TT`s Lost in Tokyo

Third-World land theft and the tragedy of the commons: Mother Jones ponders, "Conservation: Indigenous people's enemy No. 1?"

TokyoTom — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:50:00 GMT

The Mother Jones magazine has been running a series of on-line articles which exemplify how progressives are exploring the ways in which various parts of the environmental/conservation agenda in developing countries have been counterproductive, adversely affected indigenous peoples, favored Western companies and played into the hands of local elites.

The articles are worth reviewing, as they reveal that enviros are starting to realize that protecting nature in the developing world requires protecting the property rights of indigenous communities.

One such article, by Mark Dowie, appeared in Mother Jones` on-line edition on November 2. The headline reads, "Conservation: Indigenous people's enemy No. 1?", the sub-header states, "For centuries we've displaced people to save nature. A huge project in Africa offers a chance to turn that around." Dowie, an award-winning investigative journalist, is an author of several books published by the MIT Press, including his most recent, Conservation Refugees - The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples.

Dowie`s thesis is that, until recently, conservationists have typically taken the approach that the best way to preserve tropical forests and other wild ecosystems, the right approach was to establish pristine reserves from which people were excluded, and describes the change in strategy in the context of a new series of parks that the government in Gabon, central Africa. Dowie notes that the traditional approach - of establishing government-owned and -administered parks free of native residents - has a long, and long-forgotten history in the US (emphasis added):

But there was another, more historically significant opportunity facing Gabon that day, one that Fay merely hinted at in his presentation and Sanderson didn't mention at all. It was the opportunity their own industry, transnational conservation, had in Gabon: to do right by the thousands of tribal people living inside those emerald patches, by allowing them to remain in their homelands and participate directly in the stewardship and management of the new parks. They would then not be passive "stakeholders" relocated to the margins of the park, the typical fate of indigenous peoples who find themselves in conservation "hot spots," but equal players in the complex and challenging process of defending biological diversity. The goal of such a policy would be the concurrent preservation of nature and culture; Gabon just might come to signify a happy ending of a tense, century-long conflict between global environmentalism and native people, millions of whom have been displaced from traditional homelands in the interest of conservation.

It's a century-long story of violence and abuse that began in Yosemite Valley in the mid 19th century, when the Ahwahneechee band of Miwoks were chased about, caught on, then forcefully expelled from a landscape they had cultivated for about 200 generations. Militias like the vicious Mariposa Battalion were sent into Yosemite to burn acorn caches and rout native people from remote reaches of the Valley. After the militias came the nature romantics who mythologized the vacated valley as the wilderness it never was, then lobbied state and federal governments to create a national park. They got their wish in 1890, and the remaining Indians were removed from the area, with a few allowed to remain temporarily, as menial laborers in a segregated village of 20-by-20-foot shacks.

Yosemite's Indian policy spread to Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde, Mount Ranier, Zion, Glacier, Everglades, and Olympic National Parks, all of which expelled thousands of tribal people from their homes and hunting grounds so the new parks could remain in an undisturbed "state of nature." Three hundred Shoshone Indians were killed in a single day during the expulsion from Yellowstone. This was the birth of what would come to be known, worldwide, as the Yosemite model of wildlife conservation. In Africa it would be renamed "fortress conservation," and like so many other products from the North, the model would be exported with vigor to all other continents. ...

Teddy Roosevelt also proclaimed that "the rude, fierce settler who drives the savage from the land lays all civilized mankind under a debt to him… It is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners and become the heritage of the dominant world races."

Our own history of theft from natives aside (which I have addressed tangentially in the context of the near-extirpation of the bison herds and the ongoing gross mismanagement and destruction of the salmon), what indigenous peoples in their right minds would not be opposed to the complicity of conservationists in continuing the process of the older colonial theft of their lands, even if the purpose was to "save" the land? I won`t explore this now, but the record of "development" is replete with many examples - old and new - of such kinds of theft, with local ownership replaced by government ownership and a resulting "tragedy of the commons"-type of race to plunder "government" lands for valuable resources - oil and gas, minerals and timber.

Dowie notes the natural rise of indigenous opposition to "conservation" projects:

One consequence of creating a few million conservation refugees around the world has been the emergence of a vast and surprisingly powerful movement of communities that have proven themselves stewards of nature (otherwise conservationists would have no interest in their land), but were turned by circumstance into self-described "enemies of conservation."

In early 2004, a United Nations meeting was convened for the ninth year in a row to push for passage of a resolution protecting the territorial and human rights of indigenous peoples. During the meeting, one indigenous delegate rose to state that extractive industries, while still a serious threat to their welfare and cultural integrity, were no longer the main antagonist of native cultures. Their new and biggest enemy, she said, was "conservation." Later that spring, at a meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, of the International Forum on Indigenous Mapping, all 200 delegates signed a declaration stating that "conservation has become the number one threat to indigenous territories."

Then in February 2008, representatives of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) walked out of a Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) annual meeting, condemning the convention for ignoring their interests. "We found ourselves marginalized and without opportunity to take the floor and express our views," read their statement. "None of our recommendations were included in [the meeting's report]. So we have decided to leave this process…"

These are all rhetorical jabs, of course, and perhaps not entirely accurate or fair. But they are based on fact and driven by experience, and have shaken the international conservation community. So have a spate of critical studies and articles calling international conservationists to task for their historical mistreatment of indigenous peoples.

The Mother Jones article looks like an excerpt from Dowie`s new book, which MIT describes as follows:

Since 1900, more than 108,000 officially protected conservation areas have been established worldwide, largely at the urging of five international conservation organizations. About half of these areas were occupied or regularly used by indigenous peoples. Millions who had been living sustainably on their land for generations were displaced in the interests of conservation. In Conservation Refugees, Mark Dowie tells this story.

This is a "good guy vs. good guy" story, Dowie writes; the indigenous peoples’ movement and conservation organizations have a vital common goal—to protect biological diversity—and could work effectively and powerfully together to protect the planet and preserve species and ecosystem diversity. Yet for more than a hundred years, these two forces have been at odds. The result: thousands of unmanageable protected areas and native peoples reduced to poaching and trespassing on their ancestral lands or "assimilated" but permanently indentured on the lowest rungs of the economy.

The punch line of the book summary?

When conservationists and native peoples acknowledge the interdependence of biodiversity conservation and cultural survival, Dowie writes, they can together create a new and much more effective paradigm for conservation.

I am quite sympathetic with Dowie`s thinking, but it seems to me that he could make us of a little more intellectual framework, such as the Austrian awareness of the frequently negative role played by the state and the usefulness of property rights (as I noted in this earlier post about the destruction of the Amazon), and Elinor Ostrom`s research into successful management of open-access, common-pool resources by communities, including natives.

I left the following comments for Dowie at Mother Jones:

Mark, great article. It`s good to hear that the broader conservation community is waking up, but groups like Survival International have always tried to protect indigenous peoples`s rights.

I`m afraid the headline is a bit of a distraction, because of course the broader development effort as a whole has been much more destructive, by even more widely putting power into the hands on central elites, who often behaved kleptocratically.

Regardless of the broader background, it`s surprising that you didn`t see fit to link your topic to the whole problem of the "tragedy of the commons", which is often tied to the nationalization of resources, which deprives users of any control over the resources they depend on. Elinor Ostrom has extensively studied this problem in developing countries and elsewhere, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics precisely for pointing out how "government" is often the problem and not the solution:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=ostrom

I commend this effort by Dowie, and note some other interesting articles at Mother Jones:

GM's Rainforest Racket: People with some of the world's smallest carbon footprints are being displaced—so their forests can become offsets.

Better REDD Than Dead: The byzantine politics of paying countries to save trees.cial-reports/2009/11/climate-countdown">Our best chance to fix global warming begins on December 7. Tick. Tick. Tick.

Bruce Yandle on the tragedy of the commons, evolution of cooperation & property, and the struggle against government theft

TokyoTom — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:45:00 GMT

I`ve often referred to Bruce Yandle, a "free-market environmentalist" who is dean emeritus and Distinguished Professor of Economics Emeritus at Clemson University`s College of Business & Behavior Sciences, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Economics at the Mercatus Center, a faculty member with George Mason University's Capitol Hill Campus, and a Senior Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (a free-market environmentalism think tank which has great links to his many works).

I`d like to draw attention attention to one short paper by Yandle which I find insightful in providing a perspective on the evolution of prperty rights and problems with resource management which arise from government owenership, even as he has short-shrifted the importance of community property mechanisms, which Nobel Prize-winner Elinor Ostrom has so extensively researched and documented (as I keep noting).

Yandle`s paper, The Commons: Tragedy or Triumph?, was published by the Foundation for Economic Education in its April 1999 online edition of Freeman. Here are portions I`d like to highlight:

The feeder is a commons, but not just for hummingbirds. Bees are attracted to it as well, and oddly enough, they can drive off the larger hummingbirds. So even if the dominant bird is able to deflect competition from other members of the species, that is not enough to protect the nectar, and the defense itself is costly in energy burned. The feeder contents are never secure.

Hummingbirds have no way to stake a claim to the feeder. So far as we can tell, hummingbird communities have no constitution that reflects socially evolved rules for establishing a social order. Most likely, a long process of adaptation and selection has generated a hummingbird capable of living in a world where nourishment is a common-access resource, a commons. Hummingbirds live a life of flight, engaging in a constant search for nourishment to feed their high-energy lives and, at times, fighting for temporary control over valuable resources.

Human Commons

We all know the tragedy of the commons story. Wonderfully written by Garrett Hardin in 1968, the highly stylized rendering is about a pasture devoid of rules, customs, or norms for sharing.^[1] It is open to all comers. In this never-never-land, shepherds logically add sheep to their flocks as long as doing so adds an increment of gain for the particular flock. Uncoordinated in their effort, and unaware of the effects of their individual actions on others, the unconcerned shepherds collectively destroy the pasture. What could be a story of plenty, if only the shepherds understood, turns into a story of poverty. The passive shepherds are like hummingbirds. [Yandle has this wrong; Hardin posits competing shepherds who don`t talk w/ each other,and so look after only their narrow self-interests.]

As Hardin artistically puts it: “Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in freedom of the commons.”

Garrett Hardin’s words beautifully bundle aspects of an endless human struggle to form communities, accumulate wealth, and improve well-being. With that phrase—tragedy of the commons—the essence of the challenge hits us squarely between the eyes: When there are no property rights—formal or informal—that limit use of a scarce natural resource, human action leads inevitably to untimely resource depletion and destruction.

But people are not hummingbirds. People can build institutions that take the edge off frantic commons behavior. People have unwritten and written constitutions that help to establish social order. People can and do accumulate wealth. People communicate, invent lines of kinship, and develop customs, traditions, and rules of law that limit anti-social behavior. People define, enforce, and trade property rights. People can and do avoid the tragedy of the commons. Indeed, instead of living with tragedies, people triumph over the commons. But the triumphs are never perfect or complete. There is always another commons to manage.

The Ascent of Man

I wish to put forward the notion that encounters with the commons form the fundamental stimulus that yields, instead of tragedy, what we today call civilization. The ascent of man from a primitive existence with no wealth accumulation to life as we know it is fundamentally a story about triumph over, not tragedy of, the commons. Let me explain.

Our very existence as human beings is defined by evolved institutions for avoiding tragedies. We have names, which serve the economic purpose of identifying us as parties to contracts and agreements. Those names, first and last, form webs of communication that reduce the social cost of assigning responsibilities and liabilities. They enhance truth-telling and promise-keeping; they raise the cost of engaging in anti-social behavior. They limit a tragedy of the commons.

We have abstract symbols of ownership—deeds, titles, and contracts—that define spheres of autonomous behavior. We speak of our homes, our cars, our clothes, our families, and our pasture. Even language has evolved to provide a possessive form that accommodates triumph over the commons.

We write and observe contracts, wills, and marriage agreements that define relationships, identify turf, and conserve wealth. We accept evolved bodies of law and law-enforcement activities to assure the integrity of our agreements. We carry papers that enable us to acquire property, extinguish debt, cross borders, drive vehicles, and communicate effectively with strangers. And we have locks, keys, walls, fences, brands, and encryption devices, all this in an effort to avoid a tragedy of the commons.

Property rights define who we are and what we have. Property rights guard others from our unwanted advances and prevent us from contributing to a tragedy of their commons.

Avoiding a tragedy of the commons is costly. The benefits must be large. ...

The tragedy is found where for reasons having to do with power, intolerance, or cost, human beings have not yet defined private property rights. Or, as we shall see, where evolving property rights encouraged by man the institution builder have been destroyed. What was once a triumph can become a tragedy. ...

What about fisheries? How can we avoid a tragedy of the commons there? Long before the Europeans arrived on the scene in the Pacific Northwest, Native Americans had figured it out. Small tribes in what is now Washington State had salmon fishing rights. Don Leal tells us that “in some cases, the tribe owned the rights; in others, families or individuals or a combination owned the rights.”^[5]

And what happened when the Europeans arrived? You guessed it. Leal tells the story this way: “Instead of recognizing the well-defined and enforced fishing rights, the U.S. government allowed newcomers to place nets across the mouth of the Columbia. This quickly depleted salmon runs, so traps and weirs were banned—only to be replaced by purse seine boats powered by internal combustion engines. The race to catch salmon moved to open waters. Ironically, from the country where private property is considered sacrosanct came a socialistic legal system driven by politics and military power.”^[6] What had been private property was turned into a commons. What had been an institution-builder triumph became a political tragedy. ...

For centuries before anyone in the United States thought much about environmental quality, our common law defined and protected the environmental rights of ordinary people.^[10] Enforced by judges in courts across the land, common law protected the right of downstream property owners to receive water and air in undiminished quality for reasonable use. At common law, rivers could not be treated as open sewers if doing so imposed costs on downstream rightholders. Industrial plants could not blow smoke and emissions onto the land and property of ordinary people. The record is filled with cases, here and in Canada, decided under English common-law traditions: where farmers sued industrial plants and won; where citizens of one state sued polluters in another state, and won; and where common-law judges ordered polluters to clean up or shut down. There are also cases where this did not happen, where judges turned away from property-rights enforcement and behaved as policy makers. But when the judges got it wrong, their decisions affected a small number of people, not an entire nation. [I note Walter Block disagrees strongly and views this change in common law as leading to the rampant pollution that set the stage for federal legislation.] This, of course, changed with the advent of legislation.

Prior to the passage of federal pollution-control statutes, every major city in the United States had taken steps to define public property rights to air quality. Many states, including California, had taken a river-basin approach to the management of water quality, this in addition to the use of common law. Multi-state compacts were forming. By the 1960s, environmental quality was improving rapidly in many locations. The property rights institution builders were on their way to avoiding a tragedy of the commons. Common law was converting the commons to private property.

This was changed with the passage of federal legislation that effectively nationalized air and water quality in the United States. What was becoming private property was made public property, almost a commons. The new system of command-and-control regulation allowed polluters to operate legally if they had a permit. With permits in hand, new polluters could enter already crowded river basins. The new regime provided political access to industries and municipalities that hoped to postpone the day of reckoning in common law courts. ...

This work sheds light on mankind’s struggle to avoid the tragedy of the commons. It tells us that at very low levels of income, what might be called stage one, human beings cannot afford to do much about property-rights enforcement and the commons. They live in a world where custom and tradition sustain them. As incomes rise and losses from the commons expand, stage two is entered. Fences go up, and rules are set for protecting the commons. Finally, in stage three, markets evolve along with rules of law that define spheres of private and public action. Private rights replace public control, and the triumph replaces the tragedy of the commons. [Yandle ignores government mismanagement here, and how Western markets and Westernized leaders have seamrollered native institutions.]

Life for mankind began on a commons where tragedies were commonplace and the incentive to improve was powerful. Out of the struggle to survive and accumulate wealth evolved markets, property rights, and the rule of law—a triumph on the commons.

But just as bees compete with hummingbirds in the struggle to control access to nectar, institution builders who seek to support markets and property rights compete with others who seek to redistribute wealth. Actions to redistribute wealth blunt the incentive to protect property rights and create wealth. This converts triumph to tragedy.

To David Suissa: imagine not simply peace-seeking Arab moderates, but an end to funding of intransigence by the US, EU & Japan

TokyoTom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:29:00 GMT

The Ha`aretz newspaper kindly sent by email a piece, "We Need ‘A Street,’ Not J Street", by David Suissa, that is apparently his weekly column for the Los Angeles Jewish Journal. In his personal blog (under "The Banality of J-Street"), Suissa provides the following skinny on his column:

In my Jewish Journal column this week, I talk about how a Jewish organization called J Street has become an overnight sensation by spewing out cliches about how much they want peace, and how it is so very important that we finally resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. No kidding. Who doesn't want that? Of course, there's one nagging detail they seem to have overlooked: the other side doesn't really want to play ball. My pipe dream? An organization called A Street.

Suissa thinks he`s on to something that could be "transformational":

If you ask me, what the Middle East needs more than anything today is not a J Street but an A Street. This would be an Arab organization that would do what no Jewish organization — left, right or center — can do: rally peace-seeking Arab moderates to the cause of peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state. If the Jews can rally their own for peace, why can’t the Arabs? Why should Jews have an exclusive on self-criticism and internal pressure?

Can you imagine how transformational it would be if a high profile, “pro-Arab, pro-peace” organization pressured Palestinian leaders to dismantle the teaching of Jew-hatred in Palestinian society — a hatred that has made a mockery of all moves toward peace?

