I believe that protecting the environment is both a good thing and a legitimate function of government.
But I’m rational. So while I want limits on pollution, such policies should be determined by cost-benefit analysis.
Banning automobiles doubtlessly would reduce pollution, for instance, but the economic cost would be catastrophic.
On the other hand, it’s good to limit carcinogens from being dumped in the air and water. So long as there’s some unbiased science showing net benefits.
But while I’m pro-environment, I’m anti-environmentalist. Simply stated, too many of these people are nuts.
- Environmentalists assert that you’re racist if you oppose their agenda.
- Some environmentalists don’t believe in bathing,
- How about the environmentalists who sterilize themselves to avoid carbon-producing children,
- Or consider the environmentalists who produce/use hand-cranked vibrators to reduce their carbon footprint.
- There are also environmentalist who claim that climate change causes AIDS.
- And environmentalists put together a ranking implying that Cuba is better than the United States.
Then there’s the super-nutty category.
- The environmentalists who choose death to lower their carbon footprints.
But since I’m an economist, what really worries me is that these people are statists. There’s an old joke that environmentalists are “watermelons” since they’re green on the outside and red on the inside.
But maybe it’s not really a joke. At least not in all cases. Check out this video from Reason, filmed at the so-called climate march in New York City.
Just in case you think the folks at Reason deliberately sought out a few crazy people in an otherwise rational crowd, let’s now look at the views of Naomi Klein, who is ostensibly a big thinker for the left on environmental issues.
Slate published an interview with her and you can judge for yourself whether her views are sensible. Here’s some of what Slate said about her.
According to social activist and perennial agitator Naomi Klein, the really inconvenient truth about climate change is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism. …she’s turned her argument into a hefty book… This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate is focused on exposing how the relentless pursuit of growth has locked us in to a system that’s incompatible with a stable climate. …
And here’s some of what Ms. Klein said.
The post-carbon economy we can build will have to be better designed. …not only does climate action mean a healthy community—it’s also the best chance at tacking inequality. …The divestment movement is a start at challenging the excesses of capitalism. It’s working to delegitimize fossil fuels, and showing that they’re just as unethical as profits from the tobacco industry. …profits are not legitimate in an era of climate change.
Profits are not legitimate?!? Geesh, sounds like a certain President who also disdains profit.
By the way, I’d bet Naomi Klein has a far bigger “carbon footprint” than the average person.
And I can say with great certainty that other leftists are huge hypocrites on the issue. Check out the vapid actor who did some moral preening at the climate-change march.
Kudos to Ms. Fields. She has a way of exposing phonies on camera.
Though I think it’s safe to say that Mr. DiCaprio doesn’t win the prize for being the biggest environmental hypocrite.
Shifting back to policy issues, even “mainstream” environmental initiatives are often very misguided. Here are a few examples.
- The environmentalist-driven war on high-quality light bulbs.
- The environmentalist-driven rule against working toilets.
- The environmentalist-driven prohibition against washing machines that actually clean.
- This environmentalist-driven example of EPA thuggery.
- The environmentalist-driven pointless recycling mandates.
The bottom line is that we presumably have some environmental challenges. For instance, it’s quite possible that there is some global warming caused by mankind.
I just don’t trust environmentalists to make policy. When they’re in charge, we get really dumb policies. Or grotesque examples of government thuggery. Or sleazy corruption and cronyism.
But at least we have some decent environmental humor here, here, here, and here.
