I’m afraid I’m not following you. It’s my understanding that Norway generates its own power, primarily via hydroelectric plants, as opposed to buying it from elsewhere. Could you elaborate on your point? Thanks.
Was it central planning when leaded gasoline was banned? I know that you’re aware of the concept of externalities, so it’s a bit strange to see you focus on such a narrow concept of “market-winning”.
Speaking only for myself, the problem of environmental degradation and the inability to handle diffuse externalities is the biggest single reason why I abandoned laissez faire libertarianism (though I was never as radical as WillFarnaby and his fellow Rothbardians).
That was comfort for whom? My point is governance by policy expert is a double-edged sword.
I have no interest in denying your scientific claims. I do take issue with how the problem is solved or the effects are mitigated.
I thought it was the green stuff that needed propping? Seems to be so if 100% renewable is the goal. If you don’t think it needs propping and would rather remove the fossil fuel propping, we have no disagreement here.
I simply said the alternative is not 19th century government managed pollution standards. It is something else entirely, an actual free market.
If you are going to package your critique of the free market approach with a blogger’s half-baked polemic, I don’t think you want true understanding of the position. This Rothbard essay will provide you with the overall framework if you are interested.
Under the current framework, it is the government’s duty to provide conflict resolution and recognition of property rights. Therefore it is their duty to provide the framework for the free market. Unfortunately they provide an inadequate framework. I believe this is a big reason they should not be trusted. It’s like asking a blind umpire to show a batter how to approach an at-bat.
Eh. Call it what you want then. It is a more actively managed industrial policy.
[quote=“Human_Action, post:121, topic:824561”]
I’m afraid I’m not following you. It’s my understanding that Norway generates its own power, primarily via hydroelectric plants, as opposed to buying it from elsewhere. Could you elaborate on your point? Thanks.
Yes it was central planning, or managed industrial policy, but nothing approaching what you have put forth.
Fossil fuels are the market winning product under the government managed pollution standard framework. It would be beyond hubris for me to suggest what would “win” in a true or more completely free market, but I imagine it would not be a 100% renewable situation or anything close to modern Norway.
So you were never introduced to the above essay. Perhaps you are familiar with moderate libertarian economist Tyler Cowen who has criticized the Rothbard approach because it would not permit enough pollution to maintain an industrialized society. IOW it is too clean.
And my point was that knowing how to properly use that sword is the key, and clearly you have failed on showing why dealing why climate change is something that the government should not tackle.
As shown by your posts made recently, you are not really proposing solutions, but inaction and FUD.
Thing is, the propping is related to the most likely outcome if we do not switch to less polluting sources of energy soon, worse scenarios are very likely. It is folly to continue then to support delayers like the current Republicans in congress. Trump and others are hellbent on ignoring how government can help to increase the rate of the change that is needed.
I think you are looking for a different poster, or you continue to ignore that I’m on the record before of supporting free enterprise efforts too in this issue besides government. And here everybody should notice that Forbes calls itself the “capitalistic tool”, again, it is not my problem if you want your posts to look silly by ignoring what I’m citing.
My critique was that you haven’t thought this shit through. The useful observation from the Non-Libertarian FAQ (also LOL@“half-baked polemic”; the main defining factors of this guy as a blogger is evidence-based deep dives and extreme epistemic charity towards those he critiques) is that, in many cases, this is true of libertarians - they haven’t thought this through.
So this is an exceptionally long essay that starts by redefining what “law” even is. You’ll have to excuse me if I skip around a bit to the relevant parts.
So basically, the idea is that you own the air up to a certain degree above the land you own. That’s… cute, I guess? But here’s where it falls apart:
This is the case, provided that:
“In sum, no one has a right to clean air, but one does have a right to not have his air invaded by pollutants generated by an aggressor.”
a) the polluter has not previously established a homestead easement;
b) while visible pollutants or noxious odors are per se aggression, in the case of invisible and insensible pollutants the plaintiff must prove actual harm;
c) the burden of proof of such aggression rests upon the plaintiff;
d) the plaintiff must prove strict causality from the actions of the defendant to the victimization of the plaintiff;
e) the plaintiff must prove such causality and aggression beyond a reasonable doubt; and
f) there is no vicarious liability, but only liability for those who actually commit the deed.
