Climate Change

Capitalism Is the Key to Fixing Climate Change

Slowing or stopping economic growth will only delay solving the problems caused by man-made warming.

|

Today's Climate Strike protests are supposed to bring attention to the science showing that human-made global warming is becoming a problem. Fair enough. But some participants see climate change as pretext for destroying a market system that they have always hated.

Naomi Klein made this point crystal clear in her 2014 book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Speaking with New York magazine this week, Klein claimed that "taking climate change seriously decimates the entire neoliberal project because you can't have a laissez-faire attitude, where it's having your emissions in 11 years; you actually need to regulate your way out of it. And yeah, you can have a few market mechanisms in place, but the market is not going to do it for you."

The science, insists Klein, "says our future is radical. The present is pretty radical too. The idea that there is some sort of gradual, incremental, let's-split-the-difference pathway to respond to this crisis is silly at this point."

A headline in The Guardian put it even more forthrightly: "Ending climate change requires ending capitalism."

Global warming is a classic example of what happens in an open-access commons. The atmosphere is unowned, so no one has an incentive to protect and conserve it. Instead, people overexploit and pollute it. Historically this happened with sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and smoke. In the United States, cities initially implemented regulations to cut back on noxious air pollutants. (For example, the first smoke abatement regulations were enacted by Chicago and Cincinnati in 1881.) Eventually federal regulations and market mechanisms were adopted. As a result, since 1980 air pollutants have collectively declined by 68 percent while the economy grew by 175 percent.

Scientists call this the environmental Kuznets curve. Environmental commons tend to deteriorate as countries begin to develop economically—but once per-capita income reaches a certain level, the public starts to demand a cleanup. It's a U-shaped pattern: Economic growth initially hurts the environment, but after a point it makes things cleaner. By then, slowing or stopping economic growth will delay environmental improvement, including efforts to mitigate the problem of man-made global warming.

The MIT economist Andrew McAfee explains the process in a forthcoming book, More from Less:

We have finally learned how to tread more lightly on our planet….In America—a large rich country that accounts for about 25 percent of the global economy—we're now generally using less for most resources year after year, even as our economy and population continue to grow. What's more, we're also polluting the air and water less, emitting fewer greenhouse gases, and seeing population increases in many animals that had almost vanished. America, in short, is post-peak in its exploitation of the earth. The situation is similar in many other rich countries, and even developing countries such as China are now taking better care of the planet in important ways.

How did this happen? Through more capitalism, not less:

The strangest aspect of the story is that we didn't make any radical course changes to eliminate the trade-off between human prosperity and planetary health. Instead, we just got a lot better at doing things we'd already been doing. In particular, we got better at combining technological progress with capitalism to satisfy human wants and needs.

McAfee's book documents how technological progress spurred by market competition is dematerializing the economy. McAfee makes a strong case that climate change is an open-access commons problem that markets can dematerialize once a price is put on greenhouse gas emissions.

The upshot is that Klein, The Guardian, and many of the climate strikers have it exactly backwards. Properly incentivized capitalism is the key to solving the problems caused by climate change.

Advertisement

NEXT: Survey Suggests Lung Disease Misinformation Has Compounded Confusion About the Hazards of E-Cigarettes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bullshit.

    Ethically, morally and legally a wealthy persons life has no more value than anyone else’s.

    Logically it follows that the wealthy have no more right than anyone else to disproportionately pollute the earth. Yet this is exactly all that carbon trade schemes accomplish.

    The wealthy pay meagrely (to them) to disproportionately pollute. Being wealthy is about owning more and bigger stuff, consuming and playing more extravagantly.

    The construction and upkeep of several mansions has a much larger carbon footprint than that of a single bungalow.

    The lives of all their servants and maintenance personnel dedicated to their extravagance all have carbon footprints.

    Their factories and all the workers that pump out cheap disposable crap that must be continually replaced often made of plastic simply to maximize their wealth have carbon footprints.

    Wealth = Carbon Footprint

    1. I think it would be more accurate to say that people with money can pay for the privilege of emitting more CO2 under a carbon trading scheme. It’s not about rights, it’s about means and privilege.

      What’s the alternative? Obviously there is the alternative of no one paying to emit CO2. But otherwise, what do you do? Confiscate wealth? Force everyone to live at some acceptable level of material comfort?

      1. Hey zeb, … et al

        Sorry, I was gone for like 40 days and 40 nights. It’s a long story. To summarize, after flying back to the USA from the Holy Land, chasing the darkness along the way, I ended up in the supper secret holding cell that is at the intersection of the Bergen County, NJ, USA prison and mental health systems where I learned how to change the path of a hurricane with my farts.

        1. Welcome back Sharm. Missed you around here.

          1. Seconded.

          2. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

            …….. Read More

      2. What’s the plan? A roadmap is useless if you don’t know where you are.

        What the wealthy DON’T want is to recognize that earths resources and capacity to recover are finite and that they have no right to disproportionately consume and pollute. What good would being wealthy be?

        A scientifically developed carbon footprint calculator would demonstrate anyone’s net impact on this earth.

        Employing people makes one partially responsible for their carbon footprints. The calculator would recognize the difference between employing people to make disposable plastic straws and making products that last a lifetime.

        With the proof of what is already common sense civilization will need to decide what is a reasonable maximum carbon footprint, make laws, and punish people who exceed it.

        That ends capitalism.

        1. The calculator would recognize the difference between employing people to make disposable plastic straws and making products that last a lifetime.

          As long as I’m in charge of the calculator, I’m fine with implementing your calculator plan.

          If that doesn’t work out so well for you, well, these things happen when you tear down capitalism. Eggs… omelets… you understand.

          1. Socialist countries are the worst polluters on earth. Somehow that never gets mentioned by people trying to blame capitalism for all of our environmental woes.

            1. Socialist countries are only as good as their governments and regulations.

              The one constant in economic corruption is the desire for excess wealth.

              The objective of capitalism is not exclusive to it.

        2. Fuckin’ Joooooossssss! Right, Rob?

          1. Well, they did invent capitalism, after all. Just look at Karl Marx…oh, wait…

          2. What are Jews without wealth?

            1. Poor.

            2. Rob Misek
              September.20.2019 at 3:55 pm
              “What are Jews without wealth?”

              What’s a scumbag bigot without wealth, scumbag bigot?

            3. A hell of a lot smarter than you, and that’s why they pulled themselves out of poverty in the 19th and 20th centuries, you worthless, sniveling Nazi prick.

              -jcr

              1. You’re a brainwashed dipshit, both slave and slaver to your cherished false narrative.

    2. Being wealthy is about owning more and bigger stuff, consuming and playing more extravagantly.

      Yeah. Just look at that dick Warren Buffet, living in a small house in Nebraska.

      1. Yep, being wealthy is about having more wealth. Spend it, or not, as you see fit.

    3. The lives of all their servants and maintenance personnel dedicated to their extravagance all have carbon footprints.

      They exist regardless of their employer. Same with the factory workers.

      1. The assumption that he’s *not* calling for them to be culled may be incorrect.

    4. You are the one full of bullshit.

      What gives cops the right to have more authority than mere civilians? They drive around all day long, leave engines idling, pollute like it’s 1999.

      What gives the military the right to run tanks and ships and jets, all polluting far more than thee or me?

      What gives politicians the right to dictate what thee and me can do, all the while they violate the laws they made for us?

      Delegation, my non-friend, delegation. That’s what the statists will say. I expect you’re one of them, full of yourself and how important your side is.

      Bud, when I buy stuff from Amazon, I delegate my dollars to Jeff Bezos. When I use Google, I delegate my eyeballs to Google. When I check family posts on Facebook, I delegate my time to Facebook.

      There’s where that right comes in. If you don’t like it, don’t delegate your dollars and your eyeballs and your time to them. But don’t assume your hoity toity attitude gives you the right to tell ME how to delegate my dollars and eyeballs and time.

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. This.

        It may not be time to end capitalism, but it’s high time for slavers to fuck off!

        Let’s let non-slavers have a turn…at leaving people alone.

    5. The lives of all their servants and maintenance personnel dedicated to their extravagance all have carbon footprints.

      So eliminate the servants. I like how you think.

      1. Misek’s an unabashed fan of the “well-ordered society”.

        1. And mass “de-lousing” of Jews.

          1. Lord knows they need it.

            1. Rob misses his Fuehrer.

              1. Truth is better.

                1. I’ve been meaning to ask you this.

                  You accept as “Truth” that there is a vast and at least somewhat evil Jewish conspiracy.

                  Yet, one of your great heroes, Adolph Hitler, in your version, was only trying to help the Jews by de-lousing them.

                  But doesn’t this herculean effort to help the Jews make Hitler part of the Jewish Conspiracy? Shouldn’t he have been trying to wipe them out, you know, to save Germany?

                  1. I don’t get how, if the Jews are so beneath Aryans…why they, you know, seemed to run everything? According to Jew haters, they run banking, etc. In spite of not being a super numerous minority who tend to leave folks alone as a general rule.

                    Seems to not be something somebody “inferior” could do. Could Adolf come back to us with an answer on this?

                    1. I’ve often wondered that, too. If Germans are the “Master Race,” then why did they need to get rid of the Jews in order to compete in their own damn society?

                      Misek? Can you help us out here?

                    2. Old Jewish joke.

                      Rabbi Altmann and his secretary were sitting in a coffeehouse in Berlin in 1935. “Herr Altmann,” said his secretary, “I notice you’re reading Der Stürmer! I can’t understand why. A Nazi libel sheet! Are you some kind of masochist, or, God forbid, a self-hating Jew?”

                      “On the contrary, Frau Epstein. When I used to read the Jewish papers, all I learned about were pogroms, riots in Palestine, and assimilation in America. But now that I read Der Stürmer, I see so much more: that the Jews control all the banks, that we dominate in the arts, and that we’re on the verge of taking over the entire world. You know – it makes me feel a whole lot better!”

                  2. All the inmates of prison camps were more useful working in factories than dead.

                    Zionists were eager to help Hitler move excess jews from Germany, to Palestine.