While I admire Sussa`s imagination, it seems to me that he not only (1) forgets how Israeli`s own behavior (from the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin 14 years ago, to the bombing and ongoing strangling of Gaza) has frustrated Palestinian moves toward peace, but, more importantly, (2) ignores an even larger dynamic. As I noted in an email to him:

as a libertarian and taxpayer, it seems to me that what we really need is for the US government, and EU & Japanese governments, to stop spending billions each year subsidizing intransigence on both sides.

Just imagine how transformational THAT would be!

A pipe dream, of course; while the people want peace, leaders everywhere cement their power by grandstanding, and through hard-line positions.

To John Quiggin: Reassuring climate "delusions" help us all to avoid engaging with "enemies" in exploring common ground

TokyoTom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:04:00 GMT

I left the following comment on John Quiggin`s "Libertarians and delusion" post (other comments are noted in my preceding posts):

TokyoTom

November 6th, 2009 at 14:03 | #34

@jquiggin

“ have started to entertain the view that there is either an actual or perceived conflict between reality and libertarian ideology.”

Thanks for this concession, John, but of course this is true for ANY ideology (as well for the rest of us more perfect humans who always have to battle with cognitive conservatism). And yes, it leads to a combination of tribalism and wishful thinking, and in some cases a denial of inconvenient science.

Sea Bass says it well: “So what we have is many libertarians, who are usually not experts on the science of climate change, being asked to blindly accept scientific conclusions that are often promoted by people and organisations whose political beliefs are antithetical to their own.”

Thinking that libertarians are more susceptible to “delusion” than anyone else is itself a cognitive trap – one that provides comfort to those who believe that there is a serious cause for concern about climate change (me too), and that it`s one easily addressed by government, and leads them to ignore the empirical evidence for the ways governments screw up (and are manipulated, and to conclude that those who oppose government action are evil.

I`ve made several references to the empirical case for caution in thinking that government is going to make things better rather than worse; the work of Lin Ostrom and the reasons the Nobel Prize committee gave her the award are a recent one. But as I noted in comments to a post by Tim Lambert earlier this year on the “economists`s consensus”:

85 “Free market people do not argue that all government allocation of goods is ineffective. It simply suffers from a high incidence of moral hazard and inefficiency, and if it does not account for the market (which it has little incentive to do as it is mostly about politics) any growth from it will likely be unsustainable.”

Well said, Craig; commonsense examples of moral hazard and inefficiency can be seen in:

* our oversupply and overuse of our “defense”, e.g., Iraq & Halliburton, Homeland Security, domestic spying, military-industrial stuff generally;
* our agricultural pork: price supports, ethanol, sugar;
* the government’s provision of “war on drugs” to save us from mad reefer smokers, etc., resulting in Prohibition-like crime/corruption/stifled inner city growth, trampled stae and local rights and troubles in all supplying/conduit countries;
* cheap oil/gas/hardrock mineral/timber/grazing leases;
* an oversupplied but underperforming levee system;
* huge bonuses and huge risks generated at Freddie and Fannie;
* an FDA and Ag Dept that notes bad peanut butter mfg but says nothing, yet prohibits small dairy and meat producers from advertising hormone-free milk and mad cow disease-free beef, etc.

Who couldn’t want more of this?

Posted by: TokyoTom | February 17, 2009 6:47 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/02/the_economists_consensus_on_gl.php

All issues that Tim – and you, too, apparently – just conveniently don`t seem to see at all, or at least have a tough time finding the time or space to address, preferring to delve into arcania about various libertarian cults. But of course now there are lots of environmentalists, voters, pundits and even scientists like Jim Hansen who are decrying what looks like an enormous C&T road wreck emerging as the preferred climate option in Washington.

Just as I am working hard to make sure that libertarians are not blunting their own message by hiding their heads in the sand on the science, so do I think that those who (rightly I think) are concerned about AGW ought to be paying quite a bit more attention to the problems pointed out by libertarians about the misuse of government by powerful insiders, the knowledge problem and bureaucratic perversities.

Sadly, there seems to be little interest by most in exploring the very wide middle ground of undoing the screwed up policies that have helped to generate the frustrations that many feel today and the engender what has become a snowballing fight over the wheel of government.

Why can`t we have a little more exploration of root causes and common ground? Must it remain a no-man`s land, while partisans battle, and corporate interests scheme?

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/03/a-libertarian-immodestly-makes-a-few-modest-climate-policy-proposals.aspx

A few more "delusional" thoughts to John Quiggin on partisan perceptions & libertarian opposition to collective action

TokyoTom — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:33:00 GMT

Further to my preceding posts regarding John Quiggin`s post on "Libertarians and delusionism", I copy below a few of the comments that I left there:

TokyoTom

November 4th, 2009 at 08:13 | #3

John, thanks for raising the topic more widely. However, I think you`ve wandered a bit astray yourself by missing the problem of cognitive traps, as well as missing a libertarian point or two.

I respond more fully here: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/04/john-quiggin-plays-pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey-with-quot-libertarians-and-delusionism-quot.aspx

Tom

TokyoTom

November 4th, 2009 at 18:09 | #33

John, I note that I have made a few additional comments, chiefly in an effort to clarify my understanding of libertarian views on property:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/04/a-few-more-comments-to-john-quiggin-on-climate-and-libertarian-principles.aspx

I look forward to your further thoughts.

Tom

TokyoTom

November 5th, 2009 at 00:43 | #48

John, obviously my own experience at Mises (and at the libertarian law blog Volokh Conspiracy) is that while decidedly irrational “skepticism” and wishful thinking predominates, it is not universal. But those like me who believe that climate concerns are justified and want to analyze policy (and who are critical of ad homs directed toward “enviros”) always face challenges and criticism from those who feel too threaded to venture out into a discussion of policy.

However, outside of boards like that, it seems to me that there is a general swing by libertarian commenters on climate to an acceptance of a rather mainstream science view, though there remains natural policy disagreements. Ron Bailey, science correspondence at Reason and Jon Adler, a resources law prof at Case Western, Lynne Kiesling at Knowledge Problem blog, David Zetland, who blogs on water issues, come to mind. Others, at AEI, CEI, IER and Master Resource are partly in the business of running cover for fossil fuel interests, and so frequently challenge both science and policy.

There have been several open disputes, where Bailey, Kiesling and others have challenged skepticism at CEI and elsewhere, as I noted on my recent “libertarian views” summary post. Readers might also find this upbraiding of Penn & Teller to be interesting: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/05/penn-amp-teller-quot-bull-quot-artists-get-ready-to-change-their-quot-skeptical-quot-stance-on-climate-change.aspx

BTW, I note that one self-described libertarian group in California has specifically proposed carbon taxes, though this is a rather obscure group and their “Pay Your Air Share” proposal appears to be little-discussed: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/13/quot-pay-your-air-share-quot-libertarian-think-tank-advocates-carbon-taxes.aspx

TokyoTom

November 5th, 2009 at 17:08 | #36

@Freelander
“It is the collective action that is required that extreme libertarians hate so much. ”

Libertarians don`t oppose collective action per se, but are opposed to “collective” actions that are dictated by the state -because it hampers the ability of communities to respond to problems on their own, weakens links between resource users and the relevant resource, frequently locks in benefits for powerful insiders (viz., the big firms that profess to love markets but really love their deals from government that lock in their advantageous position) – thereby setting up enduring fights over the wheel of government -and because the “knowledge problem” generally ensures that solutions will be ham-handed and generate a need for further interventions.

You, John and others might not have noticed, but these are some of the chief conclusions of the empirical research by “tragedy of the commons” expert Elinor Ostrom, and her writings about how counter-productive stated-led “development” and commons-management efforts have been is precisely the reason why the Swedes awarded her the Nobel Prize in economics.
TokyoTom

November 5th, 2009 at 17:19 | #37

Reply | Quote

@Alice
Alice, on the topic of “watermelons”, surely the libertarians have a point that many environmentalists really do not understand how markets or free societies function, but typically this term is used not to explain, but as an ad hom, both to dismiss concerns over climate science and to avoid the heavy work of arguing over policy, as I`ve noted here:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/05/the-road-not-taken-v-libertarian-hatred-of-misanthropic-quot-watermelons-quot-and-the-productive-love-of-aloof-ad-homs.aspx
TokyoTom

November 5th, 2009 at 17:33 | #39

Reply | Quote

John, to sum up, while clearly many libertarians are guilty of wishful thinking as to the climate science, by the same token many environmentalists and leftists seem to blithely ignore all of the problems that are associated with state/bureaucratic responses.

Yes, there are self-deluded on both sides, but to seek to explain away (or dispense with considering) the opposition of others is itself a flight from reason and responsibility.

That this is understandable , human and a common phenomenon in the case of tribal or partisan conflict – as Nick Kristof points out: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/04/17/nick-kristof-on-politics-why-we-conclude-that-i-m-right-and-you-re-evil.aspx – makes it something that we should all the more try to avoid, rather than indulge in, which seems to be the drift of this post and many of your commenters.

On this point, I would recommend that you and others take a look at some of the opposition to cap-and-trade now springing up on the left in the US; see the comments of two EPA lawyers and of Dr. Janese Hansen here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/epa-lawyers-challenge-cap-and-trade-for-climate/

Says Hansen: “I hope that Williams and Zabel give decision makers pause. This is no time to be rushing into costly ineffectual legislation. It is time to call a halt on any legislation this year, and take time to understand the matter. It would take 20 years to fix the mess that Congress, with the help of special interests, seems intent on creating.”

Regards,

Tom

The Road Not Taken V: Libertarian hatred of misanthropic "watermelons" and the productive love of aloof ad-homs

TokyoTom — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:03:00 GMT

I copy below a comment I just left at Stephan Kinsella`s post on the main LvMI Blog, "Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims", which I have discussed here in several preceeding posts.

TokyoTom Published: November 4, 2009 10:54 PM (minor edits; links added)

Stephan:

- "They, like you, accept the state's line and are happy to cede power to the state to "make things better.""

Except I DON`T "accept the state`s line", nor am I "happy to cede power to the state", which is precisely why I bother to interrupt your fantasies here.

This, in fact, represents the fallacy that is at work in climate change discussions here - and that almost completely vitiates the libertarian message - namely, that if one concurs that we`ve got a potential problem, then they must then agree to the statist agenda.

So instead of any effort to engage ON the libertarian agenda, we get guys like you pandering - with demonstrable nonsense from guys like Harvey - to libertarians who hope the statists and the purported problem will just kindly go away.

What a great way for libertarians to muzzle themselves, and to stand by helplessly instead of weighing in.

Trying to reassure yourself and your buddies that the man with a gun is either deluded or trying to take over the world is hardly either reassuring, or a step on the way to getting him to put the gun down.

Nor is calling those [like me] who think conversation may be more efficiacious a "comrade to rotten watermelons" in any way helpful, unless the goal is simply to reinforce the echo chamber.

Watermelons, ahh, watermelons! How helpful, and so much fun to bandy about this little bit of ad hom! Is it getting time for Austrians once more to gather `round the fire, and roast some watermelons? Holiday joy: roasting "watermelons" on an open pyre! A little eliminationist fantasy [a la Czech physicist Lubos Motl is not that far away ....

As I noted in my above post explaining the use of the "watermelon" ad hom:

"watermelon" is a venerable ad hominem here, useful for Miseseans to put fingers in their ears and dismiss what practically everyone who disagrees with them on climate change - from our national academies of science on down - has to say.

The trick is to first dismiss the evil "enviros" - you know, that class of rent-seekers that Rothbard and others tell us were created when statist corporations managed to subvert common law protections against polution damage to property - by focussing on their efforts to use the state to control corprations, while resolutely ignoring not only corporate statism but what Austrian economics tells us about how markets and private transaction are inefficient with respect to resources that are not clear owned or protected by enforceable property rights.

Then, having dismissed those wacky "watermelons", we can simply ignore everyone else, by jeering at the enviros and thereby implicitly imputing to the whole scientific, economic, business and government community the same malevolent and stupid misanthropism.

Neat trick, isn`t it?

IOW, enviros should be burned at the stake for the heresy of trying to use the state to solve a possible problem, and everyone else, who have gullibly been corrupted by them, ignored. In this way, we can cleanse the body politic and avoid serious mistakes. See?

Serious people know that only irreproachable commentators like Dr. Reisman get to suggest that we use the state to address possible climate change:

"there is a case for considering the possible detonation, on uninhabited land north of 70° latitude, say, of a limited number of hydrogen bombs. ... This is certainly something that should be seriously considered by everyone who is concerned with global warming and who also desires to preserve modern industrial civilization and retain and increase its amenities. If there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility."

We can distinguish you from Dr. Reisman, Stephan, since you helpfully insist that the state should not engage in this testing, so that we must first privatize the holding of nuclear weapons, so that firms and individuals, unhindered by the state, can engage in such experimentation. Such clear-mindedness is commendable, since freedom-loving commenters here or elsewhere seldom consider the difficult statist elements implicit in most discussions of active "geo-engineering" to dampen or reverse any climate change problem.

But while we`re on the subject of criticizing "watermelons" and their supposed "comrades"-in-arms, one wonders when aloof purists like you will ever deign to criticize fellow libertarians like Rob Bradley and Bob Murphy, who are also actively engaged in this statist discussion - shame! - but on behalf of the fossil fuel firms and utilities that until now have been the most successful rent-seekers.

So far, all we see with regard to the way libertarians actively defend successful rent-seeking is a studied indifference.

- "now that we have irrelevant credentials out of the way, let's stick to substance."

Absolutely; I was just concerned not to leave you hanging out there on the "irrelevant" limb all by yourself.

Best,

TT

As I noted on the main thread, surely it wouldn`t be helpful if I in like fashion called libertarians who refuse to engage in a principled discussion on the issue of climate policy (preferring instead to comfort themselves with one-page letters that tell us that our massive releases of greenhouse gases. etc. is peachy-keen) "coconuts" - hard on the outside, but empty on the inside?

For climate fever, take two open-air atom bombs & call me in the morning; "serious" libertarian suggestions from Kinsella & Reisman!?

TokyoTom — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:06:00 GMT

First, George Reisman, and now, Stephan Kinsella. I have asked two of our leading lights whether they and libertarians are striving for a self-satisfied irrelevancy on climate issue, or wish to be taken seriously, and they both, with self-professed seriousness, announced that we should, in Stephan`s words, "investigate nuclear winter as a way to offset alleged global warming".

I`m afraid these proposals leave me a bit stunned. On first blush - nay, lengthy consideration - such proposals can not in the least be considered libertarian, or something libertarians could countenance. This is the way to libertarian relevancy, and to take both the challenge of statist climate change proposals and libertarianism itself seriously? I don`t get it - is this obvious sarcasm or straightforward mockery of climate concerns, an inside joke, from which suspected "watermelons" are excluded, or am I just not on the right sober, libertarian wave-length?

Readers` help appreciated!

I copy below relevant passages, both from Dr. Reisman and from Stephan (emphasis added).

1. George Reisman: Global Warming: Environmentalism’s Threat of Hell on Earth March 16, 2007 (emphasis added):

In contrast to the policy of the environmentalists, there are rational ways of cooling the earth if that is what should actually be necessary, ways that would take advantage of the vast energy base of the modern world and of the still greater energy base that can be present in the future if it is not aborted by the kind of policies urged by the environmentalists.

Ironically, the core principle of one such method has been put forward by voices within the environmental movement itself, though not at all for this purpose. Years ago, back in the days of the Cold War, many environmentalists raised the specter of a “nuclear winter.” According to them, a large-scale atomic war could be expected to release so much particulate matter into the atmosphere as to block out sunlight and cause weather so severely cold that crops would not be able to grow. ...

Certainly, there is no case to be made for an atomic war. But there is a case for considering the possible detonation, on uninhabited land north of 70° latitude, say, of a limited number of hydrogen bombs. The detonation of these bombs would operate in the same manner as described above, but the effect would be a belt of particles starting at a latitude of 70° instead of 30°. The presence of those particles would serve to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching most of the Arctic’s surface. The effect would be to maintain the frigid climate of the region and to prevent the further melting of its ice or, if necessary, to increase the amount of its ice. Moreover, the process could be conducted starting on a relatively small scale, and then proceed slowly. This would allow essential empirical observations to be made and also allow the process to be stopped at any time before it went too far.

This is certainly something that should be seriously considered by everyone who is concerned with global warming and who also desires to preserve modern industrial civilization and retain and increase its amenities. If there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility.

2. Stephan Kinsella & TokyoTom, Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims October 29, 2009

Stephan Kinsella October 30, 2009 10:03 AM

If there were really global warming why not just use "nuclear winter" to cool things down? You don't see the envirotards advocating that! :) (see Greenpeace to advocate nuking the earth?)

TokyoTom November 3, 2009 4:01 AM

Austrians know very well that resource battles very often become politicized as soon as government steps in; are "misanthropes" and "rotten watermelons" responsible for the state grant of public utility monopolies, the lack of court enforcement of common law rights to protect property from state-licensed corporation that led to massive pollution problems, the massive state role in the development of nuclear weapons (that you & George Reisman mock-seriously suggest the federal govt ought to start using again in the open atmosphere) ....

Stephan Kinsella November 3, 2009 8:00 AM

I don't remember Reisman's proposal, but I never said the feds should do it. I'm an anarchist, remember?

