Broken window fallacy
If someone is advocating for “100% renewable [energy]” I’m going to assume they don’t want ICE autos. Perhaps that is a bad assumption, but idk, it seems reasonable to me. Automobile transportation is a large portion of overall energy demands in the US.
If it is indeed a bad assumption, perhaps they should tighten their rhetoric.
I have no doubt that the incentives and the more likely disincentives would “work” in the sense of killing nonrenewables. The imposition of these policies according to a central plan is still textbook central planning. Once the market-winning technology (fossil fuels) is killed, so will die all of the capital behind it. This means investment funds and machine manufacturers as well as human capital in research and specialized degrees. This would have a catastrophic effect if the market-losing technology (renewables) does not pan out. The costs of keeping babies warm in their beds could skyrocket and much sadness would ensue.
The economic efficiencies that have developed in fossil fuel technologies over 150 years of investment and capital accumulation should not be squandered according to a central plan.
Boy, you’re really hitting that “central planning” button like there’s no tomorrow, huh?
Are you saying I’m being alarmist?
Uh, no. Multiplier Effect. Classic example.
Right. Like I said, broken window fallacy. Unless of course you believe Keynes abolished opportunity cost.
Missing the point of Frederic Bastiat then. Bastiat used the parable of a broken window to point out why destruction doesn’t benefit the economy.
Instead of just being dedicated to kill others a lot of effort was geared then to “bring back humans safely from the moon”. As others have noticed then and now: there were a lot of propaganda reasons to go to the moon and it was much better than to show power and progress to the world that way rather than the real broken window that was the Vietnam war and later the Gulf one.
I feel like we got off track super hard, which is hardly surprising - environmental policy is one of those issues where we see the inherent limitations of libertarian policy, in that there’s basically no way for it to do, y’know, anything to prevent environmental damage. Tragedy of the commons and whatnot. Even when I look at WillFarnaby’s proposal, that people take to the courts to sue for environmental damages:
For this proposal to make any sense, we need some answers to some pretty basic questions. Here’s a few cases and questions for you:
-
I live in New Delhi and have developed lung cancer at an early age. I don’t smoke, and the only plausible cause for this cancer is the air pollution around me, which I breathe on my way to work - my home and workplace are both climate controlled.
a) Whose property, exactly, is “the air on my commute to work”?
b) Who do I sue when that air contributes some non-trivial but utterly unmeasurable amount to me dying of lung cancer?
c) Do property rights even apply in any meaningful sense here?
d) Who would I even sue, given that countless individual and collective decisions led to any given environmental problem?
e) How are we defining “property rights” here? Like, seriously, is the air I breathe my property, the property of the person whose land its’ above, or what? -
I was forced to close my business selling tours to the great barrier reef as a result of the reef dying out. This was an avoidable tragedy caused by collective human action.
a) Who can I sue for the loss of my business?
b) Can I join a class with other people who have lost their businesses due to anthropogenic climate change? -
I lost my home as a result of hurricane damage in a region that used to not get hurricanes. I was not insured, as a hurricane hitting the northern Maine coast was basically unheard of before climate change.
a) Can I sue for the loss of my home? Like the above examples, we know that anthropogenic climate change was the primary cause of this disaster - “loading the climate dice” and whatnot
b) My child died in the hurricane. Will a lawsuit get him back?
Extra Credit: Can you propose one institution or collective that may be useful in avoiding such conflicts? (Hint: starts with a “G”.)
Yes it is possible the government misdirected resources into different areas, imagine that.
Good questions for the jurists. Today the law profession is more concerned with legislation than law, which helps explain why our laws and courts are inadequately prepared to answer these questions. Indeed, it is because the government is so inadequate in addressing complex problems that I would balk at them trying to solve the climate issues we will face.
Above.
General insurance companies and g’third party arbitration?
Only that it is not.
A lot of the efforts are not being made by central planning.
“Things move along so rapidly nowadays that people saying: “It can’t be done,” are always being interrupted by somebody doing it.”—Puck in 1903.
As many noted then (1903), losing a lot of the knowledge of so many carriage makers and horse trainers and veterinaries was not a disaster when we got more people working on engines and cars. Like then, it will not be a disaster when one realizes that a lot of engines and cars will become electric and many more jobs and capital are being created there too. And it is part of a global effort to avoid breaking the firmament that is the ultimate window that we all have.
The missing link for you is the difference between a free market winner and a planned market winner.
And good to know then that in the case of climate change we should all then push government towards the good areas that the experts are telling us we should get into then, so thank you at least for acknowledging that those good areas do exist, so drop out of the absolutist path you are getting into.