                    1. I don’t see how this answers the question. Sounds like what you’re saying is that Hitler and the Zionists were working together?

                      Was Hitler part of the Zionist conspiracy?

                    2. To get Jews out of Germany, yes.

                      What they did in Palestine, I guess he figured Palestinians could deal with them.

                      That suited the Zionists and it suited Hitler.

                    3. To get Jews out of Germany, yes.

                      And why did the Jews want to get out of Germany?

                      And if the Germans were the Master Race, as they asserted, why did they need to expel the Jews?

                      I guess he figured Palestinians could deal with them.

                      Because the Palestinians are better at dealing with things than the Germans? And I thought you’ve been maintaining that Hitler was trying to help the Jews, not murder them. So what do you have in mind when you say “Palestinians could deal with them?” The Palestinians were better positioned to help them in ways Hitler was unable to?

                    4. You are mistaken.

                      Other than keeping prisoners alive and sending trainloads of Jews from Germany to Palestine I’ve never suggested that Hitler wanted to “help” Jews.

                      Wanting them out of Germany after their actions of WW1, Balfour declaration etc, was a very popular sentiment in all of Germany.

                      As was so in every nation Jews inhabit.

                      When you learn the truth you may develop a similar sentiment. That’s up to you.

                      I’m just sharing the truth.

                    5. Rob Misek
                      September.20.2019 at 5:33 pm
                      “All the inmates of prison camps were more useful working in factories than dead.
                      Zionists were eager to help Hitler move excess jews from Germany, to Palestine.”

                      So our scumbag bigot is here trying once more to tell us that those millions who died were just the failure of a delousing program?
                      How fucking stupid do you have to be to swallow that shit? As stupid as out scumbag bigot.
                      Fuck off and die, Misek.

                    6. Rob Misek
                      September.20.2019 at 7:29 pm
                      “You are mistaken.:”
                      You are full of shit.

                      “I’m just sharing the truth.”
                      You’re a fucking scumbag bigot trying with one lie after the other to justify your scumbag bigotry.

                    7. Dipshits think they’re experts on a subject they have never actually researched or read anything about.

                      If that sounds like you, and IF you don’t want to be a dipshit, do some reading.

                      http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23629458-breaking-the-spell

                    8. Explains the whole not feeding them and beating and killing them.

                    9. The allied bombed the infrastructure and war factories near the prison camps from great altitude for months.

                      The Germans left when supplies could no longer reach them.

                      Remaining prisoners who chose to wait for them were starving.

                  3. Get real. If the Jews really ran all the banks and secretly controlled the world, there wouldn’t BE any Arabs, “Palestinians” or not.

                2. Rob Misek
                  September.20.2019 at 3:56 pm
                  “Truth is better.”

                  Scumbag bigot claims to know what’s true.
                  Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

                  1. You’re both slave and slaver to your own false narrative.

                    Go fuck yourself.

                    1. Fuck off and die where your stink won’t bother us, you pathetic piece of shit.

                    2. I had relatives who were carted off and murdered by your heroes. Not just military age men, mind you, but a girl who was 6 at the time and an old couple who were already living in a retirement home. So FUCK you and fuck all your murdering socialist friends, national or international. I hope you suffer the fate you wish upon those who are different than you, you ignorant piece of trash.

                    3. I hope you recognize the truth.

              2. It really is tragic what happens to boys who grow up without loving fathers, isn’t it?

                Mizek might have have been a worthwhile human being if he had been raised right.

                -jcr

                1. You’re just another brainwashed dipshit. The fear in your text is palpable.

                  The truth demonstrated by the evidence of logic and science threatens your cherished narrative.

                  It doesn’t bother you that dipshits like you can’t muster the courage to even review the evidence?

                  Fill your boots.

    6. I suppose that depends on how you look at the problem. If you treat is as an economic or scientific problem, Ron gets the better of the argument but Ron doesn’t realize that religious zealotry isn’t swayed by rational argument.

      Capitalism is the Original Sin, the efforts of Mankind to rise above their natural animal nature by acquiring more than what the Earth Mother had allotted them has led to all the travails of our existence. We have sinned and we must be punished and driven back into the trees from which we wrongfully descended. Only when we have abandoned our wrong-headed pursuit of Godhood and our quest for more than we deserve, only when we accept that we are no more than mere hairless apes will our sin be absolved, Gaia propitiated and Paradise restored.

      Older religions had their Loki and their Lucifer and their Prometheus, we have James Watt and Thomas Edison and Henry Ford.

    7. Apparently you missed the part in the article about how the richest nations in the world are reducing their per capita emissions as they get richer. And how they’ve already pretty much solved water and air pollution through being rich. At the personal level you’ll notice that having more disposable income lets you solve all kinds of problems that would otherwise be intractable.

      1. No one solved the pollution problem merely by being rich. Those (say the problems of the late 60’s and early 70’s) were solved by PRICING pollution. Lots of ways to price it – but the one that worked then was govt regulation of pollution. Not privatization of air or water. Those regs imposed a price and the market decided that avoiding that price was cheaper than paying it – which in turn meant reduced source pollution.

        Personaly I’d love to see a system that is more pricing-system oriented cuz there’s plenty of examples where the same govt impetus re resource efficiency (eg CAFE standards) has been an unmitigated clusterfuck. But until people recognize the facts of what has gotten us to where we are – the stuff that’s worked re externalities and the stuff that hasn’t and the stuff we haven’t even bothered with – then there is no possibility of a market-oriented change.

    8. Being wealthy is about owning more and bigger stuff, consuming and playing more extravagantly.

      Only if you define being wealthy as being among the very tip top of the income distribution. A more honest assessment would realize that even a lower middle class American household is wealthy by global standards, and that, in this case, being wealthy is about having enough to eat, not dying of treatable diseases, basic sanitation, being protected from dangerous weather conditions, and educating your children, to name a few of the “luxuries” enjoyed by the wealthy among us.

      Wealth = Carbon Footprint

      The point of Bailey’s article is that this is not true. Being wealthy allows you to “purchase” the luxury good of a cleaner environment.

      Extreme poverty may lower your carbon footprint, but that comes at the expense of more polluted immediate surroundings because of factors like lack of running water.

      1. Extreme poverty may lower your carbon footprint, but that comes at the expense of more polluted immediate surroundings because of factors like lack of running water.

        ^ This, especially in places where extreme poverty overlaps with extreme overpopulation.

      2. “Being wealthy allows you to “purchase” the luxury good of a cleaner environment.”

        Like purchasing a gun can help one get rid of inconvenient people. More people would choose to if it wasn’t illegal.

        People are choosing what they can amidst regulations. It pollutes.

        Regulating industry to act responsibly ends capitalism.

        1. Like purchasing a gun can help one get rid of inconvenient people.

          Um, it’s nothing like that. And I’m not even sure what kind of point you are trying to make.

          People are choosing what they can amidst regulations. It pollutes.

          Those regulations wouldn’t be tolerated if people weren’t already wealthy enough to meet their basic needs.

          Regulating industry to act responsibly ends capitalism

          Only if you take the ancap view, which I don’t.

          1. Only if you take the ancap view

            Not even then, really. We regulate industry now. I don’t think there’s a country in the world that doesn’t, at least to some extent. Is there therefore no such thing as capitalism in the world?

            It’s the kind of thing that’s so stupid only a Holocaust denier would believe it.

            1. It’s the kind of thing that’s so stupid only a Holocaust denier would believe it.

              Ah. I didn’t realize with whom I was getting into a conversation.

              1. Try engaging in only one argument you can’t finish at a time.

                Meeting basic needs would be fundamental.

                Are you suggesting that disposable plastic straws are a basic need?

                1. Are you suggesting that disposable plastic straws are a basic need?

                  No. I’m arguing that people tolerate plastic straw bans and other regulations that make stuff more expensive precisely because their basic needs are met, so they can worry about things like reducing smog and run-off and virtue signaling by supporting silly plastic straw bans.

                  1. The wealth I’m talking about is in excess of basic needs.

                    I never suggested otherwise.

                    1. Rob Misek
                      September.20.2019 at 6:13 pm
                      “The wealth I’m talking about is in excess of basic needs.”

                      Scumbag bigot proves his idiocy again.

                    2. Ah, I see.

                      In that case, you are just plain wrong.

                    3. You sure as hell haven’t demonstrated that.

    9. Oh f’r crissake, the worst things humans did to “damage the planet” began more than 5000 years ago — with *cutting down the forests*. More than half of Earth’s forests are gone, as a result. This has also made wood more expensive. Can anybody here add 2 + 2?

      Okay, the way to fix the planet is: 1) PLANT TREES!!! Preferably fruit-trees and nut-trees, some of which are hardwoods, grow very large, and can live a very, very long time; 2) Rake up all the plastic on land, and out of the seas, and run it through any one of three (currently proprietary) systems for depolymerizing it back into crude — or even refined — petroleum; 3) STOP BURNING COAL!!! Especially not in the open air! Coal is too valuable to burn! We need it for smelting metal ores, and even its smoke can be caught, cooled, and condensed into coal-tar and coal-oil, which have lots of industrial uses.

      Obviously there are ways to make money out of all these three activities. The reason capitalism hasn’t done them yet is that either stupid laws have discouraged them or that contemporary Captains of Industry are ridiculously stupid. Which do you think is the more likely cause?

      –Leslie < Fish

      1. There are more forests today than 100 years ago fuckwit. The global is greening due to excess carbon.

        1. I’m assuming Leslie means “as compared to 20,000 years ago.” Which rather re-frames the whole discussion, really.

          1. Which I believe is possible, perhaps even likely, and yet I’d be interested in seeing how that data is formulated.

      2. FWIW, in the last 35 years, forest coverage worldwide has increased by an area equal to Texas and Alaska combined.

        Prosperity is good for the environment.

        -jcr

    10. You have to hand it to Bill McKibben’s happy warriors at 350.org–
      they just launched their Climate Strike coverage with a tweet from a Melanesian village that owesd most of its carbon footprinnt to an underwater volcano:

      https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2019/09/kids-with-war-clubs-are-just.html

    11. Also…

      Population = Wealth = Carbon Footprint

      China, India, etc. are all horrible emitters of carbon. As countries go, population is also an indicator of wealth – as indicated by “a wealthy persons life has no more value than anyone else’s”.