3. Stephan Kinsella & TokyoTom, In which I applaud another balanced, productive post by Dr. Reisman, and draw attention to a post by Lew Rockwell on the need for more power competition (Apr 23 2009)

# Friday, April 24, 2009 2:27 PM by Stephan Kinsella

The left yabbers about nuclear winter caused by nuclear bombs. This implies nukes can be used to cool things down. The left yabbers about global warming. Why is it unreasonable to investigate whether nuclear bombs could not be used to cool things down and offset global warming? Which one of these two contentions are you watermelons not serious about?

# Friday, April 24, 2009 9:45 PM by TokyoTom

Stephan, I was just talking about the frumious bandersnatch and in walks the yabberwocky! Such coincidences are to be celebrated!

But surely you`re not serious about open air nuke tests to combat climate change, but Reisman was, and on the LVMI main pages. His discussion was not the type of facetious one you throw out to dodge addressing it. You disappoint me.

What the left yabbers about is worth mocking, but anyone worth his salt as a libertarian would do like Lew and spend a little time acknowledging that preferences for green power, etc. are perfectly fine, explaining that the reason for their frustration is public utility regulation that stifles competition and protects utilities, and suggesting approaches that would foster consumer goals while advancing liberty.

But it`s so much funner to be like George, right?

What would Ludwig von Mises have said? mises.org/.../draft.aspx (quoting Reisman`s translation)

# Sunday, April 26, 2009 2:25 PM by Stephan Kinsella

Tom, it's time to drop your sarcasm and just be direct and clear. I am serious--why not investigate nuclear winter as a way to offset alleged global warming?

As for all the fulminating against global warming... are you aware that we are in an interglacial period, probably somewhere near the middle? The earth is bound to start cooling and heading towards another ice age before long. If global warming is real, it will only delay this--which is good. In any event, suppose we impoverish ourselves to slightly decrease the warming for a few decades, until natural cooling starts anyway. Why do this.

# Friday, May 08, 2009 7:54 PM by TokyoTom

Stephan, thanks for your comment, but I`ve been preoccupied. However, it`s hard to believe that you want Dr. Reisman`s suggested testing of atom bombs in the Arctic to be taken seriously from ANY perspective, much less a libertarian one. There are obvious issues about the role of government, consent and compensation of those facing fallout risks, the problem of interfering with Arctic ecosystems and access to resources that are coming available as a result of thawing, potential releases of methane by the explosions themselves, plus small things like international treaties as crf notes.

Are you suggesting that I`m "fulminating" about "global warming"? I`ve just been trying to steer the discussion from fulminations by Reisman (and fawning worshippers) towards actual libertarian principles and productive engagement.

"are you aware that we are in an interglacial period ... Why do this"?

I don`t agree with your suppositions, but at least they provide a start for conversation.

My reading indicates that climatologists agree that the Milankovich cycles are in a unique period of overlap and, given the forcings that we have already made (starting millenia ago with albedo changes/methane releases resulting from agriculture), this interglacial is expected to last for another 50,000 years, and that man`s activity is by far the largest climate forcing variable - and we`re only heading north. This involves heavy pollution and will be accompanied by other large costs to private and shared assets, including drastic changes in ocean chemistry and ecosystems.

Mises, Yandle and others recognize that societies invested in establishing informal and formal private and communal property rights systems in order to tame tragedy of the commons problems and lead to more efficient plan formation; IMHO it`s time for us to start managing our atmosphere and oceans, instead of allowing those who profit from exploiting these resources (a wealthy class of investors and executives) to continue to do so while playing a rent-seekers` and spoilers`s game that allows them to continue to shift costs to the rest of us.

A focus on this will also help to shift down the environmental Kuznets curve and improve the protection of private health and property in China and elsewhere.

4. Greenpeace to advocate nuking the earth?

Posted by Stephan Kinsella on July 31, 2006 11:33 AM

Scientist publishes ‘escape route’ from global warming reports the emergency plan to save the world from global warming, by altering the chemical makeup of Earth’s upper atmosphere. Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize in 1995 for his work on the hole in the ozone layer, believes that political attempts to limit man-made greenhouse gases are so pitiful that a radical contingency plan is needed. … he says that an “escape route” is needed if global warming begins to run out of control. … Professor Crutzen has proposed a method of artificially cooling the global climate by releasing particles of sulphur in the upper atmosphere, which would reflect sunlight and heat back into space.”

Hey, if that doesn’t work, why not use the phenomenon of nuclear winter to cool things down? You know, explode a few nukes, kick up dust, cool things down. Any takers? Greenpeace? Earth First?

A few more comments to John Quiggin on climate, libertarian principles and the enclosure of the commons

TokyoTom — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:41:00 GMT

I note first that I am reminded by a pithy comment from someone else that, despite the length of my previous post addressing John Quiggin`s post on libertarian delusion, sometimes less is more.

Writes commenter "ABOM", in a comment made elsewhere and linked back in to Quiggin`s thread (done for the purported reason that Quiggin was deleting some of ABOM`s comments) (emphasis added):

I found it ironic that JQ (an economist) was using a scientific hypothesis (climate change) as a litmus test to determine whether Austrians were “serious” economists. JQ (1) assumes he knows about climate science (he doesn’t) (2) assumes anyone who questions climate science is mad (they may not be) (3) thinks anyone who questions the govt’s solutions to the “problem” is also mad (even if you accept the science, govt may not be the answer – raising interest rates to their ‘natural’ level and a simple “depression” in consumption may be a simpler solution) (4) isn’t allowing an open debate (he keeps censoring me for some bizarre reason) and (5) to top it off accuses Austrians of being part time scientists – when he is the King of Part Time Amateur Science ...

Being verbose, this and a review of Quiggin`s post prompts me to write more.

I`m not sure I agree with ABOM`s initial comment; while Quiggin might be implicitly using Austrian`s behavior regarding climate change to question whether they are "serious" economists, more straightforwardly he`s questioning why on climate they seem not to care to show it.

I failed to address the following points from John:

1. " it seems clear that, if mainstream climate science is correct, neither anarcho-capitalism nor paleolibertarianism can be sustained. The problem with anarcho-capitalism and other views where property rights are supposed to emerge, and be defended, spontaneously, and without a state is obvious. If states do not create systems of rights to carbon emissions, the only alternatives are to do nothing, and let global ecosystems collapse, or to posit that every person on the planet has right to coerce any other person not to emit CO2 into the atmosphere."

First, the alternatives to states creating systems of rights to carbon emissions (or imposing carbon taxes, funding energy alternatives etc.) are NOT simply to do nothing, or to assume that all individuals will be left to try to coerce everyone else. While I agree that an-caps typically do not stress the desirability of undoing statist actions that feed into the climate problem, of course this is something which can and should be done, as I have tried to point out. And there are many voluntary and organized responses now underway that address climate change: organizations that cater to people (and firms) who want to track and lower their carbon footprint or buy offsets, firms that are competing to monitor and control their carbon footprint, both to lower costs and to stay ahead of competitors in the marketplace for consumer favor, voluntary corporate-oriented carbon trading/offset programs underway, insurance companies and others projecting and publicizing risks, etc.

Ancaps and other libertarians may be wrong, but they essentially conclude that the large information and transaction costs that society faces in dealing with climate change cannot be overcome by fiat, which clearly is not simple. Using government typically brings a whole host of problems. Viz., the knowledge problem, rent-seeking and -farming, bureaucratic mal-incentives, & enforcement.

2. "For paleolibertarians, the fact that property rights must be produced by a new global agreement, rather than being the inherited ‘peculiar institutions’ of particular societies seems equally problematic."

Yes. But there`s also the problem of justice in the original allocation. Why should the new property rights in the atmosphere be allocated to corporations, as opposed to citizens?

3. "For more moderate libertarians, who accept in principle that property rights are derived from the state, I think the problem is more that the creation of a large new class of property rights brings them face to face with features of their model that are generally buried in a near-mythical past.

"To start with, there’s the problem of justice in the original allocation. Until now, people [in] developed countries have been appropriating the assimilative capacity of the atmosphere as if there was always “enough and as good” left over. Now that it’s obvious this isn’t true, we need to go back and start from scratch, and this process may involve offsetting compensation which effectively reassigns some existing property rights."

I don`t think moderate libertarians so much "accept in principle that property rights are derived from the state," as they recognize that the state has codified, circumscribed and enforces such rights. Right now, there are simply NO "existing property rights" regarding climate, other than the shared right to exhaust CO2 (and other GHGs) into the atmosphere, and to engage in other activities that alter albedo. Starting from scratch in the sense you use it, especially the "compensation" aspect, means governments taking property from some and giving it to others

4. "Then there is the problem that the emissions rights we are talking about are, typically time-limited and conditional. But if rights created now by modern states have this property, it seems reasonable to suppose that this has always been true, and therefore that existing property rights may also be subject to state claims of eminent domain."

"Property rights" are essentially a portfolio of formal and informal institutions that communities have devised, over long periods of trial and error. Most such "rights" - whether informal or state-recognized - are time-limited and conditional. That states have always and continue to alter, and take, property rights tells us nothing about the justice or efficacy of such actions - and you might have noticed that Elinor Ostrom and the progressives (some of whom I quoted in my prior post) who want to "take back the commons" argue very strongly about both.

Where our fisheries are collapsing, they are doing so chiefly because our governments have trampled native rights or community-developed practices in favor of bureaucratic management and the resulting tragedy of the commons. While the solution in such cases appears to be the re-creation of property rights that give fishermen a stake in preserving the resource they rely upon, such situations are hardly akin to the worldwide creation of CO2 emission rights, which present much more severe difficulties in allocating and enforcing.

John Quiggin plays Pin-the-tail-on-the-Donkey with "Libertarians and delusionism"

TokyoTom — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:59:00 GMT

John Quiggin, a left-leaning Australian economist and professor at the University of Queensland, has noted my recent post on the penchant for bloggers and readers at the Mises Blog to attack climate science - are "almost universally committed to delusional views on climate science", as he puts it - though these are not words fairly put into my mouth. Like me, though, Quiggin wonders why wonders why libertarians focus on climate science at the near-exclusion of policy discussions, since (1) he sees "plenty of political opportunities to use climate change to attack subsidies and other existing interventions" and (2) he supposes that the environmental movement`s widespread shift "from profound suspicion of markets to enthusiastic support for market-based policies such as carbon taxes and cap and trade" seems like a big win for libertarians.

Quiggin previously commented on "Libertarians and global warming" last June; this seems to be a follow up.

Quiggins posits that Austrians/libertarians exhibit a "near-universal rejection of mainstream climate science," and asserts that:

we can draw one of only three conclusions
(a) Austrians/libertarians are characterized by delusional belief in their own intellectual superiority, to the point where they think they can produce an analysis of complex scientific problems superior to that of actual scientists, in their spare time and with limited or no scientific training in the relevant disciplines, reaching a startling degree of unanimity for self-described “sceptics”
(b) Austrians/libertarians don’t understand their own theory and falsely believe that, if mainstream climate science is right, their own views must be wrong
(c) Austrians/libertarians do understand their own theory and correctly believe that, if mainstream climate science is right, their own views must be wrong

John concludes:

"Overall, though I, think that acceptance of the reality of climate change would be good for libertarianism as a political movement. It would kill off the most extreme and unappealing kinds of a priori logic-chopping, while promoting an appreciation of Hayekian arguments about the power of market mechanisms. And the very fact of uncertainty about climate change is a reminder of the fatality of conceits of perfect knowledge."

While John asks a good question and reveals some appreciation of markets, it`s clear that he is still pretty much groping in the dark when it comes to understanding libertarians` concerns about climate policy, indeed, even as to libertarian aims and concerns generally. He also overlooks various cognitive/psychological factors that appear to be at play. Naturally, I appreciate the opportunity for discussion.

1. Before addressing his three possible conclusions, let me note that while "market-based policies such as carbon taxes and cap and trade" may seem to John "like a big win for libertarians", this is most definitely NOT the case for most libertarians in the context of climate change, as these "market-based policies" represent an enormous expansion of government that libertarians feel very strongly, based on past experience, will be profoundly porky, counterproductive and costly. In the face of the fight for favor in Washington and the choice of opaque cap-and-trade over a more open rebated carbon tax and other deregulatory options, there is good reason to believe that libertarians are right.

2. Regarding conclusion (a), let me first note that John reveals the self-same "conceit of perfect knowledge" that he accuses Austrians/libertarians of having: the "acceptance of reality of climate change" would undoubtedly be good for everyone, but just what is that reality, and how can a layman of any stripe confirm himself that climate is changing and that man is responsible? The very fact that this "reality" is nearly impossible to confirm personally (even over the course of a lifetime) means that even those whom John considers as having "accepted reality" have basically just adopted a frame of reference, on the basis of the consistency of the AGW frame with other previously established mental frames, a reliance on authority, peer-group acceptance, etc.

"Reality" in this case inevitably, for most people, has very large personal and social components; accordingly, both "acceptance" and "skepticism" of it may look like a group belief, which may help to explain why it is possible to perceive "a startling degree of unanimity" of views on climate science, the contents of such views varying by group.

As for Austrians/libertarians, while I don`t think it is fair to conclude they (we) are characterized by delusional belief in their own intellectual superiority, but that many do have a belief, not so much in the superiority of their intellect, but in the correctness of their views on political science and economics (this is common in other groups, of course). This may affect their views on climate science, for several reasons that I have noted to John previously, and may be related for some of them to his conclusions (b) and (c).

3. Concerning conclusions (b) and (c), these are both over-generalizations; libertarians are a heterogenous bunch. But if I may generalize myself, to me there appears no conflict whatsoever between Austrian views, which are primarily about interpersonal relations and the role of government, and climate science. "Mainstream science" has nothing to do with these views, so if Austrians are wrong about "mainstream climate science", this does not imply that any Austrian views must be wrong. So Quiggins` (c) is wrong.

Quiggins`(b) - that Austrians may not understand their own theory and may falsely believe that, if mainstream climate science is right, their own views must be wrong - may be right for some Austrians, but certainly not generally. Rather, what I suspect is going on is much more ordinary, as I previously noted to Quiggin as a comment on his related June post; that I need to repeat myself indicates that maybe John is having cognitive difficulties of his own (emphasis added):

John, thanks for this piece. As a libertarian who believes that climate change IS a problem, I share some of your puzzlement and have done considerable commenting on this issue [see this long list]. Allow me to offer a few thoughts on various factors at work in the general libertarian resistance to taking government action on climate change:

– As Chris Horner noted in your linked piece, many libertarians see “global warming [as] the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government.” Even those who agree that is AGW is a serious problem are worried, for good reason, that government approaches to climate change will be a train wreck – in other words, that the government “cure” will be worse than the problem.

– Libertarians have in general drifted quite far from environmentalists. Even though they still share a mistrust of big government, environmentalists generally believe that MORE government is the answer, while ignoring all of the problems associated with inefficient bureaucratic management (witness the crashing of many managed fisheries in the US), the manipulation of such managment to benefit bureaucratic interests, special interests and insiders (wildfire fighting budgets, fossil fuel and hard rock mining, etc.) and the resultant and inescapable politicization of all disputes due to the absence of private markets. Libertarians see that socialized property rights regimes can be just as “tragedy of the commons” ruinous as cases where community or private solutions have not yet developed, and have concluded that, without privatization, government involvement inevitably expands. Thus, libertarians often see environmentalists as simply another group fighting to expand government, and are hostile as a result.

– Libertarians are as subject to reflexive, partisan position-taking as any one else. Because they are reflexively opposed to government action, they find it easier to operate from a position of skepticism in trying to bat down AGW scientific and economic arguments (and to slam the motives of those arguing that AGW must be addressed by government) than to open-mindedly review the evidence. This is a shame( but human), because it blunts the libertarian message in explaining what libertarians understand very well – that environmental problems arise when property rights over resources are not clearly defined or enforceable, and also when governments (mis)manage resources.

I`ve discussed a number of times how we all easily fall into partisan cognitive traps, as summarized here.

A related piece of the dynamic is that some libertarians may feel that if they agree that AGW may be a problem, that this will be taken - wrongly - by others in the political arena as a conclusion that the libertarian message is no longer relevant.

4. Some support for these points can be seen in Edwin Dolan`s 2006 paper, "Science, Public Policy and Global Warming: Rethinking the Market Liberal Position" (Cato), in which Dolan suggests that many libertarian climate skeptics are acting quite as if they are "conservatives" of the type condemned by Friedrich Hayek. Dolan cites Hayek’s 1960 essay, “Why I am Not a Conservative” (1960), in which Hayek identified the following traits that distinguish conservatism from market liberalism:

• Habitual resistance to change, hence the term “conservative.”
• Lack of understanding of spontaneous order as a guiding principle of economic life.
• Use of state authority to protect established privileges against the forces of economic change.
• Claim to superior wisdom based on self-arrogated superior quality in place of rational argument.
• A propensity to reject scientific knowledge because of dislike of the consequences that seem to follow from it.

Further support is provided by Jonathan Adler, a libertarian law professor at Case Western who focusses on resource issues, and who has concluded that climate change is a serious concern, and that man is contributing to it. His February 2008 post, "Climate Change, Cumulative Evidence, and Ideology" (and the comment thread) is instructive:

"Almost every time I post something on climate change policy, the comment thread quickly devolves into a debate over the existence of antrhopogenic global warming at all. (See, for instance, this post on "conservative" approaches to climate change policy.) I have largely refused to engage in these discussions because I find them quite unproductive. The same arguments are repeated ad nauseum, and no one is convinced (if anyone even listens to what the other side is saying). ...

