The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Coming in 2023: Climate Liberalism: Perspectives on Liberty, Property and Pollution
An edited volume considering whether Classical Liberal ideas may help address climate change and other large-scale pollution problems.
In early 2023, Palgrave Macmillan will publish my latest book, Climate Liberalism: Perspectives on Liberty, Property and Pollution, an edited volume that will be part of the Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism.
The aim of this book is to critically assess what (if anything) Classical Liberalism has to say about how we should address large-scale externality problems, including climate change. The contributions span multiple disciplines and include both those sympathetic to and skeptical of Classical Liberalism. Contributors include: Karen Bradshaw, Mark Budolfson, Billy Christmas, Daniel H. Cole, David Dana, Ed Dolan, Monika Ehrman, Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Andrew Morriss, Mark Pennington, Dan C. Shahar, Catherine M. Sharkey, and John Thrasher.
Advance praise from Matt Zwolinski, David Schmidtz, Shi-Ling Hsu, and Lynne Kiesling can be found below the fold, along with the table of contents. Like many academic books, it's pricey, but it's a good item for libraries, and the chapters will be available electronically as well through Springer.
Advance Praise
"Political philosophies that put a lot of weight on freedom and property rights have a hard time grappling with the problem of pollution. How can we reconcile the inviolability of the individual with the ubiquity of negative externalities? The essays in this volume represent the most promising and sophisticated effort yet to come to grips with this problem. Climate Liberalism is essential reading on one of the most theoretically interesting and practically important issues of our time."
Matt Zwolinski
Professor of Philosophy, University of San Diego
Author of The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries,
and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism"Climate Liberalism captures a valuable and overdue conversation about classical liberal thinking and the seemingly intractable problem of climate change. Much of what is written about domestic and international climate policy boils down to nihilist political considerations, and lacks any theoretical or deontological foundation. This volume is a vital step towards filling that void."
Shi-Ling Hsu
D'Alemberte Professor
Florida State University College of Law
Author of Capitalism and the Environment"Classical liberal scholarship has, to some extent, always been a matter of circling the wagons and defending classical liberalism per se. But classical liberalism also is a way of grappling with real practical problems, using the legal and policy tools we actually have. Classical liberal scholars have a history of working with, rather than ignoring, the most basic of all political facts: namely, people decide for themselves, not only how to pursue their own interests but also how to do what they think is right."Climate change is a problem of external cost, well-understood by classical liberals. It is also the same basic political issue that classical liberalism has a history of being well-positioned to address. Yet, the scale of the threat that climate change poses seems unprecedented. So, while we cannot afford to ignore the lessons of history, neither can we afford to deny that 'it might be different this time.' Time will tell, but this volume furthers the conversation with one remarkable essay after another.
David Schmidtz
Presidential Chair of Moral Science
West Virginia University"This valuable collection of essays examines how classical liberal institutional frameworks rooted in property rights, decentralization, and the rule of law can inform climate policy approaches. Reflecting a range of expertise from law, political economy, and philosophy, these thoughtful essays grapple with the challenges that large-scale environmental questions pose to classical liberalism and analyze how classical liberal institutions can play a constructive role in climate policy. Climate Liberalism is a welcome contribution to ongoing climate and energy policy research and debate."
L. Lynne Kiesling
Director, Institute for Regulatory Law & Economics
Research Professor, College of Engineering, Design & Computing University of Colorado, Denver
Table of Contents
1. Introduction – Jonathan H. Adler
2. Pollution and Natural Rights – Billy Christmas
3. Do Libertarians Have Anything Useful to Contribute to Climate Change Policy? – Daniel H. Cole
4. Climate Change Adaptation through the Prism of Individual Rights – David Dana
5. Common Law Tort as a Transitional Regulatory Regime – Catherine M. Sharkey
6. Libertarianism, Pollution and the Limits of Court Adjudication – Dan C. Shahar
7. Complexities of Climate Governance in Multidimensional Property Regimes – Monika Ehrman & Karen Bradshaw
8. Climate Change & Class Actions – Brian T. Fitzpatrick
9. Nature and the Firm – Jonathan H. Adler
10. Permission, Prohibition & Dynamism – John Thrasher
11. Market Solutions to Large Number Environmental Problem-Induced Changes in Risk Distributions – Andrew Morriss
12. A Classical Liberal Case for Target-Consistent Carbon Pricing – Ed Dolan
13. Climate Change, Political Economy, and the Problem of Comparative Institutions Analysis – Mark Pennington
14. The Social Cost of Carbon, Humility, and Overlapping Consensus on Climate Policy – Mark Budolfson
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX!!!