      The solution by Rob’s thinking is obviously population control – can’t see how that sort of thinking can go wrong thanks to more government control – nice one Rob.

      1. I suggested NOTHING about population control. That’s on you and I’ll tell you why.

        If you’re unwilling to curb excess wealth, consumption and pollution by individuals, which is not what I said, the only other way to reduce the negative effect of individuals is to reduce population.

        That’s on you.

    12. Did you even scan the article before you started typing?

    13. I guess you’ll blame the Jews now.

    14. That’s correct, all lives matter. But carbon trades have nothing to do with it.
      CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an invisible, colorless, odorless tasteless gas that increases agriculture in a linear fashion and influences temperature in an exponential decline, with 50% in the first 20ppm. We are in the fifth half-life of that decline, so the next doubling to 800ppm will increase its GHG effect by less that 2%.

      Whether we warm or cool will be the vector sum of at least 9 forcings of which CO2 is perhaps one of the least important. It is however virtually the only GHG in the stratosphere radiating IR out to space, so it cools us too.
      So it warms us and cools us and feeds us. It’s all good.

      Pollution however, is bad. See if you can stop that, please.

      1. You neglected to mention that Co2 is also poisonous.

        1. Actually, at these levels, and levels that have previously existed, its effects are entirely beneficial. It makes plants grow larger and lusher and resist drought. The US Navy doesn’t take measures in submarines until the level reaches 8,000 ppm.
          Water can kill you. So can salt.

  2. “Fixing Climate Change”

    And what’s broken is….?

    1. The leftist logic behind the climate change movement?

    2. The whole idea that we can project future temperatures based on current ones is broken– the error bands are far greater than the supposed projected increase.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/07/propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections-mark-ii/

  3. Why, you’d think East Germany would’ve been WAY cleaner than West Germany after the Wall came down. Was, uh, that the case?

    How does Hong Kong or Taiwan compare to mainland China?

    South Korea to North Korea?

    1. Do you know why? The answer is government tyranny.

      People living near a factory that is generating lots of pollution can complain until the factory cleans up its act.

      People complaining when it’s authoritarian government doing the polluting, as is or was the case in East Germany, the People’s Republic of China, and North Korea, will quickly find themselves arrested and shot.

  4. ‘”Ending climate change requires ending capitalism.”‘
    No doubt “they” will have the same success “ending” free-markets as they
    had “ending” prostitution, drug-use, over-eating, or anything else.

    1. Capitalism is the natural economic system and is what happens when there is no other forced system. Even when there is, capitalism rears its head in the form of black markets.

  5. Today’s Climate Strike
    I see we’re defining down ‘strike’.

    1. “If you don’t fix the climate…well, we’ll continue being net drains on your wallets. Thanks mom and dad!”

    2. Strike = “I’m rich enough to skip a day of work for no reason at all.”

  6. “The Libertarian Manifesto on Pollution” by Murray N. Rothbard is a proper defense of free market environmentalism.
    https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution

    1. And yet – as always – he has been proven wrong by reality. Water/air pollution have declined dramatically since he wrote that in 1973 – and it wasn’t done via his only private property rights will insure an end to pollution. GM was not given ownership of the Mississippi River. Nor has there been some granting of property rights to everyone so everyone can perpetually sue everyone else in court for ‘full liability’ over claimed individual harm from pollution externalities.

      I have to laugh every time I read those sorts of ‘solutions’. It’s almost as if Rothbard was being a paid shill for the American Bar Association. First – assume everybody has full-time lawyers on retainer. Second – sic them all on each other. Third – libertopia. I don’t think so.

  7. The MIT economist Andrew McAfee explains the process in a forthcoming book, More from Less:

    The modern environmental philosophy: Something From Nothing.

    1. NPR had a local congress-critter on this morning talking about climate change.

      In emphasizing one of his ‘3 buckets’ he highlighted how talk about getting to zero carbon without talk about how we restrict population, feed people without modern agriculture, produce steel and silicon for renewables without emitting carbon, and control other significant sources of carbon such as shipping was just grandstanding.

      He eventually got to his third bucket where he said we have to sequester 100 ppm of carbon out of the atmosphere and that agriculture might be involved. He didn’t go into detail. I assume it’s because he hasn’t yet figured out the logistics of a ~800 gigatonnes of grain, potentially more than humanity has ever produced… cumulatively.

      1. The fact that they’re talking to a politician on how to solve one of the most complex scientific riddles on Earth tells you all you need to know about where this will probably end up.

        1. I think the fact that you hear less and less from scientists and more and more from politicians and handicapped children quite telling.

          1. It’s becoming harder to ignore that CO2 concentrations have swung around wildly for the past few million years and have been many orders of magnitude higher than they are today. Completely naturally, one might note.

            That’s before you even get into the complete failures of their models. If you can’t model huge floating islands of greenhouse gasses (H2O) how do you expect to be correct?

        2. There isnt a riddle. The climate isnt fragile no matter how much idiots scream.

  8. Properly incentivized capitalism

    Ron, I’m sympathetic, but this phrase leaves the door open for all manner of socialists and properly incentives them with a sign saying “Welcome Socialists!”

    1. Well, the incentive could just be public opinion. Plenty of companies are limiting their carbon footprint just because they think their customers want them to.

      1. And plenty are limiting their carbon footprint because 0.2% of their *employees* walked off the job without regard to what their customers wanted or asked for.

        These corporations didn’t poll their customers and discover that 9 times out of 10 the customers put ‘less carbon’ above ‘better quality’, ‘lower prices’, *and* ‘better customer service’. Publicly funded science and politicians have taken tax dollars and bent the law to the point of fracturing to make it look like the 40% of the public that might, noncontextually, put climate in the top 5 on their honey-do list in the next election represent the majority of consumers and spelled it out that these corporations need serve them… or else.

    2. I’m not sympathetic. That phrase is simultaneously an oxymoron, revolting, and a threat to liberty.

      1. Capitalism =/= liberty. There’s huge overlap but the sets aren’t identical. I’m willing to give Ron the credit that he’s not intentionally inviting socialism.

  9. Interesting article.

    1) Worth noting that if you want to make the argument that the Kuznets curve will resolve global warming on its own, you need to reconcile that federal regulations play an explicit role in generating that curve. This is explicitly mentioned in the article, to the author’s credit, but every other time I see environmental regulations discussed on this site there does not seem to be much support. Capitalism is very good at solving a problem, but federal regulations can influence the definition of that problem and therefore influence the solutions capitalism produces.

    2) The Kuznets curve has been taken into account for some climate projections, and still does not solve the problem. The issue is that so much of the poor and middle class countries of the world are far away from reaching the income points at which the curve flips over. By the time they get there, we may have reached a point of no return. See Schmalensee, R., T.M. Stoker and R.A. Judson (1998): ‘World carbon dioxide emissions: 1950-
    2050’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 80: 15-27

    1. The issue is that so much of the poor and middle class countries of the world are far away from reaching the income points at which the curve flips over.

      Which is why the most effective work being done is actually being done by groups that focus on getting the poorest countries in the world off of wood-burning and on to fossil fuels. Western economies are doing fine pollution-wise and aren’t the biggest-bang-for-the-buck place to focus the efforts.

      Of course, people on the left who don’t understand this issue at all are outraged by the “absurdity” of trying to address Climate Change through fossil fuels.

      Worth noting that in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo regulation would do jack shit to control emissions – they need the wealth. You may be correct (but probably aren’t) that the wealth may not come fast enough, but that doesn’t mean that the government of the DRC can address the issue through regulation – it can’t.

      But

      we may have reached a point of no return

      is just not true. I was involved in environmental activism for a long time, and I well understand that we probably should be taking measures to limit how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere, and that many activists feel that no one will do anything unless they’re told that the world will end within their lifetimes (I was told by activists decades ago this exact thing about the need to lie to people in the name of the Cause), but IMHO when people find out they’re being gas-lighted, they’re going to stop believing any of it.

      1. “Which is why the most effective work being done is actually being done by groups that focus on getting the poorest countries in the world off of wood-burning and on to fossil fuels”

        Having to rely on imports over locally available products is dubious. Best bang for your poverty alleviating buck is and has been investment in female literacy. Think long term over those solutions proffered by self seeking oil companies.

        1. Having to rely on imports over locally available products is dubious.

          Yes, but if your goal is reducing carbon emissions to save the world, that’s maybe a secondary consideration. The same logic would say we should stop trying to get Pennsylvania off of coal.

          Best bang for your poverty alleviating buck is and has been investment in female literacy.

          With all due respect, that’s cargo-cult thinking. The fact that female literacy rises in correlation with wealth does not mean that teaching women how to read creates wealth.

          Think long term over those solutions proffered by self seeking oil companies.

          I don’t judge solutions by who’s offering them, only by how effective they are.

          1. “Yes, but if your goal is reducing carbon emissions to save the world, that’s maybe a secondary consideration. The same logic would say we should stop trying to get Pennsylvania off of coal. ”

            Pennsylvania is wealthy compared to the poor countries that you mentioned earlier. Female literacy is not too shabby compared to international rich countries.

            ” The fact that female literacy rises in correlation with wealth does not mean that teaching women how to read creates wealth. ”

            Creating wealth is not the issue here. It’s reducing CO2 emissions. If those literate females can figure out a way to create wealth and reduce emissions at the same time, you’ll be on your knees before them in gratitude.

            “only by how effective they are.”

            And you think that more people in more countries burning more fossil fuels is going to be an effective way to reduce CO2 emissions? It sounds like an argument from someone with a vested interest in the matter. An oil company mouthpiece, for example.

            1. And you think that more people in more countries burning more fossil fuels is going to be an effective way to reduce CO2 emissions?

              As opposed to burning wood?

              Yes. Unequivocally.

              If you don’t understand that, then you are coming from a politically-informed perspective, not a scientifically-informed one.