[…] What did she do this time? Well, like many of our friends on the left, she only believes global warming is a problem if it means other ordinary people have to curtail their carbon footprints and suffer from lower living standards. […]
[…] Very similar to my assessment. […]
[…] hypocrites who fly to Switzerland in their private jets while pushing a climate agenda that would lower living standards for ordinary […]
[…] But some humility and repentance by government officials would be a silver lining to this dark cloud. After all, I hope we can all agree that human lives matter more than the alarmism of left-environmentalists. […]
[…] fully believe every apocalyptic prediction from the most hysterical environmentalist (and support their radical agenda), the net impact of a few kids presumably is akin to pouring a glass of water in a big […]
[…] fully believe every apocalyptic prediction from the most hysterical environmentalist (and support their radical agenda), the net impact of a few kids presumably is akin to pouring a glass of water in a big […]
[…] What makes the video amusing (and sad) is that it captures how politicians largely see global warming as an excuse to do things they have always wanted to do – i.e., grab more power and control. […]
[…] now you understand why I don’t trust these people to set economic […]
[…] now you understand why I don’t trust these people to set economic […]
[…] my views of climate activists, I don’t want to say this effort is noble. But I’m sure the average person might say […]
[…] I don’t have an informed opinion on the degree of man-made warming, but I am highly confident that statists are using the issue to promote bad policies that they can’t get through any […]
[…] wonder many of us don’t trust the left on global warming, even if we recognize it may be a real […]
[…] wonder many of us don’t trust the left on global warming, even if we recognize it may be a real […]
[…] But I’ve generally been skeptical about government action for the simple reason that the people making the most noise are statists who would use any excuse to increase the size and power of government. […]
[…] action for the simple reason that the people making the most noise are statists who would use any excuse to increase the size and power of government. To be blunt, I simply don’t trust them. In Washington, they’re called watermelons – green on […]
[…] action for the simple reason that the people making the most noise are statists who would use any excuse to increase the size and power of government. To be blunt, I simply don’t trust them. In Washington, they’re called watermelons […]
[…] Mostly vacuous rhetoric, but it could lead to “bold steps” to undermine prosperity. […]
[…] I’m skeptical about the claim that climate change is a crisis, but a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the most sensible approach if action genuinely is required. But the left prefers sure-to-fail (but very lucrative to cronies) industrial policy. […]
[…] I have a hard time accepting the policy prescriptions of people who are nutjobs. […]
[…] I’m not sure I agree that carbon is pollution, and I also don’t like referring to consumption as a cost, but he’s right on the money about DiCaprio being a fraud or a phony (something that Michelle Fields exposed in a recent interview). […]
[…] are all good ideas, but we also need some rules to help other hypocrites (like Leonardo DiCaprio and Prince Charles) practice what they […]
[…] is spot on. Indeed, I don’t trust the left of climate issues for similar reasons. What our statist friends say and what they really want are two different […]
[…] is spot on. Indeed, I don’t trust the left of climate issues for similar reasons. What our statist friends say and what they really want are two different […]
[…] is spot on. Indeed, I don’t trust the left of climate issues for similar reasons. What our statist friends say and what they really want are two different […]
[…] Second, radical environmentalists are nutjobs. […]
[…] Second, radical environmentalists are nutjobs. […]
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
[…] And I’ll admit my bias. I don’t trust the modern environmental movement, particularly the climate alarmists. There are just too many cases where green advocates act like their real goal is statism. […]
[…] And I’ll admit my bias. I don’t trust the modern environmental movement, particularly the climate alarmists. There are just too many cases where green advocates act like their real goal is statism. […]
[…] And I’ll admit my bias. I don’t trust the modern environmental movement, particularly the climate alarmists. There are just too many cases where green advocates act like their real goal is statism. […]
[…] And I’ll admit my bias. I don’t trust the modern environmental movement, particularly the climate alarmists. There are just too many cases where green advocates act like their real goal is statism. […]
[…] here’s the catch. I don’t trust radical environmentalists. Simply stated, too many of these people are […]
[…] Print […]
[…] here’s the catch. I don’t trust radical environmentalists. Simply stated, too many of these people are […]
[…] here’s the catch. I don’t trust radical environmentalists. Simply stated, too many of these people are […]
[…] here’s the catch. I don’t trust radical environmentalists. Simply stated, too many of these people are […]
neo-con? pretty funny ed… you should do stand-up…. perhaps they have a gig for you on the weekend schedule of npr… I am a free-trade… non-interventionist… but I believe in an effective national defense… and the capacity of our nation to devastate any enemy stupid enough to attack us… I am not an ideologue… but a pragmatist…. and you ed….. well…………. wipe your chin….
