|
June 21, 2007
this time, let's put environmentalists in charge of the economy!
Now that the anthropogenic global freezing has been announced, I find myself enjoying Czech President Vaclav Klaus's remarks about warming: As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.President Klaus's remarks are not getting much play in the United States. Only someone who grew up under Communism would dare to speak so boldly. That's because Klaus has seen so much of such stuff before that he knows how to spot it: I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: "future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age".Were he alive today, I think Milton Friedman would be saying pretty much the same thing. (Actually, he did once opine that "global warming is more likely to benefit than to harm the general public.") As Arnold Kling pointed out in his review of "An Inconvenient Truth," there are parallels between macroeconomic scientific consensus of the 1970s and the anthropogenic global warming scientific consensus of today: My concern is with how "scientific consensus" is reached. In economics in the 1960's, there was a "scientific consensus," embedded in sophisticated macro-econometric models, that inflation reflected a competition over income shares, and that government policies to interfere with wage- and price-setting were the solution. Milton Friedman's contrary views were outside the "scientific consensus."Of course, none of that should matter to those who want to build a better climate -- any more than they mattered to those who wanted to build a better world. Unsound theories lend themselves to further "fixing" by their proponents. Creating a problem in order to solve a problem appeals to government lovers, because as they say, the government is there to solve problems. Just ask them! Thus, the government can always be trusted to do whatever is best for the government. I have to admit, from a government perspective, putting environmentalists in charge of the economy is the best thing that could happen -- to the government. UPDATE: My thanks to Darren at Right on the Left Coast for the link. posted by Eric on 06.21.07 at 02:07 PM
Comments
This article in the National Geographic is a sort of interesting refutation of central planning. It's about the intelligence of ant colonies and the way they work. Here is an excerpt; I used to think ants knew what they were doing. The ones marching across my kitchen counter looked so confident, I just figured they had a plan, knew where they were going and what needed to be done. How else could ants organize highways, build elaborate nests, stage epic raids, and do all the other things ants do? Irony - the ant colony is held up as the ultimate example of collectivist society, but in reality it is entirely run by lassaz faire principles. Papertiger · June 22, 2007 12:19 AM Papertiger, The article you reference is about "swarm intelligence". Ironically, the scientific consensus that so many people castigate is exactly an example of swarm intelligence: "Such thoughts underline an important truth about collective intelligence: Crowds tend to be wise only if individual members act responsibly and make their own decisions. A group won't be smart if its members imitate one another, slavishly follow fads, or wait for someone to tell them what to do. When a group is being intelligent, whether it's made up of ants or attorneys, it relies on its members to do their own part. For those of us who sometimes wonder if it's really worth recycling that extra bottle to lighten our impact on the planet, the bottom line is that our actions matter, even if we don't see how." Neal J. King · June 22, 2007 02:45 AM Neal Interesting side note. IN that Seattle Times article the onus of deciding who is a gross garbage violator falls to an apparently delighted garbage truck driver. Papertiger · June 22, 2007 07:35 AM Hi Papertiger, - The article you cite about the payback from recycling does not say it's not worthwhile: It says it's complicated - but still worthwhile. - Seattle: Actually, I don't think the garbage man is issuing fines, just warnings. Neal J. King · June 22, 2007 05:59 PM Worthwhile in that it has helped China become the number one pollution causing country. (Great news whenever an America bashing enviro wonk is robbed of an easy bumper sticker slogan, don't you think?) Makes Simon a prophet too! Unsound theories lend themselves to further "fixing" by their proponents. Creating a problem in order to solve a problem appeals to government lovers, because as they say, the government is there to solve problems. Just ask them! Papertiger · June 23, 2007 02:02 PM Papertiger, From an environmental perspective, it could be worthwhile to recycle plastics even if you do have to ship it to the PRC to get the best price - provided you are making sure to take into account the impact of the shipping. There was a recent article in The Economist on that point. Neal J. King · June 23, 2007 05:10 PM No it isn't worthwhile to ship plastic refuse to the PCR from an environmental perspective because we are shipping it great distances to then subject it to minimal environmental practices then have it shipped back as poisonous dog food filler. It's a classic lose / lose senario. Papertiger · June 23, 2007 07:37 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
June 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2007
May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Classics might be forever, but I'm going on vacation!
Multiculturalist Micromanagement? More laws, more bureaucracy, more social workers, more crime! Manufacturing Concensus Rethinking the First Amendment since 1998. Experience counts! The Kids Are Alright! this time, let's put environmentalists in charge of the economy! Blogger to undergo counseling? overprotecting the underprotected yesterday's goners don't stop
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Definitely worthy of a *link*.
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2007/06/global-cooling-is-making-comeback.html