"Given my strong libertarian leanings, it would certainly be ideologically convenient if the evidence for a human contribution to climate change were less strong. Alas, I believe the preponderance of evidence strongly supports the claim that anthropogenic emissions are having an effect on the global climate, and that effect will increase as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere. While I reject most apocalyptic scenarios as unfounded or unduly speculative, I am convinced that the human contribution to climate change will cause or exacerbate significant problems in at least some parts of the world. For instance, even a relatively modest warming over the coming decades is very likely to have a meaningful effect on the timing and distribution of precipitation and evaporation rates, which will, in turn, have a substantial impact on freshwater supplies. That we do not know with any precision the when, where, and how much does not change the fact that we are quite certain that such changes will occur.

"So-called climate "skeptics" make many valid points about the weakness or unreliability of many individual arguments and studies on climate. They also point out how policy advocates routinely exaggerate the implications of various studies or the likely consequences of even the most robust climate predictions. Economists and others have also done important work questioning whether climate risks justify extreme mitigation measures. But none of this changes the fact that the cumulative evidence for a human contribution to present and future climate changes, when taken as a whole, is quite strong. In this regard, I think it is worth quoting something Ilya wrote below about the nature of evidence in his post about 12 Angry Men":

People often dismiss individual arguments and evidence against their preferred position without considering the cumulative weight of the other side's points. It's a very easy fallacy to fall into. But the beginning of wisdom is to at least be aware of the problem.

"The "divide and conquer" strategy of dissecting each piece of evidence independently can make for effective advocacy, but it is not a good way to find the truth"

I noted the following in response to Adler:

I think that there are many Austrians who understand WHY there might be a climate change problem to which man contributes, as the atmosphere is an open-access resource, in which there are no clear or enforceable property rights that rein in externalities or that give parties with differing preferences an ability to engage in meaingful transactions that reflect those preferences.

But, flawed human beings that we are, we have difficulty truly keeping our minds open (subconscious dismissal of inconsistent data is a cognitive rule) and we easily fall into tribal modes of conflict that provide us with great satisfaction in disagreeing with those evil "others" while circling the wagons (and counting coup) with our brothers in arms.

Sadly, this is very much in evidence in the thread to your own post.

5. I have pulled together a post that indicates that a number of libertarians are trying to engage in good faith on climate change, and which may also serve as a good introduction for interested readers to libertarian thinking on environmental issues.

6. Finally, let me note that many of the problems that concern libertarians also concern progressives, chief of these being the negative effects of state actions on communities, development and on open-access (and hitherto local, indigenous-managed) commons. This is the same concern that the Nobel Prize committee expressed when extending the prize in Economics to Elinor Ostrom, signalling their desire for a change in international aid policy.

You might find these remarks by Nicholas Hildyard, Larry Lohmann, Sarah Sexton and Simon Fairlie in "Reclaiming the Commons" (1995) to be pertinent; domestic cap-and-trade is an enclosure of the atmospheric commons, for the benefit of firms receiving grants of permits and costs flowing regressively to energy consumers, and internationally represents a vast expansion of state authority and bureaucracies, with attendant enclosure of local resources:

The creation of empires and states, business conglomerates and civic dictatorships -- whether in pre-colonial times or in the modern era -- has only been possible through dismantling the commons and harnessing the fragments, deprived of their old significance, to build up new economic and social patterns that are responsive to the interests of a dominant minority. The modern nation state has been built only by stripping power and control from commons regimes and creating structures of governance from which the great mass of humanity (particularly women) are excluded. Likewise, the market economy has expanded primarily by enabling state and commercial interests to gain control of territory that has traditionally been used and cherished by others, and by transforming that territory - together with the people themselves - into expendable "resources" for exploitation. By enclosing forests, the state and private enterprise have torn them out of fabrics of peasant subsistence; by providing local leaders with an outside power base, unaccountable to local people, they have undermined village checks and balances; by stimulating demand for cash goods, they have impelled villagers to seek an ever wider range of things to sell. Such a policy was as determinedly pursued by the courts of Aztec Mexico, the feudal lords of West Africa, and the factory owners of Lancashire and the British Rail as it is today by the International Monetary Fund or Coca-Cola Inc.

Only in this way has it been possible to convert peasants into labour for a global economy, replace traditional with modern agriculture, and free up the commons for the industrial economy. Similarly, only by atomizing tasks and separating workers from the moral authority, crafts and natural surroundings created by their communities has it been possible to transform them into modern, universal individuals susceptible to "management". In short, only by deliberately taking apart local cultures and reassembling them in new forms has it been possible to open them up to global trade.[FN L. Lohmann, 'Resisting Green Globalism' in W. Sachs (ed), Global Ecology: Conflicts and Contradictions, Zed Books, London and New Jersey, 1993.]

To achieve that "condition of economic progress", millions have been marginalized as a calculated act of policy, their commons dismantled and degraded, their cultures denigrated and devalued and their own worth reduced to their value as labour. Seen from this perspective, many of the processes that now go under the rubric of "nation-building", "economic growth", and "progress" are first ad foremost processes of expropriation, exclusion, denial and dispossession. In a word, of "enclosure".

Because history's best-known examples of enclosure involved the fencing in of common pasture, enclosure is often reduced to a synonym for "expropriation". But enclosure involves more than land and fences, and implies more than simply privatization or takeover by the state. It is a compound process which affects nature and culture, home and market, production and consumption, germination and harvest, birth, sickness and death. It is a process to which no aspect of life or culture is immune. ..,

Enclosure tears people and their lands, forests, crafts, technologies and cosmologies out of the cultural framework in which they are embedded and tries to force them into a new framework which reflects and reinforces the values and interests of newly-dominant groups. Any pieces which will not fit into the new framework are devalued and discarded. In the modern age, the architecture of this new framework is determined by market forces, science, state and corporate bureaucracies, patriarchal forms of social organization, and ideologies of environmental and social management.

Land, for example, once it is integrated into a framework of fences, roads and property laws, is "disembedded" from local fabrics of self-reliance and redefined as "property" or "real estate". Forests are divided into rigidly defined precincts - mining concessions, logging concessions, wildlife corridors and national parks - and transformed from providers of water, game, wood and vegetables into scarce exploitable economic resources. Today they are on the point of being enclosed still further as the dominant industrial culture seeks to convert them into yet another set of components of the industrial system, redefining them as "sinks" to absorb industrial carbon dioxide and as pools of "biodiversity". Air is being enclosed as economists seek to transform it into a marketable "waste sink"; and genetic material by subjecting it to laws which convert it into the "intellectual property" of private interests.

People too are enclosed as they are fitted into a new society where they must sell their labour, learn clock-time and accustom themselves to a life of production and consumption; groups of people are redefined as "populations', quantifiable entities whose size must be adjusted to take pressure off resources required for the global economy. ...

enclosure transforms the environment into a "resource" for national or global production - into so many chips that can be cashed in as commodities, handed out as political favours and otherwise used to accrue power. ...

Enclosure thus cordons off those aspects of the environment that are deemed "useful" to the encloser -- whether grass for sheep in 16th century England or stands of timber for logging in modern-say Sarawak -- and defines them, and them alone, as valuable. A street becomes a conduit for vehicles; a wetland, a field to be drained; flowing water, a wasted asset to be harnessed for energy or agriculture. Instead of being a source of multiple benefits, the environment becomes a one-dimensional asset to be exploited for a single purpose - that purpose reflecting the interests of the encloser, and the priorities of the wider political economy in which the encloser operates....

Enclosure opens the way for the bureaucratization and enclosure of knowledge itself. It accords power to those who master the language of the new professionals and who are versed in its etiquette and its social nuances, which are inaccessible to those who have not been to school or to university, who do not have professional qualifications, who cannot operate computers, who cannot fathom the apparent mysteries of a cost-benefit analysis, or who refuse to adopt the forceful tones of an increasingly "masculine" world.

In that respect, as Illich notes, "enclosure is as much in the interest of professionals and of state bureaucrats as it is in the interests of capitalists." For as local ways of knowing and doing are devalued or appropriated, and as vernacular forms of governance are eroded, so state and professional bodies are able to insert themselves within the commons, taking over areas of life that were previously under the control of individuals, households and the community. Enclosure "allows the bureaucrat to define the local community as impotent to provide for its own survival."[FN I Illich, 'Silence is a Commons', The Coevolution Quarterly, Winter 1983.] It invites the professional to come to the "rescue" of those whose own knowledge is deemed inferior to that of the encloser.

Enclosure is thus a change in the networks of power which enmesh the environment, production, distribution, the political process, knowledge, research and the law. It reduces the control of local people over community affairs. Whether female or male, a person's influence and ability to make a living depends increasingly on becoming absorbed into the new policy created by enclosure, on accepting -- willingly or unwillingly -- a new role as a consumer, a worker, a client or an administrator, on playing the game according to new rules. The way is thus cleared for cajoling people into the mainstream, be it through programmes to bring women "into development", to entice smallholders "into the market" or to foster paid employment.[FN P. Simmons, 'Women in Development', The Ecologist, Vol. 22, No.1, 1992, pp.16-21.]

Those who remain on the margins of the new mainstream, either by choice or because that is where society has pushed them, are not only deemed to have little value: they are perceived as a threat. Thus it is the landless, the poor, the dispossessed who are blamed for forest destruction; their poverty which is held responsible for "overpopulation"; their protests which are classed as subversive and a threat to political stability. And because they are perceived as a threat, they become objects to be controlled, the legitimate subjects of yet further enclosure. ...

People who would oppose dams, logging, the redevelopment of their neighbourhoods or the pollution of their rivers are often left few means of expressing or arguing their case unless they are prepared to engage in a debate framed by the languages of cost-benefit analysis, reductionist science, utilitarianism, male domination -- and, increasingly, English. Not only are these languages in which many local objection -- such as that which holds ancestral community rights to a particular place to have precedence over the imperatives of "national development" -- appear disreputable. They are also languages whose use allows enclosers to eavesdrop on, "correct" and dominate the conversations of the enclosed. ...

Because they hold themselves to be speaking a universal language, the modern enclosers who work for development agencies and governments feel no qualms in presuming to speak for the enclosed. They assume reflexively that they understand their predicament as well as or better than the enclosed do themselves. It is this tacit assumption that legitimizes enclosure in the encloser's mind - and it is an assumption that cannot be countered simply by transferring what are conventionbally assumed to be the trappings of power from one group to another....

A space for the commons cannot be created by economists, development planners, legislators, "empowerment" specialists or other paternalistic outsiders. To place the future in the hands of such individuals would be to maintain the webs of power that are currently stifling commons regimes. One cannot legislate the commons into existence; nor can the commons be reclaimed simply by adopting "green techniques" such as organic agriculture, alternative energy strategies or better public transport -- necessary and desirable though such techniques often are. Rather, commons regimes emerge through ordinary people's day-to-day resistance to enclosure, and through their efforts to regain livelihoods and the mutual support, responsibility and trust that sustain the commons.

That is not to say that one can ignore policy-makers or policy-making. The depredations of transnational corporations, international bureaucracies and national governments cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. But movements for social change have a responsibility to ensure that in seeking solutions, they do not remove the initiative from those who are defending their commons or attempting to regenerate common regimes -- a responsibility they should take seriously.

Might there be good reason NOT to rush into a vast expansion of government world-wide?

A libertarian immodestly summarizes a few modest climate policy proposals

TokyoTom — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:52:00 GMT

[Folks, I hope you do a better job than I do at saving draft posts before they`re finalized; I just lost alot of work. This will necessarily be shorter.]

Rather than simply pointing out how unproductive the approach of Mises Blog posters has been on climate issues, I want to get started with a list of policy changes that I think libertarians can and should be championing in response to the climate policy proposals of others.

Comments, suggestions and criticisms are welcome. I will return and work on this later.

From my earlier comment to Stephan Kinsella:

As Rob Bradley once reluctantly acknowledged to me (in the halcyon days before he banned me from the "free-market" Master Resource blog), "a free-market approach is not about “do nothing” but implementing a whole new energy approach to remove myriad regulation and subsidies that have built up over a century or more." But unfortunately the wheels of this principled concern have never hit the ground at MR [persistently pointing this out it, and questioning whether his blog was a front for fossil fuel interests, apparently earned me the boot].

As I have noted in a litany of posts at my blog, pro-freedom regulatory changes might include:

accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate income taxes or allowing immediate depreciation of capital investment (which would make new investments more attractive),
eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to increase competition, allow consumer choice, peak pricing and "smart metering" that will rapidly push efficiency gains),
ending Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more common-law dependent approaches),
ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar), and
if there is to be any type of carbon pricing at all, insisting that it is a per capita, fully-rebated carbon tax (puts the revenues in the hands of those with the best claim to it, eliminates regressive impact and price volatility, least new bureaucracy, most transparent, and least susceptible to pork).

Other policy changes could also be put on the table, such as an insistence that government resource management be improved by requiring that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens (with a slice to the administering agency).

I`m not the only one - other libertarian climate proposals are here:

Jonathan Adler at Case Western (2000); he has other useful commentary here, here,
Bruce Yandle, Professor Emeritus at Clemson University, Senior Fellow at PERC (the "free market" environmentalism think tank) and a respected thinker on common-law and free-market approaches to environmental problems, has in PERC's Spring 2008 report specifically proposed a "A No-Regrets Carbon Reduction Policy";
Iain Murray of CEI; and
Cato`s Jerry Taylor is a frequent commentator and Indur Goklany has advanced a specific climate change-targeted proposal.
AEI`s Steven Hayward and Ken Green together have provided a number of detailed and relatively balanced analyses.

Several libertarians have recently been urging constructive libertarian approaches to climate change:

Edwin Dolan, in his Fall 2006 Cato Journal essay, "Global Warming: Rethinking the Market Liberal Position", analyzes relevant Lockean considerations and cautions that market liberals appear to be hamstringing their own analytic strengths by falling into a reflexive and conservative mind-frames that benefit established economic interests.
Sheldon Richman of the Foundation for Economic Education also recommends Dolan's essay and calls for less wishful thinking and greater engagement by libertarians in the December 8, 2006 edition of The Freeman: The Goal Is Freedom: Global Warming and the Layman.
Gene Callahan makes a similar warning in his essay "How a Free Society Could Solve Global Warming", in the October 2007 issue of The Freeman.
Ron Bailey, "Congratulations to Al Gore; But be wary of the man's proposed solutions for global warming", October 12, 2007.

These discussions and exchanges of view are also worthy of note:

The Cato Institute has dedicated its entire August 2008 monthly issue of Cato Unbound, its online forum, to discussing policy responses to ongoing climate change. The issue, entitled "Keeping Our Cool: What to Do about Global Warming", contains essays from and several rounds of discussion between ato Institute author Indur Goklany; climate scientist Joseph J. Romm, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; and Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, the co-founders of The Breakthrough Institute. My extended comments here.

Reason Foundation, Climate Change and Property Rights June 12th, 2008 (Reason's Shikha Dalmia, Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan H. Adler, and author Indur Goklany); discussed by Ron Bailey of ReasonOnline here; here`s my take.

Debate at Reason, October 2007, Ron Bailey, Science Correspondent at Reason, Fred L. Smith, Jr., President and Founder of CEI, and Lynne Kiesling, Senior Lecturer in Economics at Northwestern University, and former director of economic policy at the Reason Foundation.

Reason Foundation, Global Warming and Potential Policy Solutions September 7th, 2006 (Reason's Shikha Dalmia, George Mason University Department of Economics Chair Don Boudreaux, and the International Policy Network's Julian Morris)

Finally, I have collected here some Austrian-based papers on environmental issues that are worthy of note:

Environmental Markets? Links to Austrians

Ones such paper is the following: Terry L. Anderson and J. Bishop Grewell, Property Rights Solutions for the Global Commons: Bottom-Up or Top-Down?

The Road Not Taken IV: My other hysterical comments on climate science & how Austrians hamstring themselves

TokyoTom — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:59:00 GMT

In my initial post, on how Austrians strive for a self-comforting irrelevancy on climate change, I copied my chief comment to Stephan Kinsella.

I copy below my other posts and some of the remarks I was responding to on Stephan`s thread, including the one that I was unable to post - for some reason I am trying to figure out (but that Stephan tells me was not a result of moderation by him; I note my full apology, as stated in my update to my preceding post):

TokyoTom

fundamentalist: "I love the responses from the GW hysteria crowd. They have nothing to offer but ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority."

Am I excluded from the "hysteria" crowd, Roger? Because if I`m in, you seem to have entirely missed my post, and my point, as to the consistency of your arguments with Austrian principles and the effectiveness of approaches like yours in dealing with the rest of the world - including all of the deluded and others who are engaged in bad faith.

Published: October 30, 2009 9:44 AM
Stephan Kinsella [Note: this is the comment to which I responded with the remarks copied on my preceding post]

"Tokyo" asked me to respond to his post but it's so rambling I am not sure what to respond to. To me this is very simple. I think we are in an interglacial period. It's going to start getting cooler eventually, unless by then we have enough technology and freedom (no offense, Tokyo) to stop it. If there is global warming maybe it can delay the coming ice age by a few centuries.

If there were really global warming why not just use "nuclear winter" to cool things down? You don't see the envirotards advocating that! :) (see Greenpeace to advocate nuking the earth?)

In any event as I see it there are several issues. Is it warming? Can we know it? Do we know it? Are we causing it? Can we stop it? Should we stop it?