LIKE THE PANDEMIC AND THE MOON LANDINGS AND THE LETTER ‘V’!!!
You forgot "AND THE SHAPE OF THE PLANET AND ELVIS' DEATH!!!1!"
“The contributions span multiple disciplines and include both those sympathetic to and skeptical of Classical Liberalism. ”
Is there anything else the contributors are allowed to be sceptical about? I get the impression the answer would be “No.”
But maybe item 14 permits a little dissent on the starting point of this volume?
Yeah, Brett, why didn't they have any authors in their climate change book write about how the premise was nonsense?
Similarly, why don't they let Lost Causers write in collections of essays about Lincoln? Or flat earthers into their space flight conference?
Sarcastr0, that the planet has been warming is something very few educated people dispute: It better be, we're coming out of an ice age!
That this warming constitutes an existential emergency? THAT a lot of educated people dispute.
Your 'consensus', no that score, looks awfully forced. Not spontaneous.
You are insisting a book include people who agree with your take that the book is dumb.
As the current right shrinks and shrinks these ridiculous demands to get included and liked keep coming up,
Neither this book nor I have to engage with your ‘Climate had changed before so it can’t be an issue nor can we be causing it’ clowning.
I'm not insisting on anything. I'm just noticing enforcement of the party line.
S_0,
I expect that your arguments with Brett are just a time wasting sport for both of you.
However, your reductions of his comments to extreme positions such as "‘Climate had changed before so it can’t be an issue nor can we be causing it’" are not very convincing and in fact are frequently absent from the original post by Brett.
Having said that, I not the Brett almost always takes the bait.
Well, sure, I enjoy arguing, and Sarcastr0 gives me opportunities.
But I must admit they're sub-par opportunities, because he's not really arguing with me, just some cardboard cutout in his imagination. It would be a lot more entertaining if he'd engage with what I actually say.
Educated people do not dispute it. People, some of them educated, dispute it, for reasons of their own.
Even if one were convinced that there is no possibility that climate change could be a problem, this would hardly eliminate the broader question about how Classical-Liberal principles can or should inform policies to address large-number externality problems more generally.
So why pick such a loaded topic? What else might it have been applied to?
That's a lot of ink on probably the least pressing problem facing us.
Get ready to hear that rich people with beach houses have an important property interest. Poor people trying to heat their homes in the winter should be made even more poor so that beach house owners have lower insurance bills for hurricanes.
And after poor people suffer and pay, and after the extra hurricanes don’t happen (because it was just another bogeyman story), of course there will be no way for the victims of the policy to be compensated. Tough luck poors.
Poor people suffering and paying? Are you worried they'll steal Republican fiscal policy?
WTF are you talking about?
About how climate types are mostly rich guys like you wanting to impose higher energy costs on lower middle class and poor people who can't afford them.
I don't have a beach house, so I still don't know WTF you are talking about with "property interests" and so on.
Your sympathy for poor people is touching. Does it manifest in any way other than your bitching about costs of mitigating climate change? I doubt it.
You don’t mitigate anything. You just make life worse for everyone.
How about telling us what you are doing personally to "mitigate" what you see as a threat to humanity?
While he himself is made of carbon!
Hauling out this dumbass argument yet again, eh? As though individual actions right now must align with one's future policy desires for the country.
We're getting to levels of disengagement I've only seen coming from pro-lifers before.