There must be a neo-con playbook somewhere that says, “When debating, if you run out of ideas, attack the other person with an insult. That’s certain to make you look good.”
V-max, you should use the same skepticism on such advice as you apply to . . . scratch that.
V-max, you should apply skepticism of a normal, don’t-want-to-be-fooled-again sort of person.
you are drooling ed…………,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, it’s unattractive…………………..
I don’t disagree that FrontPage has a right to hoax you.
Their right to publish false stuff does not change the fact that they are generally untrustworthy (claiming, for example, that the ban on agricultural use of DDT in the US somehow increased malaria in Africa, ignoring problems of time travel and geography).
France is a free-market economy. When a “socialist” wins election in France, it’s a free-market believing socialist. Yes, that’s a contradiction in terms — but it’s also the truth, and a truth FrontPage does not recognize.
More to the point, the headline of the article is not supported by the story FrontPage carried. Nor is France “bankrupt.” And more to the point, you used that story to support your wild, radical claim that working for clean air would require that we shut down industry, and further, that environmentalists had already proposed to close down industry.
None of that obtains. Ignore for a moment your unspoken, contrary-to-the-facts claim that socialists and environmentalists are fungible (untrue; environmentalism was invented by capitalists and tends to thrive ONLY where capitalism works; socialists don’t do it as well as the U.S., etc.); the evidence presented in the article, wildly inaccurate as it may be, still doesn’t support your claim.
the days of objective journalism are long gone… control the flow of information and you control the nation… sites like “International Liberty”…. and “Front Page” contribute mightily to the free flow of ideas… between free peoples…
France’s billion dollar commitment to assist developing nations with global warming issues might…. or might not happen… in any case… if the money does materialize…. it will likely be sucked up by corrupt bureaucrats and politicians in the nations it was intended to help… it is doubtful that much of it will get to the people who truly need it… the French taxpayer will be stuck with the bill… and it will do nothing to solve the problem of climate change…. or alleviate problems associated with global warming….
lefties dislike “front page”…. because it presents a thoughtful persuasive alternative to the establishment media view… the editorial commentary tends to scorch the naked bottoms of left leaning shills…
I am told aloe is good for burns…..
You assume, contrary to the facts, that high housing prices in California are the result of environmental policies, and not instead the result of shortages of public accommodations caused by the Proposition 13 budget cuts.
Once again, we see the politics of austerity doom free markets to scarcity, and rising prices. Clean air is not the culprit. Economic discrimination is.
How will our descendants be 19 times richer if they have no food and must go to war for water?
Crazy talk.
I wouldn’t trust “Front Page” any more than I’d trust the old Pravda before 1989; but you did note, I trust, that the pledge included nothing about shutting down any industry, and nothing about raising prices to levels you presume ridiculous. In short, France and Germany have pledged to spend money, but they have not made the calls for drastic cuts in living that you claimed would be made.
Is he a socialist? He seems to be proposing free-market solutions. That must tick you off something fierce.
by the way… France just committed a billion dollars over the next few years to combat global warming…. for a sense of the quality of international leadership associated with the movement… take a look:
“Socialist President of Bankrupt France Pledges $1 Bil for Global Warming”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/socialist-president-of-bankrupt-france-pledges-1-bil-for-global-warming/
climate change is real… it is happening… but is it a natural part of the planet’s evolution or an event caused by human activity? no one knows… but it has created a situation rife with opportunity for corrupt politicians… junk science freaks and misfits seeking attention… humans like to think they are in control… but certainly more often than not… that is not the case… does anyone really believe that the democrat leadership has the brain power… the moral acumen… or the scientific knowledge to counter climate change? it’s a joke… one being played out on the American people… to the advantage of the political elite…
it’s crap boys and girls…. plain and simple………….