Note the bolded. This framework works if we’re talking about the specific case of one polluter making the air on your property sound bad, and we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was actual harm caused by that pollution. I don’t even know if we can reach that standard when it comes to basic shit like “I got lung cancer, and it’s probably because of all that shit coming from the chemical plant over there.” This is something Rothbard agrees with!
As Paul Downing says, "Currently, a party who has been damaged by air pollution must prove in court that emitter A damaged him. He must establish that he was damaged and emitter A did it, and not emitter B. This is almost always an impossible task."72 If true, then we must assent uncomplainingly. After all, proof of causality is a basic principle of civilized law, let alone of libertarian legal theory.
But, of course, that’s the key thing here - we’re dealing with extremely complex effects. Why is the air in New Delhi so awful? It’s not because of any individual actor. If I suffer from lung disease because of the terrible air quality, proving any individual fault is next to impossible, because it is ultimately a collective fault.
At that point, when talking about air pollution - not climate change, mind you, which is even more difficult, but merely air pollution - we’ve already lost the plot. We’ve already given up virtually any ability to hold anyone responsible for air pollution save for a tiny handful of specific cases.
It of course gets worse - it always gets worse when dealing with the insanity that is libertarian legal theories. Rothbard’s legal theory does not allow for preventative measures:
There are, of course, innumerable statutes and regulations that create illegality besides the torts dealt with in common-law courts.76 We have not dealt with laws such as the Clean Air Act of 1970 or regulations for a simple reason: None of them can be permissible under libertarian legal theory. In libertarian theory, it is only permissible to proceed coercively against someone if he is a proven aggressor, and that aggression must be proven in court (or in arbitration) beyond a reasonable doubt.
Translation: I can’t stop you from pumping CFCs into the ozone layer until I’m personally already suffering from skin cancer. I can’t make you stop doing the thing which will eventually cause incredible harm until it actually causes harm. That’s insane - am I reading this wrong?
And of course, all this does nothing to uphold the common good; that is, air that isn’t on my property but that I nonetheless still have to breathe for whatever reason. Rothbard’s solution for this is apparently to sue whoever owns the property I travel through, as the person who owns the road I am traveling on could be the target of lawsuits if pollution on their road led to damages. Combined with the above, though, what happens if I travel on more than one road? How am I supposed to prove whose road gave me the pollution that led to my lung disease? If Rothbard’s earlier statements on the burden of proof are anything to go on, the answer is: “Tough titties, buddy.”
In reality, the framework described here by Rothbard does not allow for any sensible regulation on air pollution. It fundamentally falls apart basically as soon as you put it to the test in the real world. If you were to implement this framework, there would be nothing preventing companies from polluting however they saw fit. What it boils down to is god knows how many words explaining why we cannot legally or morally justify doing something that is, without all of these terrible arguments, something that is necessary to stave off serious harm.
Does it have any effect on your argument that the party containing most of the people who listen to morons like Rothbard has been actively fighting against providing an adequate framework to deal with pollution for about 30 years now? I think that’s sort of relevant. The umpire isn’t blind; the batter paid the republican party to blindfold him, which means that some of the time, they can get away with kneecapping the shortstop.
Also… quick note. The current framework is inadequate because it allows for much too much pollution. An adequate tax on carbon would be substantially higher than it is now - currently, the EU has one but it’s way too low and the USA doesn’t have one. Do you think the framework will get better if we say that the government cannot work with this? Will the baseball game get better if we just remove the umpire altogether? This is an argument for better government, not an argument for no government - because “no government” wouldn’t do the job at all, as evidenced by the above Rothbard essay! The “free market” never actually reined in pollution! That’s why we needed laws for it - because the market wasn’t doing it!
Not very helpful, that is more related to visible pollution and nothing about climate change or global warming. Something is there in passing, about how if pollution is invisible one can still demand the polluters to help fix the issue, but in classical libertarian fashion, they plead for the law to be under libertarian rules, problem is that that is not the standard of how law is seen in the USA.
The article then tell us essentially that nothing should be done until there are no reasonable doubts. What Mises misses is that there are less doubts nowadays.
So, only after one looks at how inadecuate a cite deals with the evidence (in this case the cite you made has almost nothing to do with solutions to the global warming increase due to man made CO2 and other warming gases) is than than one looks at the source.
More seriously, a quick search of what that institute has published before shows only an organization made to ignore and even disparage climate science with very stupid arguments.
They are indeed interested in denying scientific claims.
So, only after one looks at how inadequate a cite deals with the evidence (in this case the cite you made has almost nothing to do with solutions to the global warming increase due to man made CO2 and other warming gases) is that then one looks at the source.