This is an area where science already told us what is needed and we can now do a lot now to prevent worse scenarios. As mentioned already it is better to concentrate on create new non-polluting sources of energy or otherwise we are braking the ultimate window, our atmosphere.
There are “better” areas for government resources, but they are all worse than voluntary distribution of resources. Also, the experts were telling us to go to war, so the faith in expert policies cannot solve our problems.
I have proposed the free-market solution to pollution. This would be far better than what we have had since the dawn of the Industrial Age, namely government management of external costs. You are actually an advocate of tinkering around with the status quo.
Telling all that you are proud of constantly missing the tragedy of the commons is not my problem. 
One big “the emperor has no clothes” moment can be seen when many solutions to issues like acid rain, ozone hole depletion and water borne diseases were guided by government measures and the economy in the USA and developed nations was not destroyed as many naysayers told us then.
Far from it, having an environment were you or your kids will continue to have good health and less disruptions is conductive to more progress, the alternative is like working in an early coal mine with no canary at hand.
The costs of CO2 emissions have all been racked up under government management. Yet, the only alternative you imagine is a school-child propaganda image.
Now that is silly as in this message board it was shown that the so called experts were hand picked by sorry administrations. And in the cases of Vietnam and the last Gulf war the main ones admitted later how wrong they were.
This is not the case with this issue, as many experts that were critics of climate science learned that the evidence is overwhelming and continues to gain more evidence.
piffle.
News flash: Trump and the polluters are changing that status by propping up coal and other fossil fuels that were already going out thanks not only by the recognition by private enterprises about the growing liability costs of using fossil fuels, but also the growing realization that it was beginning and getting to not make economical sense to ignore alternative sources of energy.
So, yeah:
“Things move along so rapidly nowadays that people saying: “It can’t be done,” are always being interrupted by somebody doing it.”
On Edit:
Like in your last sorry attempt at disparaging economists that were not socialist, your last post is contradicted by “grown up propaganda” sources like Forbes.
What - you don’t know? This is your proposed solution for a problem that could cost close to 30% of the country’s GDP if current trends continue. One that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and displace millions. And you don’t even know how it is supposed to work?
Dude, forget the courts. Do you have any idea how your proposed solution is supposed to work? If it’s supposed to work? I asked this question largely because I was reminded of a passage from Scott Alexander’s massive takedown of laissez-faire libertarian thought, and I was curious if the idea held:
13.7: The government doesn’t need to violate moral heuristics. In the absence of government programs, private charity would make up the difference.
Find some poor people in a country without government-funded welfare, and ask how that’s working out for them. Private charity from the First World hasn’t prevented the Rwandans, Ethiopians, or Haitians from dying of malnutrition or easily preventable disease. It’s possible that this is just because we First Worlders place more importance on our own countrymen than on foreigners, and if Americans were dying of malnutrition or easily preventable disease, patriotism would make us help them.
[Calculations on what would be necessary snipped for copyright reasons]
So, we’re in the unhappy situation of needing people to almost triple the amount they give to charity even though they have only 12.5% more money. The real situation is much worse than this, because if the government stopped all programs except military and police, people would need to pay for education, road maintenance, and so on out of their own pocket.
My calculations are full of assumptions, of course. But the important thing is, I’ve never seen libertarians even try to do calculations. They just assume that private citizens would make up the shortfall. This is the difference between millions of people leading decent lives or starving to death, and people just figure it will work out without checking, because the free market is always a Good Thing.
Emphasis mine. These are important, difficult questions. The problem of climate change is neither easy nor trivial, and it most emphatically does not fit in your box. Your whole libertarian ideology has only so many strings to its bow, and this is one where it just falls apart. That’s why you end up with so much of the libertarian right outright denying that there’s a problem, and asserting that it’s the other side making things up to push a political agenda (recall the insane ramblings of James “Watermelons” Delingpole) - because once you accept that climate change is real, you accept the existence of a problem that libertarian policy cannot adequately solve. The ultimate externality problem. Libertarians already suck at solving the problems of externalities as is - it doesn’t get easier when the externality is “the entire world’s climate” and the people with standing to sue is “everyone” and the defendants in the lawsuit are also “everyone”.
I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
I now regret putting so much work into my previous response.
So just to be clear - when the government fails to rein in the worst excesses of the free market, this is the government’s fault, and a reason why we should not allow the government to regulate the free market.
Your ideas seem confused and inconsistent.
No, but I’m happy to say you’re being wrong. You’re using “central planning” as some kind of scary buzzword when it doesn’t really apply in any meaningful, let alone Soviet, sense. The government will not be taking over the means of production, they will just be applying regulation as they have always done, and regulation by definition has to come from a central source, be it the local city council, the county seat, the state legislature, or congress.