Asymmetry in Public Policy Proposals
Russ Roberts at Cafe Hayek has posted an excellent Global Warming Quiz:
Instead they would argue that it's the particulate matter of our human-created pollution that is cooling the earth (with plenty of historical references to the effects that volcanoes had on global cooling) and therefore we need to have public policies in place to limit the amount that people drive, especially gas-guzzling SUVs. Global warming? Global cooling? It doesn't matter: we should drive less and burn less fuel; we should repent and sin no more, or maybe a bit less anyway (and heaven forbid relying on the market system to provide this guidance!).
In other words, their insistence that we cut back on our use of fossil fuels has little or nothing to do with global warming and has much more to do with some sort of elitist paternalism, wanting to insist that the rest of us live more austere lives. Digressive rant: and yet they would oppose a value-added tax as being regressive — they not only want us to cut back on our consumption, they want to control us and tell us what to do.
This question about global warming reminds me of the 1960s criticism of then-popular Keynesian economics and fiscal policy. We were all taught that it was a good idea to increase gubmnt spending and cut taxes to get the economy out of a recession. Rarely however, did politicians propose cutting gubmnt spending across the board to reduce inflationary pressures. So much for using fiscal policy to offset the swings of the business cycle. And so much for some of the rants about global warming.
Update: Also see this, sent to me by both BenS and Brian Ferguson:
It's a one question quiz:I know, and you know, too, that most people who fret and wring their hands about global warming would do no such thing.
Suppose we discovered that the earth was cooling rather than warming due to a natural cycle. Would you encourage people to drive more and use more carbon-based energy as a way of warming the earth?
Instead they would argue that it's the particulate matter of our human-created pollution that is cooling the earth (with plenty of historical references to the effects that volcanoes had on global cooling) and therefore we need to have public policies in place to limit the amount that people drive, especially gas-guzzling SUVs. Global warming? Global cooling? It doesn't matter: we should drive less and burn less fuel; we should repent and sin no more, or maybe a bit less anyway (and heaven forbid relying on the market system to provide this guidance!).
In other words, their insistence that we cut back on our use of fossil fuels has little or nothing to do with global warming and has much more to do with some sort of elitist paternalism, wanting to insist that the rest of us live more austere lives. Digressive rant: and yet they would oppose a value-added tax as being regressive — they not only want us to cut back on our consumption, they want to control us and tell us what to do.
This question about global warming reminds me of the 1960s criticism of then-popular Keynesian economics and fiscal policy. We were all taught that it was a good idea to increase gubmnt spending and cut taxes to get the economy out of a recession. Rarely however, did politicians propose cutting gubmnt spending across the board to reduce inflationary pressures. So much for using fiscal policy to offset the swings of the business cycle. And so much for some of the rants about global warming.
Update: Also see this, sent to me by both BenS and Brian Ferguson:
The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
Category: Economics, Environment, Global Warming, Macroeconomics, Money Posted on
Monday, April 9, 2007 at 1:06pm
<< main
Will the coastal cities be flooded? Then let's look at how we can relocate inland in an efficient fashion. At least consider it.
Secondly, global warming impacts different people in different ways. Instead of waiting for the state or whoever to save them, as if they're helpless children, they should get informed and active about this: create contingency plans for relocation,etc.
If (coastal) asset prices reflect expectations about global warming (and why wouldn't they), then maybe the problem is less than we think.
I don't know... I'm just saying... But people prefer moralistic and paternalistic posturing to actually getting things done.
"Green" taxes are a noble, yet questionable idea. Firstly, nobody really knows how much benefit such taxes will bring. Those who wave hands in support of intervention assume that benefits are infinite.
Secondly, taxing makes sense only if all poluters do it simultaneously (e.g. Canada, China, India etc both adopt same tax). Otherwise the tax is just a wealth transfer from environment-cautions developed nations to heavy polluters in developing countries.
1) "Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming", AR Moss, JP Jouany, J Newbold - Ann. Zootech, 2000
2) "Methane emissions from cattle", KA Johnson, DE Johnson - 1995 - Am Soc Animal Sci