It seem to me we do not know that it's warming; if it is, it's probably not caused by Man; and if it is, there's probably nothing we can do to stop it except effectively destroy mankind; there's no reason to stop it since it won't even be all bad, and in fact would be overall good. I do not trust the envirotards, who hate industrialism and love the state, and seek anything to stop capitalism and to give the state an excuse to increase regulations and taxes; why anyone thinks these watermelons really know what the temperature will be in 10, 100, 1000 years, when we can't even get accurate weather forecasts a week out, is beyond me.

That said, I'll take the watermelons seriously when they start advocating nuclear power. Until then, they reveal themselves to be anti-industry, anti-man, techo-illiterates. (See Green nukes; Nuclear spring?.)

Published: October 30, 2009 10:03 AM
TokyoTom

[my prior version ran off without my permission; this is a re-draft]

It seems like I can lead a horse to water, but I can`t make him think,

We all have our own maps of reality and our own calculus as to what government policies are desirable and when, but as for me, the status quo needs changing, and the desire of a wide range of people - be they deluded, evil, conniving or whatnot - to do something on the climate front seems like a great opportunity to get freedom-enhancing measures on the table and to achieve some of MY preferences, chiefly because they help to advance the professed green agenda. [To clarify, I didn`t mean that I want to advance "the green agenda", but that the pro-freedom policy suggestions I have raised should be attainable because greens and others might see that they also serve THEIR agendas.]

I see no reason to sit at home or simply scoff or fling poo from the sidelines, and let what I see as a bad situation get worse. There`s very little in that for practically anyone here - except of course those who like coal pollution, public utilities, corporate income taxes, big ag corporate welfare, political fights over government-owned resources, energy subsidies and over-regulation, etc. (and those folks aren`t sitting at home, believe me).

I can keep on questioning everyone`s sanity or bona fides, or I can argue strongly for BETTER policies, that advance shared aims.

Does Austrian thinking simply lack a practical political arm, other than those few who have signed up to support special interests?

Ramblin` Tom

Published: October 30, 2009 11:51 AM
TokyoTom

Stephan, if I may, I am appalled and offended by your shallow and fundamentally dishonest engagement here. That there are a string of others who have preceded you in this regard is no excuse.

You: (i) post without significant comment a one-page letter from a scientist - as if the letter itself is vindication, victory or a roadmap for how we should seek to engage the views and preferences of others,

(ii) refuse to answer my straightforward questions (both above and at my cross-linked post, which you visited) on how we engage others in the very active ongoing political debate, in a manner that actually defends and advances our policy agenda, and (putting aside the insulting and disingenuous "Tokyo asked me to respond" and "it's so rambling I am not sure what to respond to"); and

(iii) then proceed to present your own view of the science, the motives and sanity "watermelons" (as if they`re running the show), a few helpful, free-market libertarian "solutions", like open-air explosion of nuclear weapons to bring about a "nuclear winter" effect!

And my attempt to bring your focus back to the question of how we actually deal with others in the POLITICAL bargaining that is, after all, underway is met with silence - other than your faithful report back from your trusty climate physicist expert policy guru friend about .... science (all being essentially irrelevant to my question, not merely the cute little folksy demonstration about how the troubling melting and thinning of Antarctic ice sheets actually now underway simply CAN`T be occurring, but also a further failure to address the very rapid ocean acidification our CO2 emissions are producing)!

Maybe it`s me, but I find this type of insincere and shallow engagement on such a serious issue to be a shameful discredit to the Mises Blog (even if it does cater to those who prefer to think that the big to do about climate - which may very well result in a mass of ill-considered, costly and counterproductive
legislation - is really groundless and so can simply be ignored, aside from a bit of internal fulminations here).

If you are not actually interested in discussing policy on a serious issue, then consider refraining from posting on it.

Maybe it`s not my position to expect better, but I do.

Sincerely,

Tom

Roy Cordato (linked at my name) said this:

“The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute plans within the context of their goals. … ocial welfare or efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. that similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being captured by prices.”

“Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal plan formulation and execution.”

“The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to identify possible ways of resolving it.”

“If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist. This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998; Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced property rights, is not in place.”

Published: October 31, 2009 1:00 PM
TokyoTom

Bala:

"Did rising temperatures cause an increase in atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration".

This is a great, basic question; I`d love to answer it (actually, I already did, though a bit indirectly), but you see, I`m one of the nasty obfuscating members of the socialist hysterical crowd, so I really should defer to others here who have better ideological and scientific stature here (and who hate ad hominems and love reason), such as fundamentalist, or perhaps even our confident lead poster, Stephan Kinsella (who has nothing to offer on the question of how libertarians should engage with others on the political front), or even our humble physicist climate system authority, Dr. Hayden.

Gentlemen, take it away.

Published: October 31, 2009 11:31 AM
TokyoTom

I`m sorry I don`t have time now to respond in more detail to those who have commented in response to mine, but let me note that not one of you has troubled to actually respond to my challenge, which was based on Austrian concepts of conflict resolution, understanding of rent-seeking embedded in the status quo, and the recognition that the present debate on climate, energy and environmental issues presents opportunities to actually advance an Austrian agenda.

In my view, we can either try to improve our lot, by seeking items such as those I laid out previously or condemn ourselves to irrelevancy by standing by and letting the big boys and the Baptists in their coalition hammer out something worse from our Congresscritters.

For this, the correctness of our own views of climate science matters little - nothing, in fact, unless we are willing to DO something about it, by engaging with OTHERS who have DIFFERENT views.

For those who have too much trouble remembering the legal/regulatory changes that I suggested, here they are:

[pro-freedom regulatory changes might include:

* accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
* eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow consumer choice, peak pricing and "smart metering" that will rapidly push efficiency gains),
* ending Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more common-law dependent approaches),
* ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
* speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar), and
* if there is to be any type of carbon pricing at all, insisting that it is a per capita, fully-rebated carbon tax (puts the revenues in the hands of those with the best claim to it, eliminates regressive impact and price volatility, least new bureaucracy, most transparent, and least susceptible to pork).

Other policy changes could also be put on the table, such as an insistence that government resource management be improved by requiring that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens (with a slice to the administering agency).]

Many others come to mind.

Well, what`s it going to be? Relevancy, or a tribal exercise in disengaged and smug self-satisfaction?

Published: October 31, 2009 12:37 PM
TokyoTom

1. Christopher and mpolzkill:

Thanks for the favor of your comments.

I was asking if Austrians never seek to practically engage others on questions of policy; the first of you brings up Ron Paul, but one man is not a policy, nor are his sole efforts a policy program; the other of you suggests succession from the U, which is hardly an effort at pragmatic engagement with anybody over a particular issue. (BTW, here is Ron Paul`s climate program.)

I can see some engagement by libertarians on this issue, but such seeds either (i) die when they fall on the rocky ground of the Mises Blog or (ii) represent work by people paid to criticize one side of the debate, and consistently ignore problems with the definitely non-libertarian status quo.

Why libertarians do not see any opportunity here for a positive agenda? Do they prefer to be taken as implicit supporters of the government interventions that underlie most enviros` complaints?

2. fundamentalist:

"I don't see anyone doing that except the GW hysterical crowd. Honest scientists like Hayden try to present evidence and reason so that we can have a real debate, and the hysterical crowd flings poo from the sidelines."

Thanks for your direct comment (even as you lace it and others with ad homs), but can`t you see you also are missing my point? Are you NOT interested in trying to cut deals that would, say:

* accelerate cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
* eliminate antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow consumer choice, peak pricing and "smart metering" that will rapidly push efficiency gains),
* end Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more common-law dependent approaches),
* end energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
* speed economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar),
* insist that government resource management be improved by requiring that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens,
* end federal subsidies to development on barrier islands, etc. or
* improve adaptability by deregulating and privatizing roads and other "public" infrastructure?

Or is it more productive to NOT deal with those whom you hate, and stand by while special interests cut deals that widen and deepen the federal trough?

TT

Published: November 1, 2009 2:21 AM
TokyoTom

Allow me to outline here a few responses to the arguments raised by Dr. Hayden, even as I do not pretend to be an expert (and, to be pedantic, even though they are largely irrelevant to the question of whether Austrians wish to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the many scientists and others who have differing views, to roll back alot of costly, counterproductive and unfair regulation).

1. Models: Dr. Hayden disingenuously casts aside what modern physics tells us about how God plays dice with the universe (via random, unpredictible behavior throughout the universe), and the limits of human knowledge (including the ability to measure all inputs affecting climate, including all of our own), and essentially asks us to wait until our knowledge is perfect, and our ability to capture and number-crunch all information relevant to the Earth`s climate (including changing solar and cosmic ray inputs and ocean behavior) before any of us, or our imperfect governments, can take any action on climate.

Physical and practical impossibility aside, is this how any human or any human organization structures its decisions? Narrowly, Dr. Hayden is of course right that "the science is not settled", but so what?

2. Was there a tipping point 300 million years ago (or whenever it was when CO2 levels reached 8000 ppm) ?
Dr. Hayden plays with language, suggesting that a "tipping point" means something irreversible over hundreds of millions of years, when it`s very clear that there have in the past been numerous abrupt changes in climate (some taking place in as little as a few years, with a general return to prior values sometimes taking very long periods of time) and that scientists today are talking about tipping points that may be reached in human lifetimes. Will we lose all mountain glaciers? Will the Arctic become ice-free in winter? Will thawing release sufficient methane from tundras and seabed clathrates to push the climate even more forcibly than CO2? Are we set to lose glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, regardless of what we do? Will we dry out the Amazon basin, and interrupt the Asian monsoon? There is plenty of concern and evidence that these things are real possibilities.

3. "Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming."

But you never tell us whether you, too, Dr. Hayden, are an "alarmist". Further down you acknowledge that "Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect" admitting (B) (though not that it may be the chief factor), but as far as (A) goes, you only acknowledge that "CO2 concentration is increasing". Care to make yourself an alarmist by admitting what cannot be denied - that man is responsible for rising CO2 concentrations? Or you prefer play with laymen`s ignorance by irresponsibly suggesting that rising CO2 is now due to warming oceans and not man`s activities?

- "CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind."

Yes, but what relevance is this now, when man is undeniably not simply "helping" but clearly responsible?

- "The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution."

So? Does the fact that CO2 fluctuates naturally do to things other than man`s activities mean humans` massive releases of CO2 have NOT made a "meaningful contribution"? It`s very clear that the Industrial Revolution caused a dramatic rise in CO2. Surely you don`t disagree?

- "Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the "pre-industrial" value."

"Alarmists" of course is simply an unhelpful ad hom; and as for the rest, concerned scientists and laymen clearly note how CO2 has fluctuated prior to the Industrial Revolution.

There undoubtedly many clueless laymen, just as there are some clueless scientists, so your sweeping statement may be narrowly accurate.

But in the big picture, it is clear that man has had a drastic impact on CO2 levels - so what, precisely, is your point, except to confuse the issue?

- "The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere."

Sure, but this doesn`t mean man hasn`t been the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2.

Further, of course, warming oceans CEASED to release CO2 at the point that atmospheric CO2 started to make the oceans more acidic.

- "The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?"

The lag in the historical record BEFORE man simply shows that CO2, which has an acknowledged warming effect, was a warming reinforcer and not an initiator. This does NOT, of course, suggest that massive CO2 releases by man magically have NO effect.

4. Assuming that we ARE changing climate, is that a bad thing?

- "A warmer world is a better world." Maybe, but are there NO costs, losses or damages in moving to one? And do those people and communities who bear these costs or kinda like things as they are have any choice, much less defendable property rights?

- "The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. ... Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple."

I see; this is not a question of fossil fuel interests homesteading the sky (or being given license by govt) and so being entitled to shift risks and costs on us, but them beneficiently bestowing gifts on mankind - or dinosaurs, as Dr. Hayden may prefer! Wonderful gifts that cannot be returned for centuries or millenia! Yippee!

[This is only scratching the surface of the letter, but I`m afraid I need to run for now.]

Published: November 1, 2009 4:51 AM
TokyoTom [Note: my original post contained some bolding that went haywire and bolded most of the post; I`ve fixed that.]

Okay, here`s a few more unconsidered thoughts to show how hysterical I am, am hooked on religion, hate mankind, [want to] return us to the Middle Ages and otherwise take over the world:

- "Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better."

Sure, for If only it were so simple. The increase in AVERAGE global temps that we`ve experienced so far has meant little warming of the oceans (a vast thermal sink), and has shown up at higher latitudes, where we have seen a very marked warming and ongoing thawing, a shift of tropic zones away from the equator, disruption of rainfall patterns and stress on tropical ecosystems; all of this is considered to be just the beginning of a wide range of climate effects that have not yet been fully manifested for GHG and albedo changes so far,. much less to further increases in GHGs.

- "CO2 is plant food, pure and simple."

It IS a "pure and simple" plant food, but your rhetoric implies much more - essentially that CO2 is NOTHING BUT plant food, and large releases of it have no effect on climate. And this, as you well know, is NOT a "pure and simple" matter.

- "CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition."

You mean not by your reasonable definition, or under historical standards. But what IS "pollution", but a social construct to describe the outputs of human activity that some of us have found to be damaging to our persons, property or other things that we value? Were CFCs released by refrigeration equipment "pollution" before we discovered that they damage the ozone layer?

Scientists may be qualified to measure particular outputs and their consequences, but otherwise have no special insights into what others value.

- "A warmer world begets more precipitation."

Sure, as warmer air generally holds more water - which in turn has a warming effect, let`s not forget. But as for the water itself, climate change leads to more severe rain events in some places but to droughts in others. And let`s not forget that a warmer world means that mountain snows don`t last until spring and summer as they once did, leaving streams and forests drier, and adversely affecting agriculture that relies on such water.

- "All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms."

Not so fast; this doesn`t hold for rain events or tornadoes. Further, independent paths of research indicate that while the North Atlantic may end up with fewer hurricanes, warming is likely to make them more intense.

- How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

First, note again the Dr.`s use of a strawman; no one is expect an imminent melt of "ALL" the ice. But significant melting and thinning of coastal ice IS occurring, and not merely on the West Antactic peninsula, which the good Dr. would realize if he`d trouble himself to compare his simple mental model, of reality with FACTS. As previously noted, coast ice sheets are plugs that slow the flow of glaciers from the interior. As these plugs are removed, the glaciers flow more quickly, via that exotic phenomenon we call "gravity". I`ve already addressed this above, with links.

- "If the waters around it warm up, they create more precipitation."

Yes, but does the new precipitation balance the ice being melted? Actual, detailed observations tell us that, despite your absolute certainty, that we are seeing increasing net mass losses far inland, not merely in Greenland but also in Antarctica. Your religious-like faith in your own superior understanding doesn`t make the facts go away.

- "The ocean’s pH is not rising. It is falling, ever so slightly. Obviously your respondent has not the faintest clue as to how pH is defined. (BTW, the oceans are basic, not acidic.)"

Yes, the good Dr. catches my mistake - pH is falling rather remarkably (from basic towards acidic) - but he too hastily skates past the main point, which is that this is due to increased atmospheric levels of CO2, which prove that the oceans are NOT actually releasing CO2 (or they`d be becoming more basic).

I provided links in this last year here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007931.asp#c192563

Here`s more:
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/06/our-dying-oceans/
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:y_W6vseUrykJ:www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/20_2/20.2_caldeira.pdf+caldeira+ocean+ph&hl=en&gl=jp&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgEEoFLf7xd9QTyol2TYYmXKPxXFqMq5Nr1IPdGd_yEbV3zIxPi-4Rmhb6d-IQ-r4BPwBqzyhF6GZQw_ka1Eh3Ynn0lYlP7p974IYMHIdLMVE90nWJ81GHAfcdTrUJTNk7W8Man&sig=AFQjCNGg6Idq6GQ5gyrddlXRD8R98NQ_dQ

From the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (UK) :

"Until recently, it was believed that the oceans contained so much disolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions that any extra would have little effect. In fact this absorbtion was generally acknowledged a valuable process in protecting the planet from the worst effects of rising temperatures and climate change. However, in 2003 a paper was published in Nature (vol 425) which suggested that the increases in atmospheric CO2, occurring over the last 200 years, has actually increased the acidity of the oceans by 0.1 of a pH unit.The pH scale is logarithmic and this change represents a 30% increase in the concentration of H+ ions.

"However, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been higher during previous times in Earths history and these high CO2 periods didn’t cause ocean pH to change. The difference now is that the rate at which CO2 concentrations are increasing, is 100 times greater than the natural fluctuations seen over recent millennia. Consequently, the processes that ultimately balance the carbon cycle are unable to react quickly enough and ocean pH is affected. About half of all released CO2 is absorbed by the oceans but even if we stop all emmissions today, the CO2 already in the atmosphere has been predicted to decrease ocean pH by a further 0.5 unit."

From Wikipedia">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification">Wikipedia:

"Dissolving CO2 in seawater also increases the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration in the ocean, and thus decreases ocean pH. Caldeira and Wickett (2003)[1] placed the rate and magnitude of modern ocean acidification changes in the context of probable historical changes during the last 300 million years.

Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly less than 0.1 units (on the logarithmic scale of pH; approximately a 25% increase in H+), and it is estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 units by 2100 as the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO2.[1][2][9] These changes are predicted to continue rapidly as the oceans take up more anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere, the degree of change to ocean chemistry, for example ocean pH, will depend on the mitigation and emissions pathways society takes.[10] Note that, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could also be described as becoming less basic."

- "The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that's climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change."

Wonderful observation, except for the fact that IT`S WRONG; the change instead being deliberately led by Republicans; leading Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz in 2002 pushed Republicans to move the public discussion away from "global warming" to "climate change", because, as Luntz wrote,

“'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge”.