You gave a throw-away line about 90%- 98%: I gave a throwaway response. More specifically:
(1) An example of a country using 90% hydro-electricity is not expandable to the general world, which does not have 90% hydro available under any condition.
(2) Norway is connected to the Nordic grid, which is connected to the European grid. Norway is presently unable to operate an independent grid for several reasons: it depends on being connected to the (non-renewable) general grid, and although /on average/ it uses a high level of renewable, it swaps with and depends on non-renewable energy.
(3) Like Norway, /most/ places with a high level of renewable energy are presently doing so in a non-scalable way, which makes it false to suggest that because [a] is x% renewable, [somebody else] could be x% renewable.
(4)A common way of achieve high-renewable % is to buy up all the (non-scalable) available renewable energy, artificially forcing the non-counted energy to be artificially non-renewable. As is the case with Norway. Which you did not mention as your test case in your initial throw-away line.
I work (full-time) in the renewable energy industry. My objection was not to renewable energy: it was an objection to throw-away lines and badly distorting ritual purity in the energy sector.
Ignoring briefly that you can adapt an ICE engine to run (efficiently) on hydrogen, I think internal combustion is great until something better comes along. You seem to assume that improving the state of the art of “something better” isn’t in the interest of good government (or private enterprise, but government can encourage private enterprise.
We’re not Norway, but it’s interesting to note that Norway’s announced intent to ban ICEs by 2025 should move the state of the art toward where 100% renewable energy is a little more feasible.
We should not gloss over the fact that ICE cars are shit compared to cars with electric motors. I’ll never buy another gas guzzler; not for the sake of the environment, but for the sake that I have found something far better than that crappy technology that’s on its way out.
Just to, again, put some perspective on this, Norway has less than 4 million total cars (really closer to 3 million). The US has 2 orders of magnitude more cars than that. In practical terms, Norway really might be able to replace 3 million ICE vehicles by 2025. The US would take a hell of a lot longer to do that…decades at a minimum.
I think we are going this direction already, as I think electric cars are going to win the day wrt alternatives displacing ICE vehicles. But if every car manufacturing facility on earth dedicated themselves to building just replacement cars for just the US it would take beyond 2025 for us to do it…and today, only around a million electric vehicles are built a year, so it would take hundreds of years at that rate and dedicated just to the US alone. It would also be really really bad for the environment, as it’s actually less carbon footprint to keep your old, existing ICE car than build a new electric (at least according to Adam Knows Everything, FWIW :p) as long as said ICE car is in good repair and gets fairly good gas mileage. It’s already built after all, and what it puts out in CO2 is less than making a whole new electric car from scratch, at least in the short term.
That said, I think my next car (maybe my last car) will be an electric. Probably buy it in the mid 2020’s is my thought. Hoping it comes with that fancy new auto-driving stuff as well.
There’s a lot of bogus myths about the supposed well-to-wheel total carbon emissions of electric cars. Yes, because of battery manufacture they tend to have a bigger carbon footprint in initial manufacture than ICE vehicles, but that initial overhead is rapidly offset once you start driving, and the emissions advantage of electric vehicles will only get better as electric power generation inevitably becomes cleaner. Good article about electric vehicle emissions here.
Your cite seems to be answering a different subject that what I was talking about, though I admit I only skimmed it. I’ll just link to the YouTube video if you are interested in hearing it from the horses mouth, so to speak. I don’t know how accurate Adam is on these things, I mostly watch for entertainment purposes, but the gist is that ANY new car, regardless of type, is going to produce new emissions, while we’ve already paid, so to speak, for the cars that are made already. That doesn’t seem like a ‘myth’ to me, seems pretty clear. I guess if you buy a used electric car then it would certainly be better than your ICE car, and if you have to buy a new car then certainly an electric would be better, assuming you can afford it, but if your old ICE car gets pretty good gas mileage then it’s going to be years before you pay off, so to speak, the CO2 footprint of the new electric through emissions of the old ICE vehicle. Again, no ‘myth’ there at all, just common sense.
I believe he made a rebuttal video as a follow on after he got responses such as yours, but I’m not really up for searching for it, as I doubt you’ll even watch this one.
“Technological change exerts a particularly important influence on the national rate of economic growth. A number of studies conclude that about 90 percent of the long-term increase in output per capita in the U.S. has been attributable to technological change, increasing educational achievement, and other factors not directly associated with increases in the quantity of labor and capital.”