              1. If you look into the group I link above, you’ll notice that the end-goal is always nuclear, despite your conspiracy theories. But you’re not going to be able to go build nuclear reactors in the DRC.

                What can you build?

                Coal, oil, and natural gas plants.

                Once those are established, and you can put a stop to the wood burning, you can develop nuclear and go completely carbon free.

                1. “But you’re not going to be able to go build nuclear reactors in the DRC. ”

                  Why not? There are plenty of other poor countries. North Korea is one and has a remarkable record in the nuclear industry. It shouldn’t cost more than a few hundred trillion dollars to get the rest of the poor in the world up to North Korean standards.

                  “develop nuclear and go completely carbon free”

                  It’s hard to imagine mining uranium using the mining industry equivalent of those little electric golf carts. No. Instead they use monster sized vehicles powered by fossil fuels. Carbon free is a catch phrase used by publicists. Similar to Ron’s notion that ‘economic growth’ leads to increased CO2 emissions rather than burning fossil fuels.

                  1. “It’s hard to imagine mining uranium using the mining industry equivalent of those little electric golf carts. No. Instead they use monster sized vehicles powered by fossil fuels.”

                    “Why electric mining vehicles are starting to take off ”
                    https://www.abb-conversations.com/2016/12/why-electric-mining-vehicles-are-starting-to-take-off/
                    You’re welcome.

                    1. Electric mining vehicles that fly? Is there no limit to your gullibility? If you want the spam flag, you’re going to have to improve on your abusiveness. A simple ‘fuck off ignoramus’ will do the trick.

              2. “As opposed to burning wood?”

                At least it doesn’t have to be imported, as I pointed out earlier.

                “not a scientifically-informed one”

                Explain how burning fossil fuel reduces CO2 emissions. Pretend I’m an oil company exec if it makes things easier for you.

                1. “Explain how burning fossil fuel reduces CO2 emissions. Pretend I’m an oil company exec if it makes things easier for you.”

                  Oh, how ‘clever’.
                  Burning certain fossil fuels reduces C02 emissions by huge amounts. Pretend you’re not a fucking ignoramus if it makes things easier for you.
                  No, it’s not worth parsing every one of your bullshit claims.
                  Suffice to say you never post anything which isn’t bullshit.
                  Fuck off and die, bullshitter.

                  1. Explain. if you can, how burning more fossil fuels decreases CO2 emissions.

                    1. “Explain. if you can, how burning more fossil fuels decreases CO2 emissions.”

                      Oh, gee, caught in a typo again. Should read:
                      Burning certain fossil fuels reduces C02 emissions by huge amounts compared to others.
                      Now, pretend you’re not a fucking ignoramus if it makes things easier for you.

                    2. I can dig it. Burning more fossil fuels increases CO2 emissions. No wonder Sevo and Square = Circle had so much trouble explaining themselves. In future think for yourselves. Don’t let company stooges do it for you.

                    3. He didn’t say “more” fossil fuels, jackass. He said burning fossil fuels INSTEAD of wood.

                      Can you be any more fucking mendacious?

      2. Thanks for your detailed reply.

        In my experience, there are indeed people on the left who are open to addressing the problem as you suggest, e.g. with natural gas replacing coal and wood burning. But then what? Even if all electricity generation in China/India/Brazil switched over to natural gas, that would not solve the emissions problem. There needs to be a concerted effort towards nuclear, solar, wind, etc. even if those methods are not cheapest under the current energy market.

        Regarding the quote about a point of no return, note that I was not claiming this is the case. The full quote is “By that point, we may have reached a point of no return”. That first clause is important. The paper that I linked discusses that if we let wealth creation/Kuznets solve the problem, then by the time the curve flips over THAT may be the point of no return.

    2. Worth noting that if you want to make the argument that the Kuznets curve will resolve global warming on its own, you need to reconcile that federal regulations play an explicit role in generating that curve

      That’s a fair point, but in a democratic society I don’t think a the government would be able to pass and enforce those regulations unless the electorate was already wealthy enough that their basic needs were being met. So wealth is still a pre-requisite.

      And in a non-democratic society it doesn’t seem like the government cares much at all.

      1. Not sure I agree that wealth is a prerequisite, per se. There are a few nations with relatively powerful governments but still relatively low per-capita wealth (China, India, Brazil, come to mind) where it would make sense to implement some of these regulations. And of course the United States can improve a lot as well.

        Good point about how some governments just don’t care, though. One reason to be optimistic: China is undergoing a major pivot towards nuclear in part because they realize they are killing their own citizens if they continue to pollute and warm their own country.

    3. we may have reached a point of no return.

      Climate’s already changed. Get your “facts” consistent.

      1. In case you are not being sarcastic, then I’d like to let you know that willfully misinterpreting my hypothetical situation does not count as responding to my argument.

        Take a look at the scientific paper I linked to. Curious to know what you think.

  10. There is no crisis from Man’s use of the Earth.

    There is zero evidence that humans are the only cause for any temperature rise of Earth. Earth has had countless temperature cycles and we just to be living in a very comfortable climate period.

    1. There is zero evidence that humans are the only cause for any temperature rise of Earth.

      Disagree. The urban heat island effect is pretty irrefutable. Now our utter failure to predict and account for it speaks volumes about our predictive powers with regard to global climate, but the effect is pretty real and pretty singularly human driven.

      Some might say that, considering how singularly human driven it is and how spectacularly we failed to predict it that we’re incapable, scientifically and atmospherically, of finding our own asses with two hands but, again, we know we have hands and that there are plenty of asses.

    2. Humans are very clearly the cause of atmospheric CO2 increase – and the simultaneous O2 decrease – which is a direct result of the very well-known chemical reaction of hydrocarbon combustion.

      Now maybe you don’t believe that a ‘greenhouse effect’ (quantified as far back as Arrhenius in 1900 and theorized as far back as Fourier in the 1820’s) exists. In which case I say the burden is on you to prove Fourier/Arrhenius wrong.

      Or maybe you think the measurements of Keeling and Mauna Loa are wrong, in which case the burden is on you to do better or STFU.

      Or maybe you just think the IPCC climate projections/models are full of shit, in which case so fucking what. I have a problem with their overweening arrogant certainties too – but the models ain’t gonna do shit to raise or lower temps one nanodegree. They are models of the future not causes of the future. They could be 100% wrong or 100% right and it won’t affect temperature at all. They are irrelevant to reality.

      What is not irrelevant to reality is the freaking immaturity of so many. From the headless chickens on the left still running around – to the heads-up-their-asses denialists on the right. It’s like a particularly retarded group of obnoxious kindergarteners – who all expect to be taken seriously.

      1. Like it or not JFree, the burden of proof is still yours.

        There is no theory that explains how it is physically possible for measurable warming to be caused by the observed changes in the atmospheric CO2 mix ratio.

        1. no theory that explains how it is physically possible

          Have you heard of ‘thermal conduction’ or the ‘three laws of thermodynamics’? Are you denying that those exist? Those ARE the theories of how it happens – and why it MUST happen. Posited by Newton – proven by Fourier (and in his turn posited for earth’s atmosphere as a ‘physical material’) – experimental evidence re ‘atmospheric composition’ provided by Foote (1856) and, more extensively, Tyndall (his book Heat – 1863 – a compilation of his lectures, experiments, etc about how ‘atmosphere’ as a physical material turns thermal energy into ‘heat’ and how changes in its composition affect ‘heat’) – and quantified by Arrhenius (1896).

          All of which you yourself can experiment with to either ‘see for yourself’ or ‘find some fatal flaw’. Or for that matter – simply attempt to understand so you don’t come off as the village idiot.

      2. Maybe we think that *YOU* have to prove that we should empower the government to ‘fix’ what has yet to be shown as a problem.

        1. Nice strawman. Esp since you are a conservative in the worst possible sense of that term. Completely immune and resistant to all knowledge that is ‘new’ or ‘uncomfortable’.

          Not a Burkean ‘conservative’ who welcomes all knowledge and merely seeks to add additional knowledge about how existing institutions function and add value so that the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater.

          But a Bishop Ussher ‘conservative’ who finds great comfort in the certainty that the world began at around 6pm on Oct 22, 4004 BCE and therefore needs and accepts no additional knowledge that might conflict with that.

      3. The IPCC models are all garbage because they are completely clueless about error propagation. Quoting:

        The uncertainty in projected temperature is ±1.8 C after 1 year for a 0.6 C projection anomaly and ±18 C after 100 years for a 3.7 C projection anomaly. The predictive content in the projections is zero.

        In short, climate models cannot predict future global air temperatures; not for one year and not for 100 years. Climate model air temperature projections are physically meaningless. They say nothing at all about the impact of CO₂ emissions, if any, on global air temperatures.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/07/propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections-mark-ii/

        1. I agree – and on more re the IPCC models – and yet I say again – so fucking what.

          The issue about any modelling of the future – not just climate – is is it important to try to anticipate what might happen so we’re not flying blind? The answer to that is either yes or no.

          If the answer is ‘yes’ it does not mean one believes in accuracy of the IPCC models. It merely means one believes that the greenhouse effect exists, might be significant, and needs to be understood better by us so it can maybe be actionable.

          If the answer is ‘no’, then the fact is that one is really arguing that the greenhouse effect does not exist – but is being dishonest in diverting attention to pretending that it’s all about the IPCC model. That somehow refuting the IPCC model will ensure that temps don’t change cuz it’s the IPCC model that is presumed to cause the change.

          Me? I actually don’t need the IPCC models at all cuz I have the classical economists view of land and generational sovereignty and such – and in that view, that stuff needs to be priced cuz that’s the only way the pricing system can deal with it. Land ain’t capital – the neoclassicals/marginalists are wrong about that – and they are wrong in large part cuz they themselves accepted the Marxist terms of debate – that it’s all about labour v capital and land is irrelevant.

          And oh yeah – I also understand that the greenhouse effect might be significant – which merely adds a couple specific natural resources (CO2 and other chemical outputs of ‘open-loop’ combustion/etc) to the slew of other natural resources and generational stuff that is currently being mismanaged and causing shit-tons of problems – from affordable housing to $20 trillion of public debt – cuz they are not priced and can’t be understood in the current neoclassical/marginalist model. Which – lookie there – is also a model not a reality.