Of course there IS the inconvenient fact that "climate change" is actually more accurate than simple "global warming", but who cares about accuracy anyway, right Dr.?

- "the earth has handily survived many millions of years when CO2 levels were MUCH higher than at present, without passing the dreaded tipping point."

I already addressed above the point that while the Dr. seems to what to recreate the Cretaceous, the better for dinosaurs, most of us seem rather to like the Earth that we actually inherited and that the rest of current Creation is adapted for. He is obviously a physicist and not a biologist, and doesn`t seem to give any thought to the rapidity of the scale at which we are conducting our little terraforming experiment, and te challenges the pace of those changes are posing to ecosystems.

- "To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense."

To put it bluntly, this is largely rubbish; there is a tremendous and growing amount of climate change DATA. You just make it your habit not to let facts get in the way of your own opinions. I would be a travesty if we continue to countenance posts such as yours, questions of relevance to Austrian purposes aside.

- "I don’t do politics"

Fine; I can see why that would not be your forte. But what`s very puzzling is that you seem to think that climate science IS your forte, when all you`ve show is a shocking level of arrogant ignorance.

- "I don’t pretend to be an economic theorist."

And on a blog dedicated to Austrian economists, just why, one wonders, do the "giants" in our Mises world keep filling the Blog pages with post such as this, which are, on their very face, IRRELEVANT, to the question of how Austrians wish to address the preferences of other, the misuses of government and the management of unowned common resources.

- "he only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is, in practical terms, their rhetoric. I don’t pretend to be an economic theorist.

- "But the notion that we can run an industrialized giant on chicken manure and sunbeams doesn’t even pass the giggle test. Except in Washington."

At long last, you say something something intelligible. Except Washington spends trillions on nonsense at the drop of a hat, if you haven`t noticed recent events.

Published: November 1, 2009 10:02 AM
TokyoTom

Sorry if I`ve been a bit intemperate; that I`m rushed doesn`t excuse it.

Dr. Hayden, you are entirely welcome to your own opinion and your own mental map of reality, but not to your own facts. As to your opinion and mental map, they are by your own admittance uninformed as to matters of economics and political science, but I must confess that I find your understanding of climate science to be seriously wanting.

Given these, I fail to see what you offer here, other than a convenient, if very thin, cover for others here who don`t want to think, or to fight to make the world (or our own government) better.

Sincerely,

Tom

Published: November 1, 2009 10:11 AM
TokyoTom

Bala, I appreciate your polite persistence; I`m sorry I haven`t responded yet, but I`ll get to you.

Please note that my time is both limited and my own (though indeed others have claims on it), and I have no obligation to spend any of it responding to your importunings regarding climate science, which are now shading into impertinence.

Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you wish, but a fair reader might note that:

- my priorities may (unsurprisingly) differ from yours,
- my chief points (and Austrian principles as to how to engage with others) have nothing to do with climate science per se,
- I explicitly make no pretense of being a scientist or climate expert, and
- in any case, there is no simple course to understanding reality; we are all forced to make decisions as to how much energy to devote to puzzling things out on our own (and overcoming what we know of our own subconscious cognitive filters) versus outsourcing this effort to others (by accepting things without deliberation, "on faith" as it were).

Others who have been around longer will know that I`ve also devoted what they might consider an unreasonable amount of my time over the past few years, "hysterical" trying to help others work through climate science (and policy) issues.

TT

Published: November 1, 2009 8:46 PM
TokyoTom

mpolzkill:

- "Tom, believing you live in a Republic with 300,000,000 people is a delusion which heads off all actual pragmatism."

This is not a delusion I have, but in any case it`s not at all clear that this or any other delusion "heads off all actual pragmatism".

- "Until there is actual representation, everything said by we proles is literally hot air (unless it's happens to coincide with whatever benefits the regime)."

I use "our government" simply as shorthand for what you call "the regime", but perhaps may be more accurately described as a multicentric mess.

In any case, the painstaking efforts of LVMI to grow the Mises website, and the welcome reception of and contribution to those efforts by everyone here - yourself included - belies both your near-nihilistic cynicism and your conclusion, as to virtually every topic discussed here. Words are deeds, though they be more or less frivolous, weighty, insightful or consequential.

If the other Mises bloggers agreed with you as to the possible efficacy of their words, either generally or on this particular topic, they simply wouldn`t bother to post.

However, I share your concern about efficiacy, which is why I criticize posts such these (whether by Stephan, George Reisman, Sean Corrigan, Walter Block, or Jeffrey Tucker), which are, by and large, more of a circle jerk than an effort to engage.

- "thank you for being respectful"

My pleasure, but you hardly need to thank me; this is a community, after all.

- "even though you mistakenly think I'm a nut.

In this case, it is you who are mistaken (not that you ARE a nut, but that you think I think you are).

Tom

Published: November 1, 2009 9:35 PM

This is last version of the comment that I tried to post several times:

method fan:

[my first attempt apparently failed to post, so apologies if this shows up twice]

- "You are insofar wrong, that not only this "data" is analysed but it is also used to "predict" the future of reality by using it in simulations!"

You miss my criticism of Dr. Hayden`s refusal to examine facts about ongoing melting in Antarctica, but of course I do NOT disagree with you that current and paleo data can be used to "predict" the future.

But of course a scientific understanding of the world, and information - in this case, both about the past and current trends of climate inputs - certainly can give us useful information about what the future may hold in store for us.

"There is no sound experimental proof that human activity-emitted carbon dioxide is the cause for some sort of global warming."

Nicely phrased; there of course plenty of experimental proof that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric warming agent, but no experimental proof that it is "the" cause for any global warming.

While we are now running such a global experiment - one that started centuries ago and will not be played out for centuries hence and is, for all intents and purposes irreversible - and thus cannot, in the Popperian sense, even be considered an "experiment".

Whether our ramping up of the experiment is prudent or principled are entirely different questions, and properly the subject of much discussion.

- "These guesses remind one of the idea that rain dances are the cause for rain."

I`m tempted to make a comeback, but surely you realize your flip comparison is entirely inapropos.

Here`s hoping for more sincere discourse.

TT

[Update- apology] The Road Not Taken III: Stephan Kinsella plugs his ears on the Austrians` obstinate, willful irrelevancy in the climate debate?

TokyoTom — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:03:00 GMT

[Note: Stephan Kinsella tells me he has NOT put my posts on his thread on moderation. I believe him, and so (even as I fail to understand why I was unable to post a particular comment after a number of attempts), as noted I would in my original post, I withdraw my charge that he put my comments on moderation, and offer my sincere apology to Stephan (and to LvMI readers) for my mistake and for the offense that I imagine I may have caused to his sense of fair play. I am happy to do this, though of course I deeply regret my mistake.

Stephan, I`m sorry. I take your word that the conclusion I jumped to was wrong.

I am still trying to puzzle through what happened; below I have restored an edited version of my prior post, with the unjustifed portions deleted.

Meanwhile, the discussion continues at the Mises Blog, at the above thread.]

In my preceding post I commented on Austrian (dis)engagement on climate issues, as exemplified by Stephan Kinsella`s Mises Blog post, "Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims".

[clip]

Instead of the usual cheerful message LvMI provides when comments are accepted ("Confirmation... Your comment has been submitted!)", my attempts to comment are now met with the message, "Thank you for commenting. Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner."

While there are times that this message is automatically served up for technical reasons, such as not providing proper email address (i.e., by accidently typing in ".comh" instead of ".com") or providing too many links (which may trigger a spamblocking feature), this [seemed to me] to be fairly clearly NOT one of those occasions - I had just successfully posted a couple of comments that included links, and my "failed" post included my usual email address (properly formatted, as I can confirm simply by backing up) and no links.

[clip]

I copy below the comment that I [had supposed] turned his playful non-responsiveness (see his comment to my prior post) into stony silence/silencing:

Published: October 31, 2009 1:00 PM
TokyoTom

Stephan, if I may, I am appalled and offended by your shallow and fundamentally dishonest engagement here. That there are a string of others who have preceded you in this regard is no excuse.

You: (i) post without significant comment a one-page letter from a scientist - as if the letter itself is vindication, victory or a roadmap for how we should seek to engage the views and preferences of others,

(ii) refuse to answer my straightforward questions (both above and at my cross-linked post, which you visited) on how we engage others in the very active ongoing political debate, in a manner that actually defends and advances our policy agenda, (putting aside the insulting and disingenuous "Tokyo asked me to respond" and "it's so rambling I am not sure what to respond to"); and

(iii) then proceed to present your own view of the science, the motives and sanity "watermelons" (as if they`re running the show), a few helpful, free-market libertarian "solutions", like open-air explosion of nuclear weapons to bring about a "nuclear winter" effect!

And my attempt to bring your focus back to the question of how we actually deal with others in the POLITICAL bargaining that is, after all, underway is met with silence - other than your faithful report back from your trusty climate physicist expert policy guru friend about .... science (all being essentially irrelevant to my question, not merely the cute little folksy demonstration about how the troubling melting and thinning of Antarctic ice sheets actually now underway simply CAN`T be occurring, but also a further failure to address the very rapid ocean acidification our CO2 emissions are producing)!

Maybe it`s me, but I find this type of insincere and shallow engagement on such a serious issue to be a shameful discredit to the Mises Blog (even if it does cater to those who prefer to think that the big to do about climate - which may very well result in a mass of ill-considered, costly and counterproductive legislation - is really groundless and so can simply be ignored, aside from a bit of internal fulminations here).

If you are not actually interested in discussing policy on a serious issue, then consider refraining from posting on it.

Maybe it`s not my position to expect better, but I do.

Sincerely,

Tom

[Note: I had intended to excise the following from my comment, but it`s just as well that it slipped in, as it serves to illustrate what productive Austrian approaches to climate issues might look like. I`ve added a link to Roy Cordato.]

Roy Cordato (linked at my name) said this:

“The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute plans within the context of their goals. … ocial welfare or efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. that similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being captured by prices.”

“Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal plan formulation and execution.”

“The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to identify possible ways of resolving it.”

“If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist. This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998; Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced property rights, is not in place.”

The Road Not Taken III: Stephan Kinsella plugs his ears on the Austrians` obstinate, willful irrelevancy in the climate debate

The Road Not Taken II: Austrians strive for a self-comforting irrelevancy on climate change, the greatest commons problem / rent-seeking game of our age

TokyoTom — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:58:00 GMT

[Update: Readers may wish to note the latest developments, as I note in these follow-up posts.]

Stephan Kinsella - whom I have engaged before on the ramifications of the decidedly non-libertarian state grant of limited liabiility to corporations - has a new post up on the Mises Blog on global warming; his first on this subject, as far as I know.

The post is surprisingly short, and consists of a simple introduction by Stephan, to which he has appended a copy of letter to the EPA that one Howard Hayden, a retired physicist, one whom Stephan assures us is "a staunch advocate of sound energy policy" - whatever that means (hey, me too!) - submitted in connection with the EPA`s Supreme Court-mandated consideration of whether to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Stephan also refers to Dr. Hayden`s letter as a "one-letter disproof of global warming claims."

I welcome Stephan to this discussion, which has taken place at the Mises Blog in fits and starts over the past few years. However, the absence of any commentary by Stephan leaves me scratching my head. Where`s the beef? Are this person`s scientific views on climate so convincing or obviously correct, and are the policy implication so straightforward, and correct, that we should all "get it" and agree, without any commentary by Stephan? Or Is Stephan simply playing with our credulity, and his own?

In any case, given both (1) the focus of Austrian economics on productively addressing conflicts between people with conflicting preferences (and the frequently negative role that governments play in resource tussles, generally to the benefit of entrenched insiders and to government itself) and (2) the recent Nobel prize award to Elinor Ostrom regarding the ways that humans work together successfully or not) to address common resources, I am simply disappointed. Is this all that Stephan has to offer?

Observing that Stephan fits within a grand tradition at Mises of shallow thought on climate and other "environmental" issues, I felt compelled to post a few thoughts at Stephan`s post, which I copy below:

Stephan:

Thanks for bringing your post to my attention.

My short response? Remember "Thank you, Prof. Block, for feeding our confirmation biases"?

But since I can`t resist doing what nobody else seems inclined to - I suppose it is, after all, why you invited me to this feast - let me make a few comments on matters that would apparently not otherwise occur to you or to the rest of the community. The fact that most of the contents of Dr. Hayden`s letter is confused twaddle that has been explained in detail countless times (and personally by me, ad nauseum, to the extreme annoyance of most of the blog over the years 2006-2008) aside, it puzzles me that you and others prefer to treat the pages of the Mises Blog as a forum to dismiss - through drive-by postings like this (a la Walter Block) of a particular piece of "skepticism" that caught your fancy - extremely widespread scientific views (held by EVERY major national academy of science, including China and India), rather than engaging in a discussion of preferences, institutions and policies.

As I`ve asked Jeffrey Tucker previously, is science the forte of the Mises Blog, or its readers?

Even if those who believe that man`s rising emissions of CO2 have nothing to do with an observably rapidly changing world and pose no threat whatsoever - and that those who disagree all all deluded and/or evil - turn out, after we play our little massive and irreversible game with the Earth for another few centuries, to be absolutely right, is engaging with them by dismissing their concerns an approach that holds even the slightest prospect of success?

It`s as if Austrians were determined to ignore their own principles, stampede themselves into irrelevancy, and to make sure that we get the WORST policy outcomes possible. Why not, if you think others all wrong, deluded or evil, play along with their game, and actually seek policy changes that might not only address the expressed concerns of others in a meaningful way, while also advancing a libertarian, freedom-seeking agenda?

As I have noted in a litany of posts at my blog, most recently one addressed to Bob Murphy, such pro-freedom regulatory changes might include:

accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow consumer choice, peak pricing and "smart metering" that will rapidly push efficiency gains),
ending Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more common-law dependent approaches),
ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar), and
if there is to be any type of carbon pricing at all, insisting that it is a per capita, fully-rebated carbon tax (puts the revenues in the hands of those with the best claim to it, eliminates regressive impact and price volatility, least new bureaucracy, most transparent, and least susceptible to pork).

There have been occasional libertarian climate proposals floated over the past few years, but they have never graced the Mises Blog, instead falling gently to the ground unnoticed - apparently, except for me - like the proverbial unstrained koala tea of Mercy.

Austrians seem to act as if the love of reason requires a surrender of it in favor of the comforting distraction of a self-satisfied echo chamber of a type that would warm the cockles of any like-minded religious "alarmist" cult.

Then of course, we have our own home-grown libertarians who are happy to participate actively in the debate (with many excellent points, naturally), but carefully skirt for the purposes of maximum effectiveness (and felicitously, for their own consciences) the fact that their views are funded by the dirtiest class of rent-seekers. Plus we have a few who are happy to regurgitate for us "heroic" "grassroots" efforts that are transparent corporate PR ploys.

Finally, since no one else seems to be remotely interesting in scratching the surface of Dr. Hayden`s letter, here is what a little due diligence turns up:

- sure, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. Some skeptics use this to suggest that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are due not to man, but to a naturally warming. That`s why it`s so interesting that, despite a warming ocean, ocean pH is rising [oops, I meant pH is "falling", as I`ve noted in a previous comment about rapidly changing ocean pH] because dissolved CO2 is also rising (because man`s CO2 emissions are forcing more CO2 to be dissolved in water).

- You ask sarcastically, if the melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else, how will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists? The answer is, simply, that (1) the warming oceans melt and undermine the coastal ice, and (2) as coastal buttresses are removed, gravity brings the continental ice down more rapidly. This process is well underway and apparently accelerating, as described in a study just published in Nature. Note also that not all of Antarctica lies precisely at the South Pole, and that some parts are melting directly as the atmosphere warms.

- finally, not all men are dinosaurs, nor is the rest of extant Creation (save birds, of course). Why should we feel comforted by the fact that we may, in the blink of an eye in geologic time (decades/centuries), be terra-forming the Earth for creatures that no longer exist, while stressing it for the rest of Creation? Do we have no right of preference in climate or in the life we share the Earth with, or have the investors in fossil fuel firms homesteaded the right to modify environmental matters willy nilly, come what may?

Thanks for providing the soapbox, Stephan.

Tom

I note that Stephan closes his introduction to Dr. Hayden`s letter with the following:

"I love Hayden's email sign-off, "People will do anything to save the world ... except take a course in science.""

Would that problems of governance of shared resources were so easy as taking a science course! Then ALL of us Austrians, and not merely our leading lights at the Mises Blog, could simply pack up and go home, and leave everything to a few philosopher-king scientists!

[update] Bob Murphy, Rob Bradley and the Austrian Road Not Taken on Climate by two fossil-fuels gunslingers

TokyoTom — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:14:00 GMT

[Update: I copy at bottom a follow-up exchange I had on Bob`s thread with another reader - radio silence from Bob.]

Bob Murphy has a new post up at his blog, "CBO Testimony Misleads on Cost of Cap-and-Trade", that draws attention to a new blog post at the Institute of Energy Research that Bob says he "had a lot to do with".

The IER post rightly criticizes some of the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office has released, but the IER is playing games itself.

I left the following note at Bob`s (now substantially goosed up for the benefit of readers):

TokyoTom said...

IER? Isn`t that the "free-market" blog that bans libertarians who are not on their pro-coal, pro-pollution wagon? [Oops, I confused this with Rob Bradley`s MasterResource blog; IER is different, in that IER is - much more clearly than MR - an active rent-seeking front for fossil fuel interests, which Exxon made clear last year when it publicly announced that it would no longer fund IER`s "unproductive", climate-skeptic position.]