I’m a fan of Adam and I have seen his video. Most of what he said is factually correct, i.e. the production of electric cars produce more carbon that traditional ICE cars, if charge your EC with a grid powered by coal, you are releasing the same amount of carbon and the creation of a new electric car produces way more carbon than keeping your cheap high mpg car. All true, Adam’s point is that the singular act of buying an electric car doesn’t have much of an impact on the environment. But he left out a lot of information as well. The majority of power plants do not use coal as a source, and coal is quickly being phased out. More often than not charging your EC is greener than ICE. Secondly, electric cars aren’t being produced to replace your existing car, they are being built to replace your next new car. The fact that producing new items in a factory creates green house gases is true of everything, not just electric cars. So what does that tell you? It tells you that greener electric grid benefits everything. So what near term trend could bolster the need for a greener grid? More electric cars.
Sure…after you take the initial hit on manufacturing the thing it will, eventually, pay off. I’m all for electric technology and cars. It’s the scale of things that gives me pause. Replacing all the cars in Norway with electric cars is, currently, 4 years of production by the worlds combined electric car manufacturers. Replacing all or even most…or even just a lot…of the cars in the US is something else again. If we are talking about CO2 emissions, then it’s unclear to me if building hundred of millions of electric cars is going to have a real benefit, especially in the short or medium term. Long term I think it will. Of course, as we go on building new ICE cars we have similar issues. We still have to mine the and manufacture the resources for them, and that means CO2 and other emissions.
It’s also happening organically, which I’m a big fan of. The market is shifting, I think, towards electric cars as the new paradigm, at least it seems that way to me. As technology advances and the performance envelop (and the cost difference) narrows, I see them becoming more and more prevalent. I don’t think they will replace all ICE vehicles, but I see a shift where you have 60 million new ICE vehicles manufactured a year to 1 million electric vehicles…then maybe 50 to 10. Then maybe 40 to 20. Then maybe 30 to 30. And so on. Until you have 60 million new electric vehicles to 1 million new ICE ones at some point…a complete shift. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves…building all of that is going to, also, have a very serious impact. It all adds up. Building a 100% renewable and CO2 free energy system, or even close to it (or a bunch of new nuclear plants, or even fusion plants) is going to also have a huge initial impact. In the long term it will help, but everything we do is going to push us closer and closer to that 2.0 degree C change. Might be inevitable at this point, and we just have to hope in the long term we get it under control.
How efficient is it to store energy? If you use 1000 kwh of electricity to pump water up to a water tower, how much electricity is produced when that water falls back down through the turbines?
How much efficiency is gained if solar panels hydrolyze water directly, rather than using electricity as a “middleman”?
Does the latest electricity metering charge different prices at different times of day? Buildings should use electricity at night-time to cool fluid or ice, then use that stored coldness to run their A/C for free during the day.
Mr. Farnaby has assured us that the brilliant Murray Rothbard has a simple solution for external costs. My attempts to Google for details just led me to Rothbard’s endorsement of torture and child abuse; and of course Mr. Farnaby ain’t talking, so I’m glad to see Budget Player Cadet take one for the team and wade through an anarcho-libertarian manifesto.
(I wonder why Rothbard chose Alabama as the place to establish his school. Somalia didn’t want him?)
Let me see if I got this straight. I first must wait until my aunt dies (“No harm, no foul”), have a forensic scientist examine the corpse to identify the particular sulfate ion that was the “straw that broke the chemotherapy’s back,” locate the source of that ion (presumably using the NSA videos which are continually recording the movement of every molecule in the atmosphere?), track the polluter down, and then contact his insurance company?
Despite that cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos I don’t think I can file trespassing charges against any old errant molecule — there are many millions of CO[sub]2[/sub] molecules once exhaled by Will Farnaby that are over my property at this very instant. If I prove with mathematical certainty that this is a 99.999999999999999999% certainty can I claim “beyond any reasonable doubt” and sue Farnaby? Or must I capture a specific CO[sub]2[/sub] molecule and torture it into confession?
If one of those CO[sub]2[/sub] molecules causes the global warming that injures my grandchildren decades from now, they need to track down Farnaby’s grandchildren and sue them? And as civilization crumbles from the climate change, the anarcho-libertarians will smile in satisfaction because someone got sued for the catastrophe?
is that there are less doubts nowadays.