          1. Here’s a playacted argument re ‘generational sovereignty’ that puts Jefferson/Adams/Franklin arguing it in the 1780’s. Not remotely accurate of course since that concept has only really been explored in sufficient depth in the last few decades. Land of course was well understood by pre-Smith, Smith, Ricardo, George, etc as its own thing.

            IMO – if da yoots really want to make the change they want, they have to stop micro-yapping about ‘climate’ and seize the sovereignty that is their’s by right as the next living generation from the cooling dying hands of the current generation that has that power. Too bad, modern libertarians don’t seem to understand this stuff at all

  11. why the hell should a wealth person be more cared for than a normal person..
    یلینک

  12. Just so y’all youngin’s who’re confused on what Naziism is, it’s basically Bernie Sanders wearing Hugo Boss.

  13. Kids these days have too much time on their hands if they can go to all these marches. Guess they aren’t teaching them anything important in school…

    1. Perhaps something like the Sun being responsible for 99.9% of earth’s climate conditions…

  14. Regulate CO2 emissions just like any other regulated gas for example CO carbon monoxide.

    Set a limit for CO2 emissions per watt , done!

    Of course then you have to let people comply as they see fit. Meaning you can’t bait and switch and start the crony capitalism cycle

  15. The whole purpose of the charade is not to solve a problem but to redistribute wealth. Your market based solution is unacceptable to the globalist environmental woke scolds because profit is involved

    1. The whole purpose of the charade is not to solve a problem but to [seize totalitarian power].

  16. The notion that the market does not account for pollution is bogus. Everyone is making voluntary exchanges. If you want to reflect global warming in your individual market, feel free to do so.

  17. capitalism is the key to fixing phantom nonsense?

  18. It’s good to know that if I ever want to bash the public over the head with an emotion based crusade all I have to do is hire and train an autistic kid to sail across the ocean to spout my talking points

    1. all I have to do is hire and train an autistic kid to sail across the ocean to spout my talking points

      While the temptation is understandable, this is a symptom that the Climate Believers are losing. No one who doesn’t already believe is going to be persuaded by “listen to the children.” “Listen to the children” is merely an emotional strong-arm tactic and everyone knows it.

      Some mileage may be gained out of people being too classy, or at least too aware of how they’ll be portrayed if they go after an autistic child, but those same people aren’t going to fail to resent having been put in that position.

      In fact, people in Europe aren’t even as shy as expected about going after the autistic child because this kind of ploy is so obvious and being done in such bad faith that people are already pushing back.

      1. Yeah, Europe might be complacent in their current womb of government provided this and that but their past shows that they do have a limited tolerance for being subjects of a vast unaccountable group of self-styled monarchs. When they eventually tire of those monarchs, bad things seem to happen to the ruling classes.

        1. Yeah – from the brief time I’ve spent in Europe is seems that, for historical reasons, they have more tolerance of douchey elites and their tomfoolery than we do, but they also have a healthy sense of how irrelevant those people are in the end and some ugly historical incidents to point to when things start getting overly tiresome.

          1. If anything, I have yet to get tired of the ruling elite in Britain telling the people that Brexit is a fools errand. Because having more say in their government is, apparently, a shocking proposition for a nation that was once referred to as an actual empire.

            That said, it’s pretty great that their exit from the EU isn’t going as badly as the United States effort in the 1800’s to break away from a centralized state. Maybe they learned an important lesson from our own mistakes. Then again, it’s also not over yet.

            1. I have yet to get tired of the ruling elite in Britain telling the people that Brexit is a fools errand

              I’ve only been to England twice, but holy shit was I shocked at how nakedly condescending the media elites in England are. They make our talking heads look positively folksy and respectful toward the Little Guy. But people just seem to have the attitude of “yeah – that’s just how those people are and how they’ve always been.”

              Maybe they learned an important lesson from our own mistakes.

              They also have their own history of resisting unity to think about . . .

    2. “You’re a traitor!” yelled the girl.
      “You’re a thought-criminal!”
      “I’ll shoot you, I’ll vaporize you, I’ll send you to the salt mines!”

  19. It would be nice if Congress would get rid of the onerous regulations on the nuclear industry so more nuclear plants could be built and more quickly. I can understand Democrats in thrall to environuts. I don’t see why Republicans are so stupid as to throw away and easy issue. It’s not like Democrats could credibly oppose this.


    1. It’s not like Democrats could credibly oppose this.

      I’m not so sure that the Democrat usage of the word ‘credible’ is the same as the generally understood meaning of that word anymore.

      1. ^ This.

        It’s already the case that Climate Believers believe that there is such a things as “shills for the nuclear industry” when they’ll turn around and tell you in the same breath that nuclear is not viable because it can’t be made profitable.

        1. From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink — greetings !

    2. I looked into that as well. There are economic considerations as well. Nuclear power plants are massively expensive and take years to build. They are not necessarily cheaper over the long run.

      Then there are other considerations. If the plant has to be shut down or go offline for some reason to fix something you still need enough backup in the grid to keep it going. They do not last forever and things do go wrong from time to time.

      At this time with natural gas and other fossil fuels being rather inexpensive it probably does not make sense for energy companies to invest in new nuclear plants at this time.

      If you look around most places that have gone more nuclear have few natural fossil fuel resources, Japan, Europe, China for example.

      The environmental concerns do play a role. That is true but they are not altogether unfounded.


      1. Nuclear power plants are massively expensive and take years to build. They are not necessarily cheaper over the long run.

        So, place a ton of red tape on one option while heavily subsiding another option and we then cite the onerous restrictions on one as the base price for the system while claiming the subsided price is the base price for the other.

        Seems legit…

        I do wonder, though, where we plan on storing all the chemical waste from solar panels. Is it the same place we were planning on storing all the nuclear waste?

        1. I do not know how much of the cost is red tape and how much is just because they are expensive to build and maintain. How many of the existing nuclear plants here and elsewhere were heavily subsidized. That is a good question. Probably near all of them.

          I know that there is one not far from us. It has shut down multiple times due to mechanical failures. Once it shut down for two years to fix the problem. It is past its shelf life and the state is pushing to keep it going.

          Sure a new plant with newer technology would be better than the older ones. So far as I know the energy companies are not rushing to invest in any. If they are then more power to them ( pun intended).

          Don’t know all the ins and outs but Thorium reactors are a real thing now and maybe those would be safer and more efficient.

          Another problem is that we do not produce our own medical isotopes. We have to get those from Canada or elsewhere and shortages occur on a regular basis. The primary one is Mo-99. It would be possible but seems nobody seems to want to invest in it.

          1. “I do not know how much of the cost is red tape and how much is just because they are expensive to build and maintain. How many of the existing nuclear plants here and elsewhere were heavily subsidized. That is a good question. Probably near all of them.
            I know that there is one not far from us. It has shut down multiple times due to mechanical failures. Once it shut down for two years to fix the problem. It is past its shelf life and the state is pushing to keep it going.
            Sure a new plant with newer technology would be better than the older ones. So far as I know the energy companies are not rushing to invest in any. If they are then more power to them ( pun intended).”
            All of the issues you cite are easily explained by government interference, and the resident ‘chicken littles’. As Rosling pointed out in “Factfullness” the death toll resulting from the Fukushima radiation is exactly zero. The death toll from ‘escaping’ from the horror which didn’t happen was much larger.
            Chernobyl? Horrible!:
            “For all the disruption, the official Soviet death toll for the accident stands at just 31. This comprises the two people killed immediately by the explosion and irradiation, plus the plant workers and first responders who were exposed to fatal doses of radiation in the days, weeks and months after as clean-up operations got underway.
            In 2008, a report by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation revised this tally up to 54, including those who died as a direct result of trauma or radiation sickness sustained during 1986 and 1987. This includes, for example, the crew of a helicopter that crashed while trying to drop decontaminating mixture onto the open reactor from above.”
            https://www.newsweek.com/chernobyl-disaster-death-toll-estimates-radiation-cancer-1444029

            “Don’t know all the ins and outs but Thorium reactors are a real thing now and maybe those would be safer and more efficient.”
            Seemingly not. The tech has been around forever and (AFAICT) takes a normal reactor to produce the fuel; dead end.

            “Another problem is that we do not produce our own medical isotopes. We have to get those from Canada or elsewhere and shortages occur on a regular basis. The primary one is Mo-99. It would be possible but seems nobody seems to want to invest in it.”
            Why would any business-person invest in what is reviled and guaranteed to cost ‘way more than it will ever return, since chicken-littles are still scared of anything which is ‘radioactive’?

            1. Jeez you have no idea.

              Moly 99/Tc 99m generators are essential to medical imaging. Used in many diagnostic applications cardiac, pulmonary, cancer, others you would not understand.

              There are iodine isotopes for treatment and diagnosis.

              In reality the US does not produce these. None.

              This is a problem. In fact in my life I have had to notify the hospital that we have limited or no supply so try to limit these tests.

              You think everything is politics. Fact is the government has kicked this can down the road too long. This does not win elections. It is not a tasty chicken sandwich and all you care about is getting your favorite candidate or horse elected.

              https://phys.org/news/2016-09-molybdenum-production.html

              1. Echospinner
                September.21.2019 at 3:26 am
                “Jeez you have no idea.”
                Jeeze, try reading what I posted and respond to that.
                ——————————
                “You think everything is politics. Fact is the government has kicked this can down the road too long.”
                And your solution is more of the same.

      2. not to mention that nuclear requires a massively centralized energy system. There is nothing as conducive to increased govt control as centralized industry.

        1. JFree
          September.20.2019 at 10:41 pm
          “not to mention that nuclear requires a massively centralized energy system. There is nothing as conducive to increased govt control as centralized industry.”

          And we’d love to hear about a viable alternative, rather than some pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

          1. Yeah, if only there was a thing you could put on your roof that would generate electricity or a Whirly-ma-gig from which you could generate power from the wind. In lieu of that, I guess we’ll have to go with massively expensive capital projects that have a fairly decent record of not exploding and contaminating 100s of square kilometers for the next 100,000 years. But, who cares, benevolent aliens from Area 51 are going to clean that shit up anyway so do we really need to worry?

