History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Global warming is a divisive issue. People are either believers or skeptics, with each side viewing the other with apprehension. I've sided firmly with the skeptics, but lately I have had a nagging concern. Like most people, I am not an atmospheric scientist. I have no firsthand way to evaluate a scientific claim for or against the existence of global warming. So what grounds have I for believing what one scientist says against the thesis over what another one says in favor of it?
No good grounds at all. . . .
This much I know: these are highly complex empirical questions. They are not a political, ethical, or ideological questions. Thus the answers must be left to the scientific process, preferably untainted by government control.
In the meantime, laymen committed to individual freedom have their own question to attend to: If potentially harmful manmade climate change is occurring, how can it be addressed without violating liberty?
Read the rest of this week's TGIF column at the website of the Foundation for Economic Education.
The Dolan article I linked to adds to the discussion Lockean/libertarian justice considerations. If western industry is responsible for the flooding of low-lying properties in Bangladesh, is compensation due? I think these issues need to be thought about.
Sheldon Richman -
12/9/2006
Thanks, Steve. Judging by your response, my article accomplished its goal. I appreciate it.
Craig J. Bolton -
12/9/2006
Like you, Sheldon, I remain agnostic about whether or not human activity is causing global warning. Yet there is one thing regarding which I am not agnostic: the question of "why should I care."
All of the "catastrophes" that associated with global warning, so far as I can see, come down to one simple observation: "The World changes continually. Some people are hurt by each and every change, and some people are benefited." The Eskimos,if they hang onto their land, may be a heck of a lot better off, presuming that their land is going to be changed from an ice sheet or frozen tundra to something more useable. Those of us, like myself, who live in the desert Southwest of the U.S. may be a lot worse off [or at least those who own the land on which I am presently sitting may have a lot less valuable resource, whether that is me or my children or none of the above].
Maybe the changes won't be that simple. Maybe deserts will become jungles and jungles will become deserts. Maybe fishing will become a less important source of food and we will all adopt the Japanese customs of eating seaweed and kudzu root, but there is no indication in any of the studies I've seen that the Earth is going to become Mercury or Mars or the Moon because of this phenomenon. Things are simply going to be "shuffled around" a bit more rapidly for climatic reasons [rather than for political or economic reasons] than they have in the past 200 years, but not more rapidly than they have many times before, and not, necessarily, in a NET negative sort of way.
In a worst case scenario, this simply isn't the equivalent of a pandemic or major meteor strike that WOULD wipe out a substantal percentage of the world's population. It is more like the impact of a major invention or discovery of a new energy source or, at the very worst, the rediscovery of political freedom after a two millenium hiatus.
So, ah, why should I become caught up in this latest intellectual fad or panic of crowds? And why should I allow my lifestyle to be reduced by, say, 20% because some bureaucrat wants to "do something" and promises [the persistent record of past lack of performances to the contrary] that he knows what to do and how to do it and that political pressures won't get in the way?
Finally, it appears to me that this is just another case of technological myopia, much like the "population bomb" and the "energy shortage" were before. Let's be generous and presume that there can be such a thing as global engineering, that you are a brillant guy in that field with unlimited resources, and that you have reached the conclusion that the mean temperature of the Earth in a hundred years is going to be 3 degrees Farenheit hotter than it is today. Is that a sufficient case for "doing something?" No, it isn't. It would only be a case for "doing something" if the net losses from that change were going to greatly swamp the net gains, factoring in the unknown technological changes that these changed conditions would provide incentives for [and which we presently know nothing about because they haven't occurred yet] and the other changes that aren't in fact "ceteris paribus" [like the "possibility" of an intervening pandemic or global war or global reversion to the Middle Ages - any of which would reduce world population very materially]. In other words, engineering is being confused with political policy, even presuming that a "rational political policy" is possible [regarding which libertarians should have significant doubts].
Steven Horwitz -
12/9/2006
Sheldon, I think this is one of the best pieces on this issue I've read in awhile. I think it's SO important to do two things that you've done here:
1. Remind us that the debate over global warming is about science and just because some scientists have bad policy views doesn't necessarily mean their science is wrong.
2.Challenge us to develop non-statist solutions to the problem (if we are convinced it is real and significant enough to require a "solution") of global warming. Often times I think that libertarians side with the skeptics because we can't imagine what we would do if the believers were right. That's a cop out.
In general, too many libertarians reflexively side with skeptics and contrarians in any debate, understandably, perhaps, as our politics is "contrarian." However, one can still believe in mainstream positions on many issues yet be a libertarian. For example, as Rod Long has pointed out, and I agree, one can agree with a good deal of feminism and still be a libertarian.
Max Schwing -
12/8/2006
I am not an atmospheric scientist, but so aren't most of the climatologists, who lead this avalanche of policy building. They are (or at least should be) statisticians, because what they handle are highly complex (or should be highly complex) functions in an statistical environment, rather than an empirical.
As a student of engineering, I am deeply opposed to this kind of science, because statistics is a difficult and often uncertain field (it tends to ignore important variables and influences to favor a result). Since I can't make experiments to determine the driving factors of the earth climate, because we can't replicate a second earth with all the parameters to meddle with, I have to rely on statistics. And now there are non-government statisticians who say that there are confidence problems with those climate models.
So, I tend to say that government should never take action in this. And, if we have to do something, then we should try to think about ways to influence the earth climate by producing something and not reducing it. The first is a positive change, while the latter most likely is a hurtful change.
The problem with policies on global warming is, that politicians make those choices and they have no idea of the science. If climatologists made the rules, I would also disagree, because they have no clue about economies...
So, best policy is no policy and let the market decide. F.e. in Britain, Green Lifestyle becomes en vogue, which is a first step in a greener direction by individual choice.