“As though individual actions right now must align with one’s future policy desires for the country. ” So you are a hypocrite? Happy to say what we all must do to satisfy you but unwilling to tell us what contributions you are willing to make yourself.
They can correct me if I'm wrong, but I expect both Sarcastro and Bernard both vote in a way that reflects their support for climate change mitigation policies. That's all anyone needs to do as a minimum, frankly.
OK.
I live in one unheated room, never travel, and spend as little as possible on consumer goods, while growing a big part of my diet in a backyard garden.
None of that is true, of course. But I do drive only about 3000 miles a year, pay a premium to get my electricity from mostly renewable sources, and so on.
Enough? Probably not. But something. What do you do for all the poor people you are so concerned about?
Rich guys? You voted for Trump.
Do you turn up on an ice rink in swimming trunks, on the grounds that the ice is after all frozen water?
The most widespread and deepest form of stupidity in political thought is the idiotic idea that a particular political philosophy applies in all circumstances, rather than the eminently reasonable idea that different circumstances or phases might well require different approaches. Don't bother to argue - you're wrong.
Principles -— how do they work?
In politics? They under-perform experience followed by revision.
Underperform by what metric? One cannot evaluate how principles work by a utilitarian calculation.
I agree with you.
But 1) I try and understand these philosophies because even if not a panacea they have good and interesting ideas.
And 2) I may be wrong. And would I feel like a dick coming in hot like this.
Oh, I have no problem in thinking that under certain circumstances a particular philosophy is effective and I am certainly open minded about which might be effective when. But to think that a certain philosophy is suitable in all circumstances, nope.
I also think Adler is wrongheaded. But I’m interested in watching exactly how he gets it wrong.
Lol. You’re a textbook example of what he’s talking about. As are the politically motivated panickers. You think that guys like Biden and Newsome and Gore have anting beyond a cartoon understanding of the uncertainty surrounding this stuff?
And the same question should be asked of people like Trump and politicians on his side.
Well, this is a disagreeable comment. Climate and energy make you really agro,
Climate change belief makes me a proponent of a single political philosophy?
Nope. I like one party more than the other, but I’m not a neo liberal or a communist or an adherent of any particular political philosophy. As Imposted above.
The difference is that there's a massive body of scientific research and evidence behind one bunch, and there's an internet troll making shit up on 8chan behind the other.
I put a lot of thought into it on the flight back from Davos this year. It’s a long flight, even on a G5, so there was time think. How we get poor people to switch to eating bugs?. The climate requires them to sacrifice.
Do you think Prof. Adler and co. are going to Davos?
Quit with your facile deflections the moment you read climate, and read the OP.
Does he?
Isn’t Davos bankers not libertarian law professors?
They'll eat the rich first, I expect.
That's when those oligarch jet trackers will come in handy.
Anyone know which NFL game Brittney Griner will be at tomorrow to stand at attention proudly for the National Anthem??
Lets see, 1; Cowboys in DC?? (is Senescent Joe awake by 1pm? probably not) (Houston) Texans at (Indianapolis) Colts?? Her Rug Munching probably doesn't go over well in Bobby Knight/Larry Bird (OK, probably get Mike Pence to come out and mumble something incomprehensible)
And I watch(ed) alot of "Homeland" no way she's coming back without some "Special Surprise" all ready to explode at the appropriate moment, which is why you will never see Senescent Joe, Common-Law Harris, (Former) Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or Mr. Nancy Pelosi in the same Photo,
They have access to National Security Alerts and don't want to get all Lockerbie'd
Frank
How is that "civility standard" -- which the Volokh Conspiracy claimed to be when you it censored and banned liberals at this hypocritical right-wing website -- coming along?
You know, the "standard" that prohibits the use of the term "sl_ck-j_wed" to describe conservatives but allows vile racial slurs and calls for liberals to be gassed, shot in the face, raped, placed face-down in landfills, shoved into woodchippers, and sent to Zyklon showers?
Disaffected hypocrites who claim to be free speech champions while their opinions and conduct with respect to expression flutter with the conservative political winds might just be my favorite culture war casualties.