            1. “Yeah, if only there was a thing you could put on your roof that would generate electricity or a Whirly-ma-gig from which you could generate power from the wind”

              Yeah, fucking lefty ignoramuses hope that sunny days and wind that never quits will, uh, prove they aren’t fucking lefty ignoramuses.
              Good luck, fucking lefty ignoramus.

              1. yeah, and if only we had these things that you could charge up and then use later. It sucks we don’t have that.

              2. Wind power doesn’t work, ok? We need to build massive power plants whose waste we haven’t figured out what to do with yet. Can we bury it at your house since you are such a fan?

                1. “Wind power doesn’t work, ok? We need to build massive power plants whose waste we haven’t figured out what to do with yet. Can we bury it at your house since you are such a fan?”

                  Now, we’ll stuff it in your ear, since it’s obvious there’s plenty of spare space in your skull.
                  Fucking idiot…

                1. Oh, goody! One more ‘we’re really gonna do it this time, in the bye-and-bye!’
                  Fucking idiot…

                  1. Well here’s one more – Germany now gets close to 50% of its electricity from renewables – going up by about 3-5% per year. And it sucks as a place for both wind and solar.

                    Your rants are merely a sign that you are speaking as a particularly retarded person – in a country that is rapidly becoming a tech backwater re energy. That failure re energy is what will kill the US economy. The US dollar is not really a pure fiat currency. It is de facto backed by oil and our willingness to spend blood/money to secure oil trade routes and oil supply globally. It’s why we become the global power and is why we will fall. As oil ceases to matter – so does the US. As we cease to matter, no one else need borrow in dollars – and all our debts will come home to roost with an economy that no longer provides anything that anyone else wants.

                    That will happen sooner than anyone thinks. The 12year panic is prob about the right timeframe for that – but it won’t be about ‘climate’.

              3. sunny days and wind that never quits

                You do understand that nuclear plants go offline for maintenance, ‘fixing’, and refueling for MONTHS at a time. 50% of them have ‘failed’ at some point requiring more than a year offline. There is no such thing as an energy source that is always ON and no such thing as a single magic solution.

                The smartest market-oriented environmentalist (v a market ideologue who knows nothing about actual resources but who sees everything as a nail cuz he likes his hammer) is Amory Lovins. His 14 energy myths that just ain’t so is worth a read for anyone interested in actually learning more. Yes I understand that that doesn’t include you Sevo.

            2. Why do you hate birds? Wind turbines kill thousands of birds.

            3. If you were literate, you could read this explaining how incompetent the “engineers” designing wind turbines are:

              https://wheelgun.wordpress.com/2019/09/19/problems-with-wind-turbines/

            4. My God you’re fucking retarded.

  20. I loved the headline “Climate strikers are sweeping San Francisco city” Hmmmm I had no idea SHIT was something you could sweep up? Sounds like a messy proposition!

  21. Do not get this one at all. The big lie is that somehow we have adjusted our economy to make more money with less wastes, pollution etc. We have not. What we have done is outsourced many of the activities (eg manufacturing, mining, etc) that pollute to countries like China. What we have retained are knowledge industries that are far less polluting for the same degree of economic output. But someone has to make those cell phones and gadgets for cheap. So the intensification of pollution elsewhere will overwhelm any semblance of progress here in the US. And it will only get worse. The problems of climate change are global in nature. And so any mention of progress here in the US without mentioning degradations elsewhere is a bogus argument. Locally the same occurs. Trash is hauled from cities like New York, Boston etc and landfilled in rural America. New York just got rid of their problem. Any resulting pollution is Alabama’s problem. Some might call this the miracle of capitalism in action, I call it a sham.

    1. The big lie is that somehow we have adjusted our economy to make more money with less wastes, pollution etc. We have not.

      You are wrong.

      We produce more food in this country now than ever before. We do it more cheaply than we used to, and with less pollution. And it doesn’t have one whit to do with China. It is entirely market-driven innovation.

      any mention of progress here in the US without mentioning degradations elsewhere is a bogus argument

      No. ^ This right here is a bogus argument.

      “Elsewhere” isn’t suffering “degradations.” “Elsewhere” is evolving out of degradations.

      The number one source of anthropogenic CO2 is not Chinese use of fossil fuels for manufacturing. It’s wood-burning in the developing world, largely Sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia. Those countries transitioning toward more modern economies is going to clean them up, not make them worse.

      1. I like the food argument. Food is a pollution intensive industry and the US pollutes from food a lot. Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the water, look for a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay. Topsoil loss, requirements for huge inputs of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer. Sorry, you make no sense whatsoever.

        And CO2 is not the only problem, methane and gases vented off from oil fields and fracking is a huge problem. America’s and Canadas problem largely.

        Woodburning in Sub-Saharan Africa? 60% of the world CO2 is made from fossil fuels, 17% by “other” means (eg burning of wood, decay of wood etc). China produces more CO2 than any country by a county mile. No sense on that on either.

        1. Sorry, you make no sense whatsoever.

          I guess you don’t know anything about how agriculture was practiced 50 years ago.

          Read up and come back – it’ll make more sense.

          methane and gases vented off from oil fields and fracking is a huge problem

          No it isn’t. The meat industry, however, is a major source of atmospheric methane. But that’s not in China, either. Matter of fact, those evil Chinese outsource their pollution-intensive pork production to the poor USA.

          China produces more CO2 than any country by a county mile. No sense on that on either.

          Yup. I predict India will surpass it soon, and not (exclusively) because of manufacturing.

          Don’t lose the forest for the trees – and decide whether your enemy is Climate Change or Capitalism. Because it seems like it’s the latter, and Climate Change is just a tool for you.

        2. “…methane and gases vented off from oil fields and fracking is a huge problem….”

          Got a cite? From what I read, ‘venting’ is pretty rare now.

      2. There’s a toxic sludge lake in Inner Mongolia that is proof of degradation elsewhere:

        http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth

      3. ” It is entirely market-driven innovation. ”

        Nitrogen factories were only a thing thanks to WWII. Hardly an example of the free market doing its thing. Before that, farmers would plant legumes to boost nitrogen presence. That’s more like freedom. Notice the lack of jack booted government thugs dropping bombs on people.

  22. “Capitalism Is the Key to Fixing Climate Change”

    Libertarians ONLY need to support a free market !

    Why Reason insists on pushing a particular type of free market called capitalism is beyond me.

    1. I think it’s mainly the lazy conflation of capitalism and free markets that most people indulge in, but yes – I’ve often made the point myself that free markets are the essential thing. If capitalism follows from that, fine, but capitalism-as-such is not the reason for free markets.

    2. Oh, gee, go on, give us your pet definition of capitalism.

      1. “Capitalism” is the practice of forming pools of capital that can then be used to finance economic activity that returns more capital than is expended. Rinse, repeat.

        “Free Markets” are something different.

        “Free Market Capitalism” is the belief that the best thing for capitalism is free markets, and that free markets lead naturally to capitalism.

        Those are ideological assumptions that not all capitalists share. Chinese capitalists, for example.

        1. I wasn’t asking you. That said, your definitions are pointless mental masturbation.

          Fact is, commentators, and especially enemies of economic liberty, conflate capitalism and free markets. When a Sanders or an Ocasio-Cortez call for an end to capitalism, they are calling for the regulation of the free market; indeed, its destruction.

          While you debate a distinction without a difference the destroyers of liberty know full well their target is one and the same.

  23. Why fix something that’s normal and has been in constant flux for thousands of years?

    1. Personally I think the better question is “why do you think you can fix something that’s normal and has been in constant flux for thousands of years?”

      As many around here keep asking, what is ideal GMT?

  24. Has anyone yet explained what the threat of “climate change” is that it hasn’t been before? Or why I should believe them now when they were wrong in the 70’s and we aren’t in a global ice age. Or why they were wrong in the 80’s and we aren’t overpopulated and eating each other. Or why they were wrong in the 90’s about the greenhouse effect. I want to know why I should believe people now who are far less accurate than the farmers almanac.

    1. Or why they were wrong in the 90’s about the greenhouse effect.

      That’s actually the one we’re still talking about.

      1. And every prediction they made called for several degrees more increase than has actually happened – even if you believe the continual adjustments made by NASA quasi-scientists to the temperature record. When someone’s predictions keep failing, but he does not discard his hypothesis, he is not a scientist.

        And without those adjustments, there has been no increase in the average temperature for over a decade, and the hottest year since thermometers were invented was probably 1939.

        1. It’s been shown that the error on those predictions is grossly larger than any increase predicted.

  25. “Economic growth initially hurts the environment”

    Lets get the facts straight. It’s the burning of fossil fuels that’s the culprit here. Blaming it something as nebulous as ‘economic growth’ is mystifying the issue. If pressed, Ron might tell us how one day we will all get rich selling each other our sequestered carbon,

    1. It’s the burning of fossil fuels that’s the culprit here.

      Burning of fossil fuels is one possible culprit, and the consensus on that is pretty weak.

      The consensus on GHGs being a major factor is stronger, and that includes methane, where anthropogenic methane is largely from meat production.

      Deforestation is also likely another cause, but as another commentator pointed out, deforestation has been going on literally since the Neanderthals.

      Sometimes pretending something is more simple and clear than it is can be a form of mystification.

      1. “Burning of fossil fuels is one possible culprit, and the consensus on that is pretty weak. ”

        So weak that the president claims it’s a chinese hoax.

        News for you: Forestry and agriculture both involve burning of fossil fuels. And dig this: The manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear power generators and the whole fuel cycle involve burning fossil fuels.

        1. So weak that the president claims it’s a chinese hoax.

          Who cares what he says?

          News for you: Forestry and agriculture both involve burning of fossil fuels. And dig this: The manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear power generators and the whole fuel cycle involve burning fossil fuels.

          Yup. Not news.

          Urban heat islands probably contribute, at least somewhat, along with the uplift of the Tibetan plateau.