V-Max, I’ll rest assured that Democrats want to raise costs just exactly as I rest assured Tea Partiers and GOP want to line up my kids against a wall and shoot them.
In other words, no, I don’t give that a moment’s thought. There is no such proposal. Shame on those who make up stuff to complain about. That’s not the American way of dealing with tough issues.
If we do nothing about climate change, all Americans will suffer a lot. Here in Texas we’ve lost 50% of the beef ranches we had five years ago. We pay about $2,000 more per house for home insurance. We’re spending several billions to develop a new water plan for the state. Those costs are not shrinking, and will not shrink, without drastic action. We’re not going to get drastic action against human-caused climate change; we’ll be lucky to save Texas at all, especially if anyone listens to your false claims about what is proposed.
[…] Or as Dan Mitchell puts it, […]
it would be political suicide to for the democrats to publish targeted fuel costs… but rest assured the democrats and greenies want to raise your energy bills… president Obama is working diligently to raise your electric bill by eliminating coal as a fuel source… at present it’s estimated that over 6 million Europeans are living in “energy poverty” that means they are busting up their furniture… and burning it in order to keep warm in winter… green is the new red………….
think gas couldn’t go to $9.00 a gal? …………………….grow up……….
If prices do not rise that high then there will not be enough reduction in CO2 to make any measurable difference in warming. And even WITH prices that high the reduction will still not be enough to make anything but a trivial difference in total warming. The proposed price increases are just the beginning of a price escalation activist dream – until price gets so high that consumption of CO2 producing fuels is choked off. To the extent that environmentalists do not get to this goal, they have achieved nothing – by their very own metric.
And why look for proposals amongst US activists? We have not only proposals but their finalized implementation in an entire continent: Europe. With its $8/gal of gas, $6.5 for diesel (prices in euros per liter, multiply by 1.3$/euro then by 3.7 l/gal for $/gal), $0.40kWh electricity
– and its 1-2% continental economic slow growth trendline to decline. Europeans are already half way to Naomi Klein’s paradise and their continent is already mired in 1-2% annual growth to economic extinction, as the rest of the world grows at 4-5%.
—————————————————————————————————-
But back to “accurately accounting for the costs indeed …”
Because the essential cost predicted by global warming activists is that our x19 times richer and longer lived descendants in the next century WILL suffer because of our fuel use today.
Because, the issue environmentalists predict is not just global warming. The environmentalist prediction that demands “action” is:
“People in 100 years will suffer because of global warming, and thus we must do something about it now”.
THAT is the prediction implied in climate activism.
This alarmist prediction is based on two things that must BOTH happen:
a) Global warming is occurring, is anthropogenic, and non-negligible
b) The likely state of humanity in 100 years will be such that global warming will cause grief to our descendants in the next century.
Prediction a) is, by comparison, much easier to predict (though I’m skeptical we have the knowledge to predict it, and more skeptical whether the people we are asking this question to – whose continued employment depends on actually finding a problem –yields an honest answer).
But prediction b) is flatly wrong according to any reasonable trendline extension of human evolution. Anyone who portends to know the specific state of humanity in the next century IS a quack. What CAN though be generally predicted for (b) is that that it will almost certainly be a fantastical state of prosperity and capability compared to current times. A world that will be 19 times wealthier than today (3% growth for 100 years is 1.03^100=19=1900%) will also be at least x19 times more capable than we are today. Capable to correct any warming (if no discovery in the next 100 years achieves it earlier) and capable to adapt. Adapt perhaps at a cost of less than 1% of 2114 world GDP (equivalent to more than 19% of today’s GDP, since they will have grown 19-fold, and that GDP will certainly go a lot further in their unimaginable 22nd century technology).
Just close your eyes, and honestly try to imagine and predict the state of humanity in the next century…
Do you really imagine something less than fantastical? I mean really?