Is it really that hard to trigger a nuclear winter?
If 100 megatons could bring about a severe epoch of cold and darkness, imagine what 1 teraton could do.
“Is it really that hard to trigger a nuclear winter?” apparently not if the explosions are well planned.But you should read the old book by my former colleague, Michael McCracken, who did a considerable amount of the modeling at Lawrence Livermore Lab.
"imagine what 1 teraton could do"
You're in the realm of a large asteroid hitting the earth
...or a Black, lesbian basketball player who was too stupid to realize that her "privilege" did mean anything in Mother Russia. Of course, thanks to the negotiating skill of the Blunder administration she is home safe and sound to celebrate Kwanza.
You haven't refuted QA's point that you're calling something a triviality while you yourself wallow in them.
Black athletes are interchangeable, who knew?
Yeah, whatever you said. Help save the planet and stay off line.
Prof. Adler made a great point that this problem is generalizable.
How should a minimal state or other liberty-focused society deal with large-scale externalities generally? Say, mining, or the like if climate makes you mad.
One common citation I've seen in political philosophy circles is tort law. I've never found that a very compelling vehicle myself, especially at scale.
I see what you did with that "Trump"ed up charge.
But riddle me this; did she bring in illegal drugs?
Yes? Then how are the charges trumped up?
She went into a country with an illegal substance.
She's lucky she didn't go into Turkey.
The idea of using tort law to deal with externality problems strikes me as ridiculous. Maybe its advocates have in mind some different notion of tort law than that which actually exists.
How would it work, after all? Manufacturing plant pollutes air in a town. This affects the health of some residents, some maybe seriously, some maybe on a long-term basis. It creates costs - you have to paint your house more often, etc. It also has a "hedonic" effect. Going out for a walk is less pleasant, it's harder to engage in physical activity in general, your view is not as good as it was.
Now tell me how tort law is going to compensate for all that. it can't, first because some damage is not inherently economic, second because tort law is slow, inefficient, and hugely expensive, and finally because it's probably impossible to have all those varying interests reasonably represented in courtroom proceedings.
I think the suggestion is just a lame effort to find something - anything - to replace government regulation that those advocating it despise.
He didn't defend anything, only stated the facts of the case. She broke the law in a foreign country and got caught. Lucky it wasn't Indonesia or the Philippines.
The Queen, I guess.
Fortunately, one of them isn't a pressing problem any more, but apparently will always be another source of unending bitterness for you.
It must be very hard for you, you won't be able to gloat about how she's being treated in a Russian prison any more. Let's go Brandon indeed, for depriving you of that solace.
Just how did you come to that conclusion? I don't recall any comments where I "gloated" about her imprisonment.
Wrong, as with everything else you post.
And yet.
You should reread some of them.
Sounds more like snark than gloating.
And, yeah, she's lucky she didn't get caught doing this in the Philippines. She'd have been executed, not just imprisoned.
Look, it's REALLY stupid to not realize that some countries take this sort of thing seriously, and adjust your behavior accordingly.
And, yeah, medically prescribed hash oil. Like anybody in a country that's still enforcing drug laws is going to take that nonsense seriously.
What, people don't gloat using snark?
Again, there are educated people on both sides of this debate. What you're witnessing isn't a natural consensus, it's one side being systematically shut out.
You’re right. I named a handful of respected climate experts a few months ago on this board but I’m sure people like Sarcastro and the Queen didn’t bother to even go see what they had to say because they’re not open minded. They’d rather not know. No different opinions are to be considered.
It’s like the scientists who are holding off on the panic are standing in a church yelling that God is dead. No listeners in this bunch.
Yeah, a STEM degree in an earth science that included lots of study of the earth and its history along with 35 years experience working in energy and extensive experience in numerical modeling of complex systems really doesn’t mean anything.
I’m no different than an English major who watched a movie. Or than a lawyer who got to be in Congress (and even VP!) for a while because his dad was a long-serving politician. We all have the same ability to evaluate the reasonableness of what scientists are saying.
