Escape from ambush", contains Sagan's suggestions to help fix the problem. It is true as he points out that politicians do not easily look 20-60 years into the future, not only beyond their term of office but beyond their lifetimes. He buys into the idea of taxation as a solution, citing a 1995 Gallup poll that said that "[m]ost would acquiesce to increased taxes if earmarked for environmental protection", as if that justified coercing the rest. There's a lot of "hurry, hurry"—we must do things now emphasis; voluntary action is out of the question; the political power that comes from the barrel of a gun is required!
His comparison of environmental guards to building safeties into skyscrapers and bridges is specious; for the latter, if safeties are not built in then the eventual inevitable failures will bankrupt the builder and he may be found criminally liable; rational self-interest, outside of any law, is all that is needed to cause such safeties to be built. But Sagan says that builders guard against "implausible contingencies", which is not true. Builders in level prairie states do not build the same way as builders in earthquake zones; to do so would be foolish waste. Can rational self-interest also motivate individuals to pay for environmental safeguards? Certainly, if damages can be shown. The harm to one person may be slight, but class action suits have always been used to bring such actions forward. If it can be shown that a company's emissions are causing harm, they can be made to pay damages and penalties (see, e.g., Erin Brokovich). This is how the free market handles environmental damage: let the accuser show harm—the infringement of rights—and the state may legitimately use counter-force to require you to make things right (clean up the mess), and pay damages and losses (including wasted time), just as if the accused had walked up to someone and punched them in the face. If no harm can be shown, the state has no right to impose draconian and irrational penalties, or even any penalties at all. And of course, such payments will tend to balance out: costs of environmental harm will be passed to consumers, so the only people making any profit in the end would be Amish farmers, who as a rule aren't extremely litigious anyway.
I do agree with his economic analysis of the cost of oil, which should as he says include the military adventurism that keeps the price low for American consumers. Why should someone that bicycles to work (and buys local organically grown vegetables, etc.) have to pay the same amount of taxes for "defense" (read: offense) as someone that commutes on hour a day each way? All subsidies are unjustifiable force. I even think his suggestion of adopting a tradition of planting trees at Christmas and birthdays and other events is a nice idea (although his justification beyond their CO2 removal value is risible).
He does throw out as a sop, "Perhaps these alternatives can be quickly developed in a real free-market economy"; it's true that if good precedents are set for pollution causing quantifiable harm, there will be a great demand for any technology that can reduce the environmental impact of industrial processes, automobile engines, etc., so the "perhaps" should be changed to an emphatic, "Definitely!"
Since, as he so elegantly puts it, "CO2 molecules, being brainless, are unable to understand the profound idea of national sovereignty. … If they're produced in one place, they can wind up in any other place.", the idea of showing harm in the courts can be taken international, and nations can sue producers across borders for damages caused them over what they produce. Certainly such calculations won't be easy, but there are clearly a lot of climate scientists out there with a lot of time on their hands; this will give them something useful to do and keep them out of mischief.
While it is reasonable for people to pay for quantifiable damages they cause, it is an immoral initiation of force to rob people (via taxes, levies, subsidies, regulation, or otherwise) to support such things as cleanup, product bans, or payments to developing nations to induce them to change their behavior, just as it would be immoral to require citizens to provide monetary support for any other religion. Cleanup need only be done by those proven to have caused particular harm, but wise observers will see that such infringements cost more than they benefit, and refrain and limit themselves in the environmental damage they do. The rest may be done by the voluntary associations that so impressed De Tocqueville when he came to America; but it is an absolute requirement for freedom that religion—the only label for governmental diktats that do not protect rights—never come from the barrel of a gun.