But while we`re on the subject, let`s not forget:

- Austrians` fundamental objections to cost-benefit analysis;

- that the mining, transport and combustion of coal, in addition to whatever climate "cost" it might have to various people whose preferences can`t be measured, have very real and significant costs in terms of damage to persons and property;

- that federal law authorizes this (via the "Clean Air Act", surface mining laws and ownership of the TVA), and grandfathers the very worst midwestern utilities, the oldest 10% of which (41 or so) are estimated to be responsible for 43% of the $62 billion in annual damages (not including damages from harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, or climate change)(according to the latest NAS report on the indirect costs of fossil fuels);

- that our federal government and states own most of the coal deposits and are otherwise addicted to the royalty revenues and complicit in turning a blind eye to damages;

- the future "costs" that the IER analysis refers to (in 2050) are not discounted to present value;

- that alternative policies - such as

a rebated carbon tax,
accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow consumer choice, peak pricing and "smart metering" that will rapidly push efficiency gains),
ending Clean Air Act handouts to the dirtiest utilities (or otherwise unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more common-law dependent approaches),
ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license), and
speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural corporate welfare programs,

are never advanced, much less their costs weighed [that is, no attempt is ever made to engage opponents in good faith or to seek mutual gains by working to resolve underlying problems];

- the costs/consequences/risks and equities of "do-nothing" policies are hardly considered, and when so are heavily discounted;

- that deliberate "geo-engineering" holds no promise as a panacea, and itself is fraught with issues about statism, preferences, risks and liaibility;

- the need for investment in infrastructure and change in laws to adapt (and foster adaptation) to very real ongoing climate changes are never discussed; and

- no one at IER ever seems to question the unstated presumption that utilities and our transportation industries have somehow homesteaded an ownership right over the global atmosphere - or the massive role that our federal government and states play as coal and other energy resource owners), so that it`s perfectly okay to dismiss the preferences of those who have concerns at home [those "religious" nuts like Exxon, and our Academies of Science] and those abroad in the least developed countries that are most vulnerable to damages (much less to suggest how those injured should be aided).

In other words, those defending the status quo seem to have abandoned any Austrian training (or to have no familiarity with its concern for problem-solving and awareness that [as Block points out] common law protection of private property rights was hijacked a century ago, with massive pollution and rent-seeking problems being the result).

Someone ought to post a few of these thoughts over at IER; Rob Bradley somehow finds comments of this type over fundamental principles to be "ad hominem" arguments [of the kind that very quickly tested his patience and got me banned, without any word to his co-bloggers, who found my comments worthy of considered response].

Sure, we should fight over policy, but let`s not ignore principles or put our heads in the sand.

October 28, 2009 10:10 AM

* From the NAS report:

Coal accounts for about half the electricity produced in the U.S. In 2005 the total annual external damages from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter created by burning coal at 406 coal-fired power plants, which produce 95 percent of the nation's coal-generated electricity, were about $62 billion; these nonclimate damages average about 3.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour (kwh) of energy produced. A relatively small number of plants -- 10 percent of the total number -- accounted for 43 percent of the damages. By 2030, nonclimate damages are estimated to fall to 1.7 cents per kwh.

[update:

Supporters of cap and trade always turn to the argument that opponents are burying their heads in the sand. It's not true. This legislation won't do anything to help the environment. It is merely a front so that the administration and the Democrats can say they did "something." We don't need legislation that is going to cost every single American household and won't even be able to achieve its stated goals. Write your Congressmen at http://dontcapandtradeourjobs.net/?tr15.

# posted by : October 28, 2009 10:31 AM

, you`re missing my higher -level poinht, which is that IER is rather apparently UNINTERESTED in engaging productively or on a principled basis on this issue; rather, they are simply sniping (though they make excellent points) at the cap-and-traders).

Though, of course, from the view of those financing them, this form of engagement may very well be "productive", if it delays any action that will lower returns to coal, rail or utility investors.

What`s regrettable is that this obfuscation, which has been going on for decades, is what is likely to saddle us with extremely costly, porky and ineffective "climate change" policies.

# posted by TokyoTom : October 29, 2009 12:08 AM

Positive sum games: Get yer Elinor Ostrom here! A reprise of posts on rolling up our sleeves to address real problems that "markets" (& govt.) now aggravate

TokyoTom — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:33:00 GMT

I excerpt below, in chronological order, portions of my prior posts here that refer to Elinor Ostrom (the political scientist who recently was awarded the Nobel prize in economics) and are indebted to her thinking.

Perhaps items 3 and 10 are most accessible for readers in a hurry to find links to her own work.

1. Too Many or Too Few People? Does the market provide an answer?, Sep 28 2007:

Too many or too few? Good question, Dan. I agree with you that the population question is like any other aspect of the social order: best addressed by the market and by free societies.

There are just a few small problems - even within the developed world (and very clearly outside of it), there are many important resources that are unowned and thus not fully priced in the "market" economy.

Unowned resources include almost all of Nature. Primary productivity (the amount of vegetation produced from photosynthesis) has changed little, so as we use technology and our organizational abilities to divert more and more of it to feed us, this is an inevitable cost to other species, either directly or in the form of altered environments that support less life (and less diversity of life).

In altering our environments to suit us, we are of course no different from other life forms that compete for resources to live and propagate, but with our technical and organizational abilities, mankind has clearly triumphed over the rest of nature (except perhaps evolving microbes, to whom we represent an increasingly large and relatively untapped food source). But at what cost?

Through the centuries we have wiped out many wild systems of food and other resources - because they were never owned, and because our improving technology enabled us to race each other to take the resources before others (or from others, in the case of many native peoples). Not only Jared Diamond`s "guns, germs and steel", but also forms of social organization have played deciding roles in the competition between human societies for survival, growth and dominance. In this regard, societies that recognize and protect property rights and utilize free markets have proven clearly superior in the competition with other societies to obtain and utilize available resources.

But our struggle has been not only to capture resources and to use them before others do, but also to manage and protect them effectively. Evolving ownership systems have been a key means of limiting wasteful "tragedy of the commons" struggles (see Yandle; von Mises), but even where ownership systems have been implemented, we have generally replaced complex natural systems with simpler systems designed solely to feed us (and particularly so where, due to higher consumptive demand, we have replaced common property systems with private property systems (Ostrom)).

Meanwhile, virtually all of the natural world - the world's oceans, atmosphere, tropical reefs, tropical forests and other great commons - remain unowned and thus unmanaged and unregulated (or indigenous occupants have been forced aside). For example, the great cod fishery off of the Grand Banks that fed Europe for centuries has now disappeared, and other fishery stocks worldwide are crashing - to be "replaced" by "farmed" fish that are fed to a substantial degree by catching and grinding up fish stocks that humans prefer not to consume directly, and in part by fish firms that are established by destroying the mangroves that are estuaries to various fisheries. The same is true of the replacement of vast tracts of tropical forests with soybeans or oil palm plantations, with the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 (and attendant risks to climate) and with the correspondingly geolologically rapid increases in ocean acidification (and threats to plankton, corals and shellfish).

While populations in the developed economies are now relatively stable, demand from our markets (as well as the burgeoning developing markets) continues to strip out unowned (or mismanaged "public") resources from the oceans or undeveloped countries, aided by kleptocratic elites who are happy to steal from the peoples they supposedly represent in order to line their own pockets.

As Dan points out, property rights failures in poorer nations contributes to population growth there by delaying the demographic transitions that we have experienced. Developed economies face similar problems with respect to "public", state-owned lands, for which rent-seeking by and sweet deals to insiders are enduring problems and sources of politcal conflict (as markets cannot work to allocate resources).

Dan states that the stunningly rapid growth of human populations from the Renaissance to the present (6+ billion now expected to nearly double again soon) "actually represents the rise of capitalism and capital development ... [and] shows ... the stunning capacity of freedom to provide for the whole world." While partly correct, this misses completely the question of our massive impact, within a very short period of geological time, on the environment in which we evolved over millions of years, the fact this has occurred because clear and enforceable property rights have not been created in many of the resources that have been consumed, and the corollary fact that we continue to lack the ability to manage our impact on our endowment of natural resources.

The market clearly does NOT send accurate pricing signals with respect to goods that are unowned or ineffectively owned; these goods are either unpriced or underpriced, so the effect is overconsumption until the point that the resource is greatly degraded, at which point attention is turned to the next unowned resource. Thus, human populations are responding to rather imperfect market signals. And where resources are unowned, individuals and groups with differing values and desires cannot adjust or realize those desires by means of private, market transactions. As a result, we are seeing a recourse to the public and political arenas - and the inevitable discordant debates - as various parties seek to use either moral suasion or the levers of government (locally, nationally and internationally) to advance what they consider to be their own interests. (Of course, in a "tragedy of the commons" situation, all resource users share an interest is the future availability of a resource; the difficulty is in the prisoners' dilemma negotiations at the primary user level about how to allocate short-term pain in the interest of long-term gains, compounded in the case of multinational resources by rent-seeking with each national participant.)

A cynic may say that our ongoing assault on nature is only "natural", presents no moral or philosophical issues and that we hardly owe any responsibilities to "nature" or even "future generations" - so let's just all keep on partying, consuming for today, and patting ourselves on the back at how marvelous our market systems are. And that we should keep on hurling invective at those evil "enviros" who want to crash the party and drag us all back to the Stone Age.

Perhaps I suffer from a want of sufficient cynicism.

2. Using the State to solve common resource problems?, Oct 12 2007:

How exactly do you transfer commons into private ownership in a fair way, even for easily divided up stuff like land?

Libertarians do not insist that open-access resources (or common property resources/CPR) be divided up by creating individual property rights; cooperative ownership via formal agreements or informally developed practices and customs (such those developed by Maine lobstermen, English angling clubs, indigenous peoples and Wikipedia and online communities) may work better at solving the prisoners' dilemma issues and are just as acceptable.

But technological advances and greater demand often swamp CPR regimes, so such regimes remain vulnerable if they are not accorded legal protection. My understanding of the UK enclosures in this regard is that they were actually a legislative theft of common property by the powerful.

Can states play positive roles in solving problems? At least internally, it is rather clear that the answer is that the state works best by allowing, and providing judicial mechanisms to enforce, private transactions, and works least well when it tries to specify detailed and rigid "solutions" itself - since the government itself never has perfect information, often plays favorites and once a regulatory regime is put in place, parties have no ability to work out their differences directly with each other, but are forever in the position of trying to influence the state and in adversarial positions vis-a-vis each other. But states can also play a positive role by disseminating information and by acting to facilitate deals between various resources users, particularly in cross-border/multi-state problems.

Elinor Ostrom is the guru of CPR regimes; anyone interested should look into her fascinating and highly-regarded work, particularly her seminal Governing the Commons (1990).

[She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society, and a recipient of a number of prestigious awards. Her other books include Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources (1994); The Commons in the New Millennium: Challenges and Adaptations (2003); The Samaritan’s Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid (2005); Understanding Institutional Diversity (2005); and Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice (2007).]

Here is one link to get readers started: Elinor Ostrom et al., Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges, Science 9 April 1999: http://conservationcommons.org/media/document/docu-wyycyz.pdf

Technology seems to provide us ability to create property rights regimes in ocean fisheries.

The stickiest problems are those where the resource is located in a country where we cannot ourselves create or enforce legal rights and in the atmosphere, which no one owns and to which all have access. Unfortunately, many libertarians don't even want to acknowledge, much less discuss, these problems. Since they are not confined to any one country, clearly we need to coordinate with others - for which purposes our state apparatus cannot be avoided.

Reaching any kind of effective solution for problems of this type will require much more focussed attention and bridge-building (abroad and at home), and if libertarians do not want to be part of the discussion, clearly they will have little influence on the results.

3. Sophomoric optimism?, Oct 16 2007:

Our states are merely one subset of the wide universe of formal and informal institutions through which we cooperate with one another. States are not a market, to be sure, but then neither are corporations, and there is a spectrum of ownership types between the two. We can study all of these institutions and use that knowledge to direct how we make use of them. Such study has informed, for example, the deliberate shifts in policy that have led to the ongoing (yet incomplete) privatization of the former USSR and of China.

A study of institutions governing common pool resources by guru Elinor Ostrom makes the following point:

"Whether people are able to self-organize and manage CPRs also depends on the broader social setting within which they work. National governments can help or hinder local self-organization. "Higher" levels of government can facilitate the assembly of users of a CPR in organizational meetings, provide information that helps identify the problem and possible solutions, and legitimize and help enforce agreements reached by local users. National governments can at times, however, hinder local self-organization by defending rights that lead to overuse or maintaining that the state has ultimate control over resources without actually monitoring and enforcing existing regulations.

"Participants are more likely to adopt effective rules in macro-regimes that facilitate their efforts than in regimes that ignore resource problems entirely or that presume that central authorities must make all decisions.If local authority is not formally recognized by larger regimes, it is difficult for users to establish enforceable rules. "

Elinor Ostrom et al., Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges, Science, 04/09/99 http://conservationcommons.org/media/document/docu-wyycyz.pdf

Was von Mises foolish to suggest we can use the state to reform our institutions?

“It is true that where a considerable part of the costs incurred are external costs from the point of view of the acting individuals or firms, the economic calculation established by them is manifestly defective and their results deceptive. But this is not the outcome of alleged deficiencies inherent in the system of private ownership of the means of production. It is on the contrary a consequence of loopholes left in this system. It could be removed by a reform of the laws concerning liability for damages inflicted and by rescinding the institutional barriers preventing the full operation of private ownership.”

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap23sec6.asp

And Cordato, for suggesting that Austrians take particular policy approaches to environmental issues?

"For Austrians then, public policy in the area of the environment must focus on resolving these conflicts over the use of resources that define pollution, not on obtaining an ultimately unobtainable "efficient" allocation of resources. ... For Austrians, whose goal is to resolve conflicts, the focus is on clarifying titles to property and rights enforcement.

http://mises.org/story/1760

Sorry, but I cannot believe that we are condemned always to repeat all mistakes, despite our rather constant human nature. Rather, as Yandle notes, our very history as a species is about our success in evolving, devising and adopting ways to manage shared problems. http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4064

This is a message of profound optimism, not cynicism --- said the fool.

4. Ron Bailey of Reason congratulates Al Gore , Oct 15 2007:

1. You were right last year when you said that "In the end, the debate over global warming and its obverse, humanity's energy future, is a moral issue."
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113924.html

2. I share your understanding of the economics and institutional problem and agree that a straightforward explanation of these is important for very many.

3. However, you forget what evolutionary psychology, Ostrom and Yandle have explained to us so well about how our innate moral sense drives and underpins mankind's success as a species by enhancing our ability to cooperate and to overcome commons issues.
Ostrom: http://conservationcommons.org/media/document/docu-wyycyz.pdf
Yandle: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4064

Our long history of developed rules and institutions (informal and formal now overlapping) are based on our moral sense and the effectiveness of these rules depends critically on our moral investment in accepting their legitimacy - witness our views on murder, theft, lying and "not playing by the rules" - and in voluntarily complying with them.

Our moral sense reinforces our judgments about when rules/institutions are not working and the need to develop new ones in response to changing circumstances and new problems. When we see a problem that we think requires change, it is unavoidable that we respond the the status quo, the behavior of people within it and the need for change with a moral sense.

This is simply a part of our evolutionary endowment. (Of course, other parts of our endowment accentuate our suspicions of smooth talkers and help us catch free riders and looters and to guard against threats from outsiders.)

4. Accordingly, while it's unclear how deliberate Gore's talk of "a moral and spiritual challenge" and "lifting the global consciousness" is or whether this is a productive approach for some people, I think it is fairly clear that, in order to build consensus for a solution to the climate commons problem (and other difficult commons problems) and to ensure that any agreed solutions are actually implemented, we will need to bring our moral senses to bear.

In other words, it is RIGHT to worry about climate change, but no meaningful/effective "solution" can be reached or implemented unless it is FAIR and the parties involved have sufficient TRUST (backed by information) in each other.

5. Not Climate Change Welfare, But Capitalism and Free Markets, Jan 22 2008:

[F]ar from "forc[ing] rich countries to become poor", figuring out how to manage a global commons like the atmosphere, while it may have the effect of imposing a cost on the release of carbon, is basically aimed at privatising externalities, with the intention of increasing the efficiency of private transactions and net wealth. Climate change is, of course, just one of a broad range of pervasive problems that occur when markets encounter resources that are not clearly or effectively owned or managed. http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/09/28/too-many-or-too-few-people-does-the-market-provide-an-answer.aspx

3. Most importantly, while Lockitch correctly diagnoses the illness - poor countries need to "embrace free markets and private property rights and attract the investment of profit-seeking entrepreneurs to create wealth and drive economic growth" - he simply fails to address what wealthy nations SHOULD be doing, if anything, to assist the cure. This, of course, is the main dodge, because Lockitch fails to own up to the true difficulties involved in trying to help the developing nations.

Trying to build "soft" infrastructure in the form of rule of law and property rights (ending kleptocracy and theft of "public" resources) is tremendously difficult - perhaps a problem that is even more difficult than the wealthy nations deciding how to share the pain of GHG reductions (as I noted in comments to a post on Amazonian deforestation here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001043lahsen_and_nobre_20.html) Heck, the wealthy nations have a hard enough time doing the easiest things to speed development of poorer nations, which is simply to open import markets by removing domestic tariffs, import restrictions and subsidies. Rather, it seems that the richer nations have to feed their more powerful elites first, while hamstringing competition from poorer nations in products for which they should be able to exploit a comparative advantage. If Lockitch was truly interested in helping the poor of developing nations, you'd think he'd note how enduring rent-seeking at home serves to keep the poorer nations down.