          Also, the earth has been going through freeze-thaw cycles for about the last 1M years, and we may simply still be on the upswing.

          It may be premature to be demanding Global Action.

          1. Why do you do this though? This is not a controversy and hasn’t been (among scientists and every relevant governmental body and NGO on the planet save the US Republican party) for decades. You’re typing some words, but what’s coming out is “I only look for talking points that absolve fossil fuel. And I don ‘t care how many pages into Google I have to go to find them!”

            1. Tony
              September.20.2019 at 10:29 pm
              “Why do you do this though? This is not a controversy and hasn’t been (among scientists and every relevant governmental body and NGO on the planet save the US Republican party) for decades.”

              You are a fucking ignoramus and have no idea what you propose. Fuck off and die where you won’t stink up the palce.

              1. Witty as ever, Sevo.

                1. Tony
                  September.21.2019 at 12:53 am
                  “Witty as ever, Sevo.”

                  Stupid as ever, shtibag.

              1. How about you try reading something other than some guy’s blog?

          2. “Also, the earth has been going through freeze-thaw cycles for about the last 1M years, and we may simply still be on the upswing.”

            Is the consensus on that any stronger than the Chinese Hoax theory?

            “It may be premature to be demanding Global Action.”

            When is the time ripe for such a demand?

            1. Oh, look! the resident bullshitter has showed up again.
              mtrueman
              September.20.2019 at 11:28 pm
              “Also, the earth has been going through freeze-thaw cycles for about the last 1M years, and we may simply still be on the upswing.”
              Is the consensus on that any stronger than the Chinese Hoax theory?”
              Yes.

              “It may be premature to be demanding Global Action.”
              When is the time ripe for such a demand?”
              When you can prove, by accurate prediction, that the efforts you think are required are shown to be true.
              As a fucking ignoramus, I’m sure it has yet to dawn on you that not a single one has yet to be shown such.
              Fucking ignoramuses are stupid that way, aren’t they, fucking ignoramus?

              1. You want another spam flag? Just ask if you do. No need to go through all this song and dance.

                1. mtrueman
                  September.21.2019 at 9:08 am
                  “You want another spam flag? Just ask if you do. No need to go through all this song and dance.”

                  So you have no answer at all, and your response is to flag my comments?
                  Fucking ignoramuses are stupid that way, aren’t they, fucking ignoramus?

                  1. So you did want a spam flag. Just ask for one next time. No need to put yourself through this tedious song and dance.

                    1. Threatening to falsely flag something as spam is spam itself. Flagged.

        2. The question is whether making solar panels etc. consumes more fossil fuels than the power they produce replaces. If the price of fossil fuels includes restitution to those damaged by AGW, the market will sort this out much better than any regulation could.

  26. Gratified to see the article didn’t laud Yang as the sane voice of climate policy like many Crypto-Liberals posing as libertarians are wont to do.

    Yang is a supporter of the Green New Deal, has a $5 trillion price tag on his climate policy, and has just outlined how he sees the urgent need to eliminate the private automobile.

  27. The entire goal of the far left religious climate movement is to end capitalism. Fighting them will take decades.

    1. Exactly, although ending capitalism is just one step toward their ultimate goal of a Communist world government.

  28. Yes. I’ve been saying this for some time, and quoting Nathaniel Brandon: “pollution is theft.” (I’d have said “aggression” rather than “theft”, but the principle is the same.)

    If we put a price on carbon emissions [NOT “cap and trade”], then people will be incentivized to produce the stuff we want with a minimum of carbon emissions. Everybody will have an incentive to burn less carbon, because burning carbon costs $$$. And the cost is exactly proportionate to the harm done.

  29. Anthropogenic Global warming is a giant scam with zero scientific evidence to support it. It’s all about wealth transfer and control by the Deep State over every aspect of our lives with an eye toward world government. Period.
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen#exit-modal

  30. Agreed. Now get the most cronyish relationship in the history of crony capitalism to stop fucking with a market that is more than ripe for innovative clean energy technology. And if it takes government subsidy to make the market ripe, who gives a fuck? The planet is not yours to gamble on whether your idiotic laissez-faire nonsense is right. (It’s not.)

    1. Tony
      September.20.2019 at 10:21 pm
      “Agreed. Now get the most cronyish relationship in the history of crony capitalism to stop fucking with a market that is more than ripe for innovative clean energy technology.”
      Bullshit, bullshitter.

      “And if it takes government subsidy to make the market ripe, who gives a fuck? The planet is not yours to gamble on whether your idiotic laissez-faire nonsense is right. (It’s not.)”
      I give a fuck; your fantasy is your problem, and not my cost.
      Fuck off and die where you won’t stink up the place.

  31. I’m sorry. Fix climate change? Are y’all insane?
    You’d have to start 445 million years ago, when the Hirnantian Ice Age began at the end of the Ordovician Period, with a global temperature of 22C and CO2 at 4,000ppm, and the sun at less than 90% of today’s radiance. With no change in the sun, and with CO2 then at 3,000ppm, the world then returned to the previous 22C with admirable celerity. Since then, we have had 4 more Ice Ages, including the present, and in the last million years we have had 8 glaciations and interglacials including our current, having emerged from the LGM 14,500 years ago with no preceding change in CO2.
    One might note that we emerged from the LIA around 1840 with no preceding CO2 change, and up to the present have seen significant rises and falls in temperature with no preceding CO2 change.
    So how do y’all propose that we primates FIX climate change?
    Just what is it that gives us the magic wand? Is it Hope and Change? Hey, that worked…
    It sure ain’t CO2. That’s not in control.

    1. Clever zinger what with making the words literal rather than referring to the subject under discussion.

      The greenhouse effect and CO2’s role in it are not controversial.

      1. Tony
        September.20.2019 at 10:54 pm
        “Clever zinger what with making the words literal rather than referring to the subject under discussion.”
        Bullshitter is called on bullshit and tries deflection.

        “The greenhouse effect and CO2’s role in it are not controversial.”
        Yes, that is controversial; not a single one of the predictions has been shown to be true, but fucking lefty ignoramuses are not interested in facts.
        More importantly, the ‘solutions’ proposed by fucking lefty ignoramuses are not shown to be required nor effective.
        You lost, loser. Grow up.
        Or, please, fuck off and die.

        1. Just how high was your mother when she dropped you on your head?

          1. Tony
            September.21.2019 at 12:54 am
            “Just how high was your mother when she dropped you on your head?”

            Just how stupid does a loser drunk have to be to post such shit?

            1. That was a funny joke. See, “high” has a double meaning.
              Strung-out skankwhore doesn’t, though.

              1. Tony
                September.21.2019 at 1:06 am
                “That was a funny joke….”
                No, it was one more brain dead post from shitbag.
                Fuck off and die where you won’t stink up the place. And I’m sure your mommy is really sorry she didn’t have that abortion, you pathetic piece of shit.

                1. It’s possible, but I wouldn’t give a shit because I’d be aborted.

                  1. Note to foreign readers: above is what mystical conservatives and non-mystical socialists consider an intelligent debate. Both come to libertarian forums and fling faeces in all directions in an attempt to drive voters away from libertarian discussions.

                    1. Note to foreign readers:
                      That’s the first time Hank’s been intelligble for the last 5 years. Unfortunately, he didn’t read farther up-thread to see why I was pointing out why Tony is a fucking ignoramus.
                      Keep it up, Hank; now try on a subject where you’re not full of shit.

      2. The greenhouse effect is an artifact of a popular myth and CO2’s role in it is inconsequential.

        There. Fixed it for you.

  32. If you want to see what socialism does to the environment, travel around the post-Soviet countries. It’s just appalling how polluted everything is. The government didn’t care about the environment or the health of the people. They did what they wanted with no legal or market consequences.

  33. Global warming is a bullshit scheme to implement authoritarian communist global government.
    .
    CO2 is plant food and is greening the planet. Currently, CO2 levels are 400ppm and the planet and life would be much better off at 1000 ppm. The atmosphere is in a carbon drought.
    .
    None of the leftist green controls will fix anything. They will kill off millions of people through starvation and keep the 3rd world in poverty while enslaving the western countries in totalitarian rule.

    1. Isn’t that the intention?

  34. Capitalism, the Marxist epithet for slaveholding monarchic colonial mercantilism, ain’t the solution. Back when Soviet and Televangelist socialism had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons pointing, John Hospers’ Libertarian Defense Caucus argued that the initiation of force was the problem. Freeze pushers, like Climate Cassandras, will not consider a solution that is not totalitarian. Surrender to the Soviets was the only option Freezers did not object to, and totally banning electricity is the only thing Warmunists do not reject. Libertarian freedom or legalization is anathema to warmunists and anti-birth control plant leaf prohibitionist conservatives alike.

    1. Gee, Hank, just a bit up-thread, you were coherent. Now, you have to start handing out decoder rings again.

  35. According to The Chron, there were ‘thousands’ marching in SF; no crowd photos. But the feature photo had a 7 year-old with a bull-horn, and another one had some woman carrying a sign claiming the kids had done there homework, the adults should too.
    1) If your cause is reduced to citing the ‘wisdom’ of a seven year old kid, you’re in desperation mode.
    2) When you claim indoctrination is ‘homework’, you might be in even more trouble.

  36. Sorry, I can’t take any of this seriously because “the science” has yet to prove our climate is in crisis. What does that even MEAN? We’re sitting on a 5 BILLION-year-old rock. And our insignificant little species, whose tenure won’t even amount to a nanosecond of a blip in the greater scheme of things, thinks it can destroy this rock? Or predict what will and will not happen to it if we continue to run our air conditioners?

  37. Crediting “regulations” with fixing the environment is like crediting pre-Civil War plantation owners with picking cotton.

    The people who do the work should get the credit, not the people who forced them to do it against their will.

  38. What ” Climate Change ” ? Where ? I haven’t seen it . Have you ? Must be ” over there ” .

    Other than the CO2 greening of the planet so awesomely apparent from satellites confirming my grade school science learned 6 decades ago . Certainly the pine saplings seem to invading open space more vigorously than in the past . But I can live with that .