———————————————————————————–
Imagine you are an environmentalist betting $100,000 (and let’s say 2:1 in your favor to boot) that humans in 100 years will NOT be at least 10 times wealthier and more capable than today. Imagine you put your bet in some world stock index fund, with the agreement that the descendants of the winning party get the account in 100 years (by then a likely two million in today’s dollars). Would you sleep well at night thinking you made the right bet? Who you think will prove to be the naïve party of the debate in the next century?
For better or for worse, these posts will be archived somewhere, available to our descendants in the next century. So the bet is well defined:
Climate activists: “22nd century humans will be crying at the missed opportunity”
Zorba: “22nd century humans will be laughing at us in their x19 prosperity and much longer lives”.
There is the time capsule.
I’m sure many in the past century yelled: “Hey grandpa, I know it is only fifty degrees (ten Celsius) in your house in the winter, even with heating, but could you please stop burning wood? At this rate, the world will run out of telegraph poles and our descendants will have to live in a world without telecommunications”.
We did not run out of wood. More importantly, telecommunications no longer depend on wood, but on something fantastical and unimaginable to 19th century geniuses. Obviously we did not run out of telecommunications either.
So Naomi Klein is right. Environmental activism is a proxy for a different fight. The same old fight. The fight between our innate tendencies towards a collectively planned society, something that was baked into our genes during hundreds of thousands of years of virtually no human growth (human growth last 5k-10k years at most – and measurable growth within a single person’s lifetime just barely 2-300 years old – the blink of an eye in evolutional times) and our modern exponential growth world that thrives in multipronged free market concurrent exploration of many different technologies and systems – free of the bounds of coercive collectivism. Those societies that practice the central planning of coercive collectivism, will perish evolutionally in a slower growth environment (has happened before but I guess we must try for the Nth time, with green flags this time around), as the more dynamic capitalist nations dwarf and crowd out the laggards. The compounding growth of exponents leaves little survival room for the laggards.
—————————————————————————————-
Now, having said all that,… I have to confess…
Overall I’m not completely dissatisfied with the fact that Climate Action is gaining momentum. I have put that in my plans. While a freer world might have been better, I have taken into account the coercive collectivism forces of environmentalism into my own personal planning and charted my own prosperity trajectory according to the scarcity of desirable things it will create.
I am now on my 17th house purchase (17th?, not quite sure, I’m losing track) in areas where environmentalist restrictions are gathering momentum against most development (mostly California) – I only buy houses on large lots. The children of environmentalists, cordoned and suffocated in the apartments their parents’ policies forced them into will have to buy houses from me and my children — and they will have to work most of their lives to pay for them for them – because the desirable housing scarcity their parents’ mentality creates, and which will continue to boost the prices of “anti-environmental” houses to stratospheric levels. To add a small irony, some of those houses I have equipped with solar panels. I ripped apart a large system I had built back when California was subsidizing solar at $4/watt of nominal power (essentially obtaining the entire solar system for just 10% of cost). Now the very same 90% taxpayer funded solar system is pumping out electricity to useful idiot PG&E customers making them pay $0.35/kWh when cost is just $0.08/kWh. I have even rented some of these houses to naive greens at a $250/month premium because they are “green”. Yes indeed! Especially for me, green in my pocket.
Europe is your future, and this is what has happened in Europe and continues to progress with increasing intensity. Those of us who come from that continent, have seen the movie and can profit by applying its lessons here in still naive America. So while environmentalists assume they have great intuition compared to the rest of the sleeping masses, many from the sleeping masses are even further ahead of them, profiting from their activism.
You can use this to prove how evil non-environmentalists are indeed. But it’s an unfortunate situation you, environmentalists, created. A crony capitalism situation, a situation of fascist planning opportunity for many of us to redirect in our path the lesser but captive prosperity of environmental restrictions. A situation where medical researchers find it more profitable to engage the zero sum tax and subsidy redistribution of environmental activism.