The very fact that the panic side is shouting down people who disagree indicates a lack of confidence and curiosity in what they are saying. Most tech/science people I worked with welcomed pushback because it provided the ability to prove our ideas right, or to adjust if someone pointed out a legitimate hole. No intellectual honesty is getting anywhere near this topic.
the panic side is shouting down people who disagree
Who the fuck is shouting anybody down?
Adler edited a book. He picked out the writers he wanted to include. How is that shouting anyone down?
Put together your own damn book if you like. Nobody is going to stop you. Or Brett, if he wants to. Nobody's going to stop him either.
Really, this shit about how the book has to include skeptics or else it's part of plot to systematically shut them down is moronic.
I wasn’t referring to myself being shouted down, moron. I was referring to climate experts who are being shouted down and shut out of the conversation.
I don’t know about Brett’s credentials and don’t care. But I’m in a better position to judge this stuff than most anyone else here.
Want an inconvenient fact? I was working with numerical models of complex systems as early as 1980. The climate models that have been run in the past have generally come in hot - the predicted temperatures and outcomes were worse than what actually occurred. Whether that’s due to bias or because this stuff is hard to model, I can’t say. Now you, in your ignorance, are (without understanding what you’re doing) panicking based the prediction of one of the more recent models with ridiculously pessimistic emission assumptions built in that the climate will be 1 1/2 degrees Celsius hotter in 50 years. 50 years!!! That’s a farce.
But you’re too unsophisticated to comprehend that. So you just float along with your political lean, which is no qualification at all - in fact it’s just the opposite of one because your critical thinking is gone.
The media is, bernard. Our political leadership is too. As are the scientists who have so much credibility invested in this stuff.
Did you go and read anything by the dissenting climate scientist that I mentioned to you months ago? No? They got a blog stating their conclusions and her reasoning and discussing the uncertainties.
Last post on this and I’m out because it’s late and I’ve got better stuff to do.
Our current administration is taking the panic path and has already damaged our energy delivery system. Taking us down a path that Germany took 8 years ago that resulted in them begging Putin for gas and restarting their coal plants to avoid widespread freezing deaths this winter.
The administration is doing this to massive cheers from the media and other politicians who (whatever you think of my qualifications) aren’t qualified to fill my car with gas (note that I’m not claiming expertise, I’m claiming the ability to reasonably judge the reasonableness of the work, particularly the model inputs and outputs and the viability/economics of various energy sources). I assume you are fine with the admin’s path as are a lot of the political left.
I’m qualified enough to say that we’re making a mistake and reacting to an emergency that probably doesn’t exist and that this path is going to make things worse instead of better. If you choose not to believe that it’s ok with me, but don’t try to convince me that I don’t know things that I know.
Glad bevis is qualified enough to tell us all who to trust - and it’s him!
Credentialism makes my teeth itch.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that it does.
Also, note that there’s no substantive aspect to your retort. Just smug smartsssery that overstates what I said. I’m not saying you should trust me. I don’t care if you do or don’t. Either way you’re going to share in the misery when this crap goes south. Hell, if you’re driving or heating your house or buying groceries you already are.
I’m merely suggesting that people think for themselves and consider other views. The fact that my suggestion seems to bother you so indicates that you want those who disagree with you to STFU. Like the stuff Twitter was doing that you found so compelling - it was shutting those people up so you don’t have your views challenged. Your confidence in your opinions is very loud but paper thin.
I know I’m right on this (this being the models and our energy source choices) I I don’t care if you believe it. But the fact that you’re not even willing to evaluate opposing voices says something not too good about your intellectual honesty. And no I’m not talking about Republican politicians or even my opinions. Just bringing up that there are serious objective scientists that disagree with the herd really sets some of y’all off. I wonder why you so fear alternative thoughts and opinions by people that are every bit as expert as those you endorse?
‘and reacting to an emergency that probably doesn’t exist’
Except that all indications are that it does.
‘and consider other views’
Like dismissing climate change measures as ‘panic?’