And if the wealthy nations should do something to help poorer nations, which seems implicit in Lockitch's analysis (if not conventional aid, then aid to build soft, governance infrastructure), then can't some of those efforts easily dovetail with efforts to establish carbon pricing in the wealthy countries? Why couldn't aid budgets be funded by carbon taxes at home, for example? And can't demand for "carbon credits" help to establish incentives to improve governance infrastructure in poorer nations? In other words, "mitigation" (efforts to limit climate change) in developed nations need not conflict with any efforts to help poorer nations "adapt" to climate change or otherwise become wealthier.

4. Lockitch asserts that the concern of enviros for the world’s poor is "feigned", but this is a cheap and unproductive ad hominem - and one that can easily be turned around. While some enviros may not understand the institutional sicknesses that hinder development, this illness has been fed much more by governments and corporations at home than by enviros, many of who have been involved in the long, hard effort to build local infrastructure and to protect traditional private and community property rights.

On the other hand, just what is it that evidences that Lockitch himself - or other skeptics - have any "real" concern for the world's poor? Does the wheel of this concern ever hit the road, or is it simply spinning noisily, to welcoming nods from domestic special interests who benefit from the continuation of climate externalities?

A key insight of Austrian economics relating to the environment is that man does not harm the environment per se, but that social welfare or efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict associated with irresolvable inefficiencies - inefficiencies that cannot find a solution in the entrepreneurial workings of the market process because of institutional defects associated with the lack of clearly defined or well enforced property rights. (See Roy Cordato, http://mises.org/story/1760). It is both ironic and disappointing that many Austrians and others similarly minded, rather than focussing on the difficult task of conflict resolution in the case of the climate, seem to prefer the emotional rush of conflict itself over analysis and bridge- and consensus-building. But this is nothing new (and is certainly tempting, given our tribal nature)(http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx).

No one owns the world's atmosphere, so all are entitled to their opinions about managing it. And clearly the world continues to struggle with the rapid exploitation of other unowned, "public" or poorly defined or protected physical resources, in the face of growing populations, growing markets and technological advances that lower the costs of access to the commons. I suggest that rather than ad hominems, we would be better served by frankly acknowledging problems of this nature and starting to build shared understandings. The writings of Elinor Ostrom are a good place to start: http://www.conservationcommons.org/media/document/docu-7e8akm.pdf

In honestly engaging on these issues, it is perfectly appropriate - nay, essential - to be aware of the self-interests of various participants and to caution against the problems of rent-seeking, "rent-farming" by politicians, and frequently unaligned incentives of bureaucracies.

5. Finally, this is a quibble, but Lockitch is wrong to assert thay developing nations need to "industrialize". What they need to do is to better govern themselves by protecting investments, markets and human rights, and then getting out of the way of their people. What results will be these countries' own path, which will naturally differ from Western industrialization (leapfrogging it in some ways).

6. Rob Bradley cheers on coal, but are all those who want to better manage commons and environmental impacts "Malthusian" idiots, or only in the case of coal?, Feb 5 2009:

Rob Bradley has a new post up at MasterResource, cheering on big (and now "clean") coal, which has apparently received assurances from the Obama administration - after being bad-mouthed by NASA scientist Jim Hansen, Steven Chu and Obama himself - that, despite pressures from the "Malthusian anti-energy crusade" regarding climate change impacts, the recent massive TVA fly-ash spill and opposition to destructive mountaintop removal practices in Appalachia, coal will remain profitable during Obama's term and central to US energy supplies. Hooray!

But I wasn't quite clear on all of Rob's message, so I asked him a few questions in the comment thread:

Rob, are the John Badens, Terry Andersons, Bruce Yandles, Elinor Ostroms and others who want to find ways to manage our commons better - by improving ownership, incentives and pricing signals - also part of a[n evil] “Malthusian crusade”?

I just wanna make sure I know who to hate.

As for that big fly-ash breach/spill in Tennessee, I’m glad that you didn’t point out how this was a result of government ownership of TVA, with the added benefit that costs will be borne not only by direct and indirect victims, but by taxpayers as well. No sense in pointing out how government is so often in the way, particularly if it detracts from our “we hate enviros!” message. Last thing we ever want to do is to reach a shared understanding with enviros of the institutional underpinnings of problems, since that means our funders might lose some of their fairly purchased, government-given special privileges.

While it's clear that "free-market" Rob cares little about whether the coal industry continues commercial activities that shift the environmental costs and risks (including potential costs arising from GHG emissions) to others, I forgot to ask Rob whether, as a hearty cheerleader for those poor coal underdogs, he also supports their position that the government should subsidize their change in business model by (a) having Uncle Sam pay the bulk of capital costs for IGCC (integrated gas combined cycle plant) [something like $1 billion for the first one with CCS], (b) giving them a further break (reduced royalties) on the sweet deals they already have for stripping coal from public lands and (c) - now that the federal government is getting into the busy of running the financial sector - making sure that power producers that want to use coal have easy access to credit, by twisting the arms of those uppity Wall Street financiers who with their fancy new "Carbon Principles" and "Enhanced Due Diligence" seem a bit too reluctant to extend credit for coal-fired power plants.

Here's hoping Rob weighs in further. I want to make sure I'm not messing up when I try to distinguish the "white hats" from the "black hats". From what I can tell so far, seeking to manipulate government policy for your own benefit is evil - as long as you're not a coal firm - and we call the evil ones "Malthusians". Right?

7. More stupid from Tierney; this time on "Kuznets curve" and the dynamics of "wealthier and greener", May 12 2009:

Tierney seems to believe that the Kuznets curve means that greater wealth magically makes for a cleaner environment. To the contrary, it is the hard work of people, expressing their desires to protect their own property and to realize other preferences regarding shared resources, to increase wealth by finding means (property rights institutions, litigation and government regulation) to end tragedy of the commons-type situtations, who improve their environment. That is, working to close externalities leads to both wealthier and greener societies.

(I`ve remarked on the Kuznets curve before; interestingly, conservatives seem to misunderstand it more than liberals.)

So I tried to offer a more libertarian understanding, which I`ve taken the liberty of memorializing here (with typo correction and emphasis and further links added):

TokyoTom
April 22, 2009 at 6:28 am

Andrew, food for thought on enviro Kuznets:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=kuznets
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/01/22/poor-countries-need-capitalism-not-climate-change-welfare.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/09/27/too-many-or-too-few-people-does-the-market-provide-an-answer.aspx

Unfortunately, Tierney simply fails to understand that the enviro Kuznets curve does not tell us that problems relating to environmental cost-shifting or to the over-exploitation of unowned commons are best resolved by ignoring them and simply hoping for the best. Rather, it affirms that as people become more wealthy, they care more about protecting the environment and put more elbow grease into achieving improvements - via improved property rights protection, improved information disclosure, greater consumer pressure and even through greater regulation (which is the path the West has largely followed), and reaching agreements with others sharing the relevant resource).

In other words, the work relating to global, regional and various national commons (atmosphere, seas, forests, water, etc.) is still ahead of us. Libertarians can advocate for property rights (and privatization of public lands) as ways to have a more efficient (and just) path on the curve, or they provide implicit support for powerful and dirty industries by standing by and waiting until citizen pressure groups force government to act in heavy-handed ways.

April 22, 2009 at 2:11 pm

- Andrew. I suggest that you start with this short article by Yandle.
  I have plenty more links on my blog to him, Terry Anderson, Mises, Cordato, Block, Rothbard and others on Austrian approaches to environmental issues, fisheries, and climate. Ron Bailey (at Reason) has good posts on fisheries; leading enviro groups all agree that more privatization is desirable:http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/01/15/for-crashing-fisheries-coalition-of-mainline-us-enviro-groups-calls-for-property-rights.aspx
  
  Commons remain commons either because government ownership prevents privatization (as in the Amazon, US public lands and most fisheries management) or because full privatization is difficult. There are many examples of the latter case that involve semi-privatization and commons management, like traditional forestries, fisheries and water rights. Elinor Ostrom is the expert on commons; I have plenty of links to her too. ...
- April 23, 2009 at 2:48 am
  
  People and firms invest all the time in doing things in response to incentives, both positive and negative; viz. they also try to reduce costs, including the costs their activities impose on others if those they injured have rights of recourse. The effort to reduce costs is one of the chief factors driving technological advances.
  
  Surely you`re not suggesting that the best way to encourage wealthier societies is to free people from responsibility for the damages they cause others? That`s hardly a Lockean or libertarian view. A “Laissez Faire approach” leaves government out, in favor of voluntary transactions and enforecment of property rights, including rights not to be injured. The regulatory state has in fact been a boon to the most powerful producers, by giving them rights to pollute, often grandfafthering dirty plants, while forcing the highest costs on more nimble and cleaner producers. If you^re interested in learning about libertarian approaches to the environment, again, I suggest you look at Rothbard, Cordato, Block and others, whom I link to on my blog.
  
  You seem to make reference to the enviro Kuznets curve, and how wealthier societies bring pollution dow, while completely missing the dynamics. Wealthier societies clean up because they insist on bringing an end to tragedy of the commons-type exploitation of resources. A society that focusses on property rights typically has a lower curve than societies that fail to enforce property rights (needed for Coasean bargaining) in favor of government regulatory approaches. Our own curve remains too high, because wealthier investors prefer to use regulation to shift costs to the rest of society.

8. Libertarians to lefty-enviros: without community-based property rights, sustainable fisheries are impossible, May 11 2009:

Elinor Ostrom has also been a leader in documenting the ways that a community of users (NOT the dread and sloppily misused "soc-ial-ism") may effectively manage a shared resource.

Readers might be interested in the World Bank`s Oct 2008 report, "The Sunken Billions; The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform".

With support from the World Bank, PERC is in the middle of hosting a conference on approaches to sustainable fisheries (and on ending the massive over-harvesting and wasted subsidies and mal-investment under current regulatory approaches).

I also urge readers to look at what the organization Defying Ocean's End (co-founded by Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Ocean Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, The World Conservation Union, and World Wildlife Fund) has to say about protecting fish:

"Most of the solutions that have been implemented or proposed to fix the world's fisheries center on command-and-control measures: regulators or courts telling fishermen how to fish through the imposition of controls on effort (e.g., fishing vessel length, engine horsepower, gear restrictions, etc.). Prescriptions like these work against strong economic incentives for maximizing catch, which are not addressed by such measures, and are of course usually resisted by fishermen. Often, prescriptions create incentives for "work-arounds" and set up a cat-and-mouse game between fishermen and regulators - for example, if regulators impose a restriction on vessel size, fishermen may purchase two vessels to maintain high catch levels.

"As in most natural resource problems, more effective solutions will address the fundamental drivers of unsustainable fisheries. In this case, the key necessary reform will be to designate secure catch privileges. It is important to understand that such privileges can be allocated to different kinds of entities in different ways, and indeed, they should be tailored to specific fisheries and communities to fit with local customs, traditions, values, and social structure."

I`ve linked a number of my other posts on fisheries here.

9. The tragedy of the panicked enviro II; understanding the "tragedy of the commons", Aug 29 2009:

Sure, the Western world has managed to create many environmental problems, but we`ve largely cleaned up our own messes, haven`t we? While it by no means excuses our own faults, far worse environmental problems have been created and are still stewing in Russia and other state-directed economies, and it`s no coincidence that the vast pollution being created in China and India are tied to governement-owned enterprise and an inability of injured people to sue for damages or to stop harmful activities. And the great waves of extinctions created as man spread around the globe tens of thousands of years ago can hardly be laid at the foot of either the Western world or of private property rights (nor can the collapse of earlier civilizations).

The "tragedy of the commons" is NOT a "simplistic market morality", but a description of cooperation problems and incentives relating to shared, open-access resources. The tragedy of the commons and problems of cooperation - and theft - are not even limited to mankind, but permeate nature. This perceptive article by Bruce Yandle touches on competition in nature, and links the ascendance of man to our evolution of relatively enhanced cooperation: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-commons-tragedy-or-triumph/

The "tragedy of the commons" paradigm is useful to analyze, but the paradigm doesn`t "seek to moderate" anything, and is just as useful in looking at the ways Western nations still contribute to environmental problems around the world (as I point out here: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/09/28/too-many-or-too-few-people-does-the-market-provide-an-answer.aspx) as it is in examining:

- environmental devastation in Haiti (which has little or no property rights, and vast free-for-all "government" holdings),

- deforestation in Indonesia and the Amazon: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/05/24/capitalism-the-destructive-exploitation-of-the-amazon-and-the-tragedy-of-the-government-owned-commons.aspx,

- pollution in China: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=china, and

- crashing fisheries around the world as a result of government of marine resources (producing free-for-alls and fleet subsidies) and a free-for-all for other unowned or unprotected resources: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=fish.

You say: "The rate of exploitation and the decline of resources, water, energy, fisheries, soil, minerals, etc., all occured under a free market, private property paradigm." This is clearly demonstrably wrong, and draws entirely the wrong lessons. While private property is certainly no panacea, neither are they what is wrong. Very often, is is governments that have been and are wrong, though there is certainly some learning going on.

While Garrett Hardin`s "The Tragedy of the Commons" certainly represents a hypothetical situation, it is actually a very powerful analytical tool for understanding and fashioning solutions to countless "real life" problems. See Elinor Ostrom et al., Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges, Science, 04/09/99 http://conservationcommons.org/media/document/docu-wyycyz.pdf

"In real life, corporations own, or vie to own, resources or access to them for the purpose of extraction and profit and they seek to maximize profits through economies of scale, that is industrial extraction methods, drift netting, blowing up mountains, tossing mining waste into clear, pristine lakes."

What you describe here is a conflict between preferences over how resources are used. Do you prefer a free-for-all, or a situation where those who use a resource can protect it, negotiate with others who wish to see other values preserved, and who are responsible for negative consequences caused to others (not always a part of some property rights systems), or perhaps a situation where governments make all resource exploitation decisions?"

"The money is in the resource and when the resource is exhausted they will move on to the next one."

The money is never in the "resource", but in the ways that people can use it or otherwise value it (and of course people also value pristine environments).

10. Tragedy of the panicked enviro III: learning from Elinor Ostrom about cooperative action, Aug 29 2009:

Let me add some further nuance to Mr. Worstall`s comment by saying that Hardin`s fertile observations have fuelled extensive further research on common property problems, with Elinor Ostrom being recognized as a leading light.

Here is one general bibliography on commons research: http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/wsl/tragedy.htm

Ostrom has refined Hardin`s work in the following way (quoting from a review of Ostrom`s 1990 ground-breaking and extensively researched book, GOVERNING THE COMMONS, The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action):

Ostrom uses the term "common pool resources" to denote natural resources used by many individuals in common, such as fisheries, groundwater basins, and irrigation systems. Such resources have long been subject to overexploitation and misuse by individuals acting in their own best interests. Conventional solutions typically involve either centralized governmental regulation or privatization of the resource. But, according to Ostrom, there is a third approach to resolving the problem of the commons: the design of durable cooperative institutions that are organized and governed by the resource users themselves.

"The central question in this study," she writes, "is how a group of principals who are in an interdependent situation can organize and govern themselves to obtain continuing joint benefits when all face temptations to free-ride, shirk, or otherwise act opportunistically."

The heart of this study is an in-depth analysis of several long-standing and viable common property regimes, including Swiss grazing pastures, Japanese forests, and irrigation systems in Spain and the Philippines. Although Ostrom insists that each of these situations must be evaluated on its own terms, she delineates a set of eight "design principles" common to each of the cases. These include clearly defined boundaries, monitors who are either resource users or accountable to them, graduated sanctions, and mechanisms dominated by the users themselves to resolve conflicts and to alter the rules. The challenge, she observes, is to foster contingent self-commitment among the members ....

Throughout the book, she stresses the dangers of overly generalized theories of collective action, particularly when used "metaphorically" as the foundation for public policy. The three dominant models — the tragedy of the commons, the prisoners's dilemma, and the logic of collective action — are all inadequate, she says, for they are based on the free-rider problem where individual, rational, resource users act against the best interest of the users collectively. These models are not necessarily wrong, Ostrom states, rather the conditions under which they hold are very particular. They apply only when the many, independently acting individuals involved have high discount rates and little mutual trust, no capacity to communicate or to enter into binding agreements, and when they do not arrange for monitoring and enforcing mechanisms to avoid overinvestment and overuse.

Ostrom concludes that "if this study does nothing more than shatter the convictions of many policy analysts that the only way to solve common pool resource problems is for external authorities to impose full private property rights or centralized regulation, it will have accomplished one major purpose."

A profile of Ostrom, who is a member of the National Academies of Science and and Editor of its Proceedings, is here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1748208

Her work can be found here: http://scholar.google.co.jp/scholar?q=Ostrom,+Elinor&hl=en&btnG=Search and

here: http://de.scientificcommons.org/elinor_ostrom

One thing worth noting is that the historical and ongoing records are rife with examples - such as our crashing local fisheries - where government intervention has done more harm than good. In these cases and in others, Ostrom introduces an analytical approach that is acceptable widely across the political spectrum, even if differences in opinion will remain. See, for example, this discussion at libertarian-leaning George Mason U: http://www.theihs.org/bunnygame/