So, yes, as a matter of fact, I have made so much money in the last decade in this real estate scarcity propelled endeavor that I have largely withdrawn from my much more societally valuable work in medical research, to profit from the zero sum game of environmental restriction induced scarcity.
Misallocation of talent from true prosperity increasing medicine to the zero sum of environmental redistribution. This is what I’m talking about, and it is becoming more and more a widespread phenomenon. It is confirmation, right at the personal level of how climate activism is a suppressor of economic growth. Rather than finding new cures, I find it irresistible to engage in the easier zero sum profit of environmental restrictions. I’m not going to be a sitting duck and join the march towards mediocrity. Those will be the children of environmental activists stuffed into compact city apartments, waiting to accumulate thirty years of salary to one day buy one of Zorba’s villas (as any single family residence is called in Europe—which in quite indicative of what has happened in Europe). But you can already see the beginnings of it here in the US. If you are ever unfortunate enough to find yourself house hunting in California, you will experience the direct effect — and work an additional fifteen years of your life to pay for it. We are waiting for you and the rest of the lemmings.
So keep working at it…
Who advocates raising prices so high? Show us the proposals. We’re all from Missouri (where we would like to keep transportation affordable.)
$9.00 a gal gasoline… $14.00 a gal diesel… lp gas at $10.00… it will destroy the economy… it’s what the democrats and radical environmental folks advocate…. it’s not a reality based approach to the ultimate problem of world overpopulation… 7 billion people on the planet… perusing the expectations of a viable livelihood will have environmental consequences… 9 billion [without tech advancements] will destroy us…. but I am sure… the political class…. will devise way to reduce the population…. war? neglect? we have seen it in the va…. spending money on art……………. instead of the care for Americans who have put their lives on the line for the republic… people who advocate this nonsense are………………..
Accurately accounting for the costs of undoing the damage of pollution has never been shown to hurt economic growth — to the contrary, generally the cleanup efforts boost the local economies, and the technologies invented produce even more boosting of the national economy.
Catalytic converters were supposed to be the death of the automobile and oil industry. Didn’t happen.
People who are wrong on predictions consistently over 60 and 70 years probably are not going to be right on the same predictions now.
There is no proposal by anyone to
1. Force people to live in smaller houses.
2. Force people to drive smaller cars.
You need to leave that Colorado “wellness clinic” stuff in Colorado.
The lightbulbs are only more expensive if they do not work. If they conserve energy as advertised, then they are cheaper generally in the first six months of operation, but certainly over a lifetime. We have nearly 100 years of experience comparing fluorescent lighting with the “cheap” tungsten lightbulbs, and we know for sure that the new lights are cheaper.
Plus, the conservation of energy negates the need for expensive power plants that the market doesn’t want to build. California and Texas hang in there on electricity right now because of the viability of these less-expensive-to-operate light bulbs, particularly LED traffic lights.
You don’t have to drink chlorinated water, either. You can set a barrel out to catch rain water, or just pull the water untreated from your local creek. Think of all the money you could save!
The claims that market forces will not move to cut electric bills is counter to Adam Smith. We shouldn’t put stock in wild, disproven, anti-free market claims like those I quote here.
Making the currently cheapest energy sources available more expensive will hurt economic growth. So will rewarding people less by forcing them to live in smaller houses (likely apartments, per compact city smart growth mandates as our European brethren have already been confined into for decades now), drive smaller cars, buy much more expensive light bulbs, and the slew of other more expensive alternatives that the environmentally minded planners have in mind.
When people have to work more to obtain the same goods (because they are more expensive), their motivation to work decreases and growth slows. Of course, according to progressives, the market is unable to find the lowest price points (systemic market failure everywhere) so the collective must intervene to impose the lowest price points that everybody seems to be missing.
In a nutshell, discouraging or banning the cheapest sources of energy means that humanity will have to work harder to get energy, and people will have to work harder to obtain the things they want — leaving less time for other endeavors. At its core, that is a decrease in prosperity, a decrease in standard of living.