    And , of course the physics is false at the most fundamental level . The paradigm denies by omission Newton’s universal Law of Gravity which quantitatively explains planetary temperature profiles . That’s why you’ve never seen either testable equation or experimental test of the asserted trapping of a heat gradient by a spectral phenomenon .

  39. Always remember.

    If you want to ‘fight’ climate change it will end up with you having no access to filet mignon while your masters feast.

    If you think for one second a dip-douche-dick like Justin Trudeau is gonna live a second in discomfort you’re a useful idiot. He and his ilk will expect YOU sacrifice for ‘earf.

  40. Before we even discuss what the best way to fight ‘climate change’ might be, we need to have a serious talk about what it is, how it is caused, and whether fighting it is a worthwhile allocation of resources.

    This is complicated by the fact that those demanding immediate action have spent the last several decades making bogus predictions, and ‘adjusting’ data to support their positions. They are, bluntly, no longer entitled to any benefit of the doubt.

    The climate is changing. It always does. Whether Man has a perceptible effect on that is unproven, and hysterics are not proof.

  41. “The atmosphere is unowned, so no one has an incentive to protect and conserve it.”

    As Americans I think we have a solution for that problem. If we can lose our mining rights under our property then why not above us?

  42. According to market based economics, effects of production like environmental damage, are defined as “externalities.” They are not and cannot be included in the market price of the product without the intervention of an outside force, like governments intervening directly through fines or other punishments or managing a market through government policy. This word “externality,” is not a word chosen and defined by leftists or progressives to demonize market economies, it is a word defined by the proponents of market economics itself. These effects are “external,” because there is no way to account for them in the market price without intervention. If it is cheaper to provide energy through coal, without intervention of poltical force in the media or government forces through policy and fines, there is no way to include externalities in price.

    That this process is inherently poltical and not market based is made clear by the reactions to claims about climate change. The idea that markets will alone make these changes has been untrue in the past, and this article appears to betray no understanding of the economic system it seems to be supporting or our history.

    There are no reliable market “signals” with regard to the additional cost of a product. How much is Miami or New York— low coastal cities “worth.” How much is the bottom half of Louisiana worth? How much of its subsidence is tectonics, how much evacuation of oil and gas, and how much is because the rivers no longer flood outside their banks to counter subsidence. No one knows.

    This is why other externalities, like injuries at work, cannot be and are not handled in the market. How do you include the cost of a man whose leg was injured manufacturing a car in the price of the car? you can’t, because you don’t know that value. So, in order to provide for damage to workers, to provide for an orderly society, we intervene in the market.

    Any attempt to assess the value of a man’s limb by a company or the man’s attorneys is even less knowledgeable than the workman’s compensation laws which intervene so that we may have an orderly society. Keep this in mind: we don’t intervene with workman’s compensation laws because of fairness, we intervene so that workers don’t have missing arms and legs and companies don’t run themselves completely off the rails, damaging everyone, when they make a series of cost cutting policies that result in something like the Ford Pinto decisions in the 1970s.

    So, unless the injury was intentional, a crime, compensation is awarded according to a system which both sides understand they will not have their way, but which include a minimal safety net for the injured worker and disincentive to become disabled. Regardless, this is an intervention, not a market adjustment through market forces or knowledge in the market.

    Cars have higher sticker costs, up front investments, than they did when I was a child in the 60s. However, they are safer to drive, and from personal experience I can tell you that sitting in traffic now is not the lung scalding experience it was in 1969.

    This all occurred only because of of intervention in markets. No company was willing to offer safer cars at at a higher price. They would not even make safety belts standard. Can you imagine the level of delusion such thinking takes, to imagine that the cost of safety belts would be greater than the cost of dead or broken bodies? Consumers had no reliable way to evaluate the claims of manufacturers and environmental groups. Seat belt laws, bumper laws, safety glass, fuel efficiency: all were interventions in the market.

    This argument in this article appears incomplete, a delusion, poorly researched, or a lie.

    1. True about the cars. It is amazing how much safer they are and a lot of that is due to regulation which has also driven innovation. Some of it is market based as well. Subaru for example sells their high safety rating and the cars have additional features not found on all others.

    2. Hmm.
      We intervene in the market because we know more than the market???
      How did that work out in Soviet Russia and China?
      I asked a Chinese millionaire friend of my son when was it that they decided to allow you to make a profit?
      He reflected and said “1989”.
      I suspected it might be because they looked around and saw Chinese everywhere thriving – Singapore, India, Africa, South America, USA… except in China. He shrugged.

      1. Market economics has always acknowledged that in the case of externalities, humans “know” better than the market. Externalities do not appear in market price, and are not a cost in production, and this is make explicit in every economic textbook and every wikipedia kind of entry on this you can find. Every solution, from torts to laws is an intervention in the market.

        You don’t have to take my word for it. Just pick up any economics book, Google “externality.”

        This has nothing to do with whether I would choose a market based economic ideal, and I do, over communist, socialist, command, traditional and etc economic systems, but whether externalities are included in market price. They aren’t, so the idea that these companies would self create solutions to problems that don’t appear in cost or market price without intervention is unlikely as the result of market forces, and this appears to be, historically, the case.

        Where externalities are concerned, interventions appear necessary. In his reply to me below, CE argues that tort suits compensate for these effects, but they don’t, because most of these external effects are not caused by bad intentions (negligent or criminal culpability) so no recovery can be made; and, because a tort suit is an intervention in the market, not part of the market, and only a partial recovery of damages.

    3. Jonrale9072
      September.22.2019 at 3:05 am
      “According to market based economics, effects of production like environmental damage, are defined as “externalities.”….(and further bullshit claims)”

      Yes, the lefty claims of ‘externalities’ are forever raised as ammunition for ignoramus lefties (Jonrale9072) to propose the control of the economy.
      Of course, the ignoramus lefties (Jonrale9072) ignore facts, since ignoramus lefties are wedded to the fantasy of central planning:
      “Bloomberg: U.S. Meeting Paris Climate Goals Without Being Part of the Agreement”
      […]
      “Former New York City Mayor and possible 2020 candidate Michael Bloomberg said Sunday that the United States is meeting the goals of Paris Climate Accords despite withdrawing from the agreement.”
      https://freebeacon.com/issues/bloomberg-u-s-meeting-paris-climate-goals-without-being-part-of-the-agreement/

      Fuck off, slaver; we’ve heard you whine before.

    4. sure they can. English common law developed so people can sue each other over externalities. The regulatory state exists to try to stop the threat of wealthy capitalists being forced to pay for those externalities.

      1. CE, You seem to be arguing for my point rather than against it. 1) Tort suits are market interventions, and 2) tort suits require negligent or criminal intent. Products do damage, generally, without any negligent or criminal behavior. The issue in a tort suit is not whether there is damage, but whether someone has been negligent or criminally culpable.

        1) Common Law is an intervention in the market, it is not part of the market. Common Law does not compensate for most externalities and was never intended to. The Ford Pinto is a perfect example of how poorly tort suits correlate to full external damage. Ford Motor Company’s assessment of whether or not to make a 25$ improvement to the Pinto’s gas tank considered only the value of the suits it projected would result from the Pinto’s unsafe gas tanks. The math was correct. But Ford never considered the value of the interrupted lives, the suffering caused by burns, and all the other “value” rather than cost problems presented by the Pinto. These are also part of the external effects of the Pinto’s poor gas tank.

        2) Common Law suits are torts, and require a judgment of negligent or criminal intent (recklessness, general intent, specific intent). A product may be dangerous and too expensive for a society even if its manufacturer was not negligent or criminally culpable. So, for example, the extraction of oil and gas in Louisiana, which allegedly adds about 15% to land subsidence south of, roughly, Baton Rouge, each year, may not involve negligent or criminal intent. If it does not, then even an external action like a tort suit cannot affect the cost in the market, even years down the line, because no one was, at a minimum, negligent. In this scenario, the extra 10–15% continues to be external to the cost of the product in the market.

  43. “…the problems caused by man-made warming.”

    Which are what, exactly?

  44. You should change the name of your mag to “unreasonable.” Not one piece of science in this article. You uncritically accept global warming via CO2 when it’s not proven. Where are the editors?

    1. Citation needed. Not some guy’s blog, if you can manage it.

  45. Easy fix

    Pick one of those islands in the middle of nowhere with an active volcano.

    Drop a nuke right down the middle.

    Boom

    Sit back and watch the pretty sunsets.

  46. If these zealot climate-cult members think they’re going to be able to regulate the US economy out of capitalism, they will have a very rude awakening ahead of them.

    1. Notice how you hear less from AOC since her chief of staff left and he admitted the GND was about remaking the economy.

  47. Climate change theories are useful for harnessing people to serve governments – for justifying more government control over people’s lives, liberty, and property.

    That’s all they amount to. Secular religion. Climate change is natural, always has been. It cannot be predicted, because it is too complex. Similarly, it cannot be controlled. Time scales of decades, centuries, and millennia will demonstrate that all the models are inadequate and inaccurate. In the meantime, will the lives of humans be sacrificed in the pursuit of climate control? People who value their freedom will have to expose the massive fraud behind government schemes to control climate, the economy, health care, education, energy, and so on.
    Climate models are based on the successful example of economic models, environmental models, etc., similarly irrational and inadequate, but effective in enslaving the gullible.

  48. Capitalism fixes climate change without any government intervention to set up trading schemes. People who want to be cooler buy air conditioning in their cars and apartments and businesses, just like they’ve been doing for the past 50 years as they move to the Sun Belt.

    The “climate crisis” is the biggest nothing burger of all time. Slightly warmer weather has always been better for humanity.

  49. Kuznet’s curve is interesting, I have to read more about it. It seems to me the point is that’s its fine to make a mess then clean it up later. I admit this is how I normally operate, but it doesn’t seems like the best way for the world to operate with an issue as large as climate change; especially when so many of the changes seems irreversible.

    I’m quite drawn to the Japanese art of kintusgi, but in this case, it’s best to be careful not to break it in the first place. I don’t think we have enough gold to fix it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.