Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Libertarian Podcast: Climate Change, China, and International Law
In this week’s installment of the Libertarian podcast, I talked to Professor Epstein about the recent climate deal struck by President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping committing both countries (well, sort of) to significant carbon reductions in the years ahead. Among the questions at hand: how strong does Richard think the case for global warming is? What sort of environmental measures should a classical liberal embrace? Are all climate agreements hopeless because of problems of international coordination? And have some climate change skeptics allowed rhetorical excess to undermine their case? Listen in below:
Published in General
Even though the question of the reality/extent of anthropomorphic global warming [AGW]/climate change is a scientific one, the subject has been thoroughly captured by interest groups and I think it accurate enough to say that the weight given to concerns about AGW split along American party lines/psychology. I will offer my perspective on the subject. I am not a trained scientist but my college degree is in math with a minor in physics so I have some quantitative background. I have two areas of evidence. 1) I’ve read a few papers and abstracts and quite a few columns and stories on the subject of AGW over the last 10 years. I saw Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, when it came out and thought that it plausible at the time. Overall, I’m come to the conclusion that mankind’s activities no doubt have an effect(s) on the planet’s climate, but that there is not a strong case for catastrophic AGW; the kind of situation that requires immediate action, particularly when there doesn’t seem to be a practical solution available. As I said, I’m not a scientist and as I have other fish to fry, I won’t be going back to school to get a degree in atmospheric physics to better understand the literature. I do the best I can. 2) There has been little in the way of measured discussion in the way of costs and benefits by people like Bjorn Lomborg and much has been weighted in favor the extreme positions that are emotionally charged. Additionally, there have been statements and exaggerated claims made by people who do indeed appear to have ulterior or additional motives for pressing the catastrophic perspective. It may be social justice; making the advanced economies pay for their carbon-based sins, advancing global governance mechanisms at the expense of national sovereignty, expanding the regulatory landscape or it may be an anti-capitalist perspective. Even assuming that there are many who truly believe that man is precipitating a climate catastrophe, it is difficult to get past 2 and its potential consequences. In light of there not appearing to be a strong case for catastrophic AGW, it is, ironically, my application of the precautionary principal that the pro AGW faction must be stymied. I admit that it is an emotional-based reaction, but in view of my own Libertarian bent and the lack of nuanced argument; it stands. And, I further put forward that there are people who have their own 1’s and 2’s on the pro side that are similarly, emotionally-based. As long as situation stands as it does, which is to say, with an open discussion of evidence obscured a la Gruber, people will try to understand and be moved by evidence but will largely be moved by biases/inner nature. Thanks very much for the pod cast. I always enjoy the two of you and the work you do.
Dr. Epstein & Troy,
I must strongly dissent. For 44 years since the first Earth Day, an ideology concocted of Marx, Malthus, and Jung has cast a strange spell on the body politic. Millions of Jobs, Trillions of Dollars of GNP, and Billions of lives have been adversely effected by the exaggeration of this threat. As it becomes more and more evident that there is no strong case for Man Made Global Warming it is in the Human Race’s interest to cease and desist from taking any more action which would only make things worse.
It is of interest, or should be, that the man who created the GAIA hypothesis, no longer believes it. Even Jim Lovelock has had it.
Please consider the further damage that will be done by engaging the ideologues and giving them yet more credence.
Regards,
Jim
Given how little is known about the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change given the models’ inability to accurately model, how would it be possible to calculate the value of externalities for such “pollution”?
And what would be the risk of gaming such calculations?
Why is nuclear power seemingly off the table in the U.S.? A sign of insincerity on the part of those who profess to want a solution to the problem of AGW?