Worried about quack predictions?
Worry about the guy who created the hoax that controlling pollution will reduce worldwide economic growth. Never has, never will.
Compared to that prediction, global warming is a sure bet that even London bookies wouldn’t give odds against.
in terms of geologic time….. climate change is part of the natural evolution of the planet…. it has happened before…. and it will happen again… species will disappear.., the world will change… the main survival tool for humanity is adaptability… not something the short sighted liberal establishment will radially accept……. exploitation of human misfortune is a tried and true political weapon of the left… if they can drive the cost energy beyond the means of most of the world’s population they will declare victory… people will die from lack of affordable energy…. and poverty will consume them… and the leftists will claim that they have saved the planet……..
it’s all nonsense… as any competent climatologist will admit… but it all works……… for political advantage…
Virtually everyone, from alarmists to skeptics, gets this issue wrong. Because it is not an issue of science, at least not at the current levels of predicted warming. It is more an issue of economics. But even that does not capture the hubris magnitude of a human species attempting to come up with a policy for the next one hundred years.
At its core, it is an issue of futurology. Any reasonable projection of human evolution and advancement into the future ensures that this is not a problem worth worrying about, and definitively not a problem worth even a 0.5% reduction in annual worldwide growth.
Why is that?
In a nutshell, because humanity in one hundred years will have achieved such fantastical and unimaginable things — compared to what our primitive minds can imagine — that we truly need not worry about our immensely more capable and vastly richer descendants.
Do a simple calculation:
World per capita prosperity is now growing along a 3% annual trendline. And it is set to accelerate. Why. Because it continues to accelerate every century. That is the pattern that has held since the renaissance.
But let’s be conservative and assume just a 3% average, non-accelerating, growth . Let’s assume that the acceleration part finally stops this very decade we are living in, so that worldwide prosperity growth remains along a 3% annual trendline, no more. Simple arithmetic shows that our descendants one century from now will be at least x19 times wealthier than we are (1.03^100). The average Bangladeshi is likely to be richer than today’s American.
But, what’s even more important, this extra wealth is not just going to be extra money. It’s not going to simply be the ability to buy nineteen times more of the things we have today plus some new consumer gizmos (which in itself would already be fantastical). Prosperity growth is a proxy for other fantastical growth in all areas of humanity, primarily science and technology. After all, technology and its commercialization is the main reason for economic growth itself. So the x19 multiplier in wealth will be accompanied by commensurate advances in technology. This technology will make available to future humans truly fantastical and unimaginable things, things that are not available to us today, at any price (eg. a 100% cancer cure – not necessary a pill – available for the equivalent of a few days of work in 2114). Just a glimpse: The unraveling of the mechanism that makes organisms age has already appeared in today’s scientific horizon. The one century horizon is even much further than that. Advances of the next century are not even in our horizon (which one of today’s breakthroughs was visible a century ago?). So would someone like to speculate how long the humans of 2114 will be living on average?
If you want to make an analogy, think about being with your friends at a Starbucks equivalent in 1914 and trying to come up with a policy for the next one hundred years. Nothing would make sense, and if you had any sense you would not even attempt to make such a policy.
And again, I must remind, human growth is accelerating (the pattern has held since the renaissance), so the fantastic changes we see between 2014 and 2114 will most likely be far greater than those we saw between 1914 and 2014.
So not only we need not worry about or descendants since they will be so privileged compared to us. But it will most likely not even be a minor issue for them. They will most likely solve it through some fantastic means that we cannot imagine, just like virtually nobody in 1860 imagined that by 1960 people would be routinely flying. We take it for granted today, but imagine trying to make that argument in 1860, today’s 2014 through the hindsight of 2114. And remember, growth keeps accelerating… the second derivative is also positive. What fool would want to speculate 2114?
By contrast, if our actions result in, say, slowing down world growth by 1%, then our descendants will be only x7 times richer. Still a lot, you say. But still 2.6 times less that what 3% growth would yield. How would you have liked it if humanity one hundred years ago took some actions that made you 2.6 times poorer today?
By far, the biggest disservice we can do to our descendants a century from now is slow down the fantastical compounding effect of global growth.
But rationality is irrelevant.
Why?
Because Climate activism is an ideology platform that involves us collectively and coercively re-planning all aspects of our lives: How we grow, how we eat, where and how we live, where we go (mostly don’t go), how we educate ourselves, even whether we are born or not (population planning). So it appeals to the left and their parent ideology: The coercive collectivism of progressives left and right. I.e. it appeals to most humans and more importantly to most voter-lemmings.
So, we the 19 times poorer and much shorter lived humans of today, must make sacrifices to accommodate people in the future who will be x19 times richer than we are today and have fantastical life expectancies by our miserous standards. And it’s the left that’s promoting this??!!?? This sacrifice of the poor and short lived to accommodate the much-much richer and longer lived future lucky ones????
———————————————————————-
There is one caveat I will through into this fantastical future: A war of self-annihilation. Now THAT is something worth worrying about, not today’s childish Climate Change.
That caveat aside,
If I could, if I only could… push a button and transfer myself, my family and perhaps willing relatives and friends 100 years into the future, would I push that button? I would in a heartbeat. Most of the ailments that torment us, even the imminent life threatening diseases (cancer, AIDS, diabetes, strokes, perhaps even old age itself) would just disappear. I would be x19 times richer and able to obtain fantastical things that the rest of you 2014 wretched souls cannot have at ANY price. The cancer cure you will die waiting for, I’ll be able to have arrive to me for the mere effort of a few days of work.
Oh Myyyy!!! But my world would be 2C warmer!!! Aaaaghhh. Why? Because I transferred myself to 2114 and humanity did not invent anything to counter the phenomenon. And geez, I can’t adapt either! In a world where even the gophers in my yard have temperature control technology, and Bangladeshis have vehicles better than today’s Porches, I’m just suffering from the heat!
Think about it and you will realize how foolish this all is.
People in 2114 will be laughing at us. And perhaps much sooner than that.
P.S.:
Required by law for EPA actions since at least 1980s.
As I said, the Radical Scorched Earthers aren’t being reasonable. Get out of their ranks.
it’s the new religion… less confident… less successful people have attached themselves to environmentalism in hopes of giving meaning to their lives… kooks… statists… and politicians looking for new sources of revenue believe they have a winner with global warming…. green is the new RED… and look for ol’ al gore to join the collection of phonies and super-rich social misfits seeking the democrat nomination for president in 2016… it should be a hoot… unless these jackasses can actually sell their snake oil to the American people… and sad-to-say………………………….. that could happen……
[…] The Radical Environmental Agenda Should Be Rejected, even if Global Warming Is Real […]
I found generally only radical scorched Earthers oppose the “radical” environmentalists.
But let’s cut a deal: We’ll all oppose the radical environmental agenda, if you radical scorched Earthers will stop opposing practical, rational action to clean up pollution that hurts people, businesses and farms.
Deal? Or are you too much a sadist to let us stop harming people?
There are some parts of the environmental agenda which should be *accepted* whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real.
Governments (especially in the developed world) should stop subsidising agriculture, pushing production to energy intensive economies instead of labour intensive economies.
Governments (especially in the developed world) should stop subsidising transport by providing massive infrastructure free at the point of use, encouraging people to live further from work and to engage in more recreational travel than is economically rational and more individual transport than is rational.
Governments (especially in the developing world) should stop subsidising energy production and consumption.
For a free marketeer, these are easy wins. The carbon gain is enormous and it is at no net cost to the economy. The economic gains are so big that they are justified whatever assumptions we make about climate change, with one exception. If human carbon output is warding off the next ice age, cutting back on it could be a problem.