‘Just bringing up that there are serious objective scientists that disagree with the herd’
Does the serious objective scientists list include Viscount Monckton? It usually does.
Look, I'm sorry having fringe crank views marks you out as a fringe crank. As the old evolution-deniers used to say, that's how they treated Einstein at first. Except it wasn't.
"they can’t line up even in a purely mathematical sense with the larger number of experts in the relevant fields who disagree with you."
Purely irrelevant. QA, you clearly have no idea of criteria for the degree of accuracy of any scientific theory.
But there's more than scientific accuracy at work. If scientific accuracy were sufficent, the Republican Party would be coming up with its own solutions, not in abject denial. Hence the moral and intellectual weight of the majority of the scientific community set against the gibbering idiocy of, say, Tucker Carlson and decades of deliberate disinformation by the fossil fuel industry.
bevis, your argument is 'trust me, I'm the greatest expert here.'
I don't need a huge counterargument other than pointing out that's a fallacy.
Thank you to Prof. Adler's spokesperson.
It's fascinating how you don't have any sense at all that people have any obligation at all to avoid causing themselves entirely predictable problems. Or that people who didn't cause their own problems actually deserve more sympathy than people who authored their own problems.
Bonus: Rare footage of the most recent Conspirator selection process
'people have any obligation at all to avoid causing themselves entirely predictable problems.'
Which brings us full circle to climate change.
People cause problems for themselves all the time, Brett.
They drive too fast, eat or drink too much, smoke, don't exercise, are less than diligent at work, make plainly stupid investments, don't do their homework, on and on.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't sympathize when they suffer terrible consequences, like Griner did. Remember, she wasn't smuggling kilos of heroin. But you're fine with her rotting in a Russian prison for nine years for that, while being full of outrage about the treatment of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists.
Hmm.
...and what is your contribution to reversing "climate change"?
Assuming that global warming is actually a big problem, not a benefit…
This is probably the absolute worst case for how to deal with externalities.
1. The conduct has positive externalities, too, such as enhanced agricultural productivity, and improved climate in colder areas. In fact, there’s a good argument that, at present, the positive externalities dominate.
2. There are no localized effects at all, given atmospheric mixing.
3. There isn't really any practical alternative to the conduct.
Indeed, tort law is not designed nor is it wel equipped to deal with the tragedy of the commons except that it does make some lawyers very rich.
What does any of that have to do with using tort law to deal with externalities?
So this is some bullshit.
Assuming global warming is a thing, presto you come out with STILL not doing anything about it!
Dude, that's a sign you're being outcome oriented to the hilt, and not being objective
To the substance:
-We have rock-solid models of what increases in temperature would do, and 1) the agricultural productivity is nonexistent after a quite small temp increase - plants have a pretty narrow temp band, and 2) the additional energy in the system means vastly worse weather; it's simplistic to think yay Iceland will be lovely now
-"there’s a good argument that, at present, the positive externalities dominate" is pulled right out of your hat.
-who cares if there is no localized effect? Still an externality that distorts the proper distribution of resources.
-That's not even part of the assumption.
You engaged with the brief, which is better than anyone else around here has done. But you did such a slapdash job you just underscored how little information and reality enter into it.
'there’s a good argument that, at present, the positive externalities dominate.'
The famine in the Horn Of Africa and the ongoing drought in the Mid West alone suggest this is utterly divorced from reality.
improved climate in colder areas.
This idea of yours that everything can just shift toward the nearer pole is bizarre.
In the southern hemisphere, for example, there is no land between the tip of South America and Antarctica. There's nowhere to grow all those crops.
And of course the earth is not actually a cylinder.
Bellmore, with, "improved climate in colder areas," you drag your argument down to a level too simplistic to take seriously. On what basis do you presume that warming colder areas , "improves," them? Is it on a premise that climate perfection gets measured by human agricultural standards. What if humans benefit more when climate diversity supports ecological diversity, instead of diminishing it? On that basis, colder areas are indispensable.
By the way, do you have any sense—in terms of measurable effects—to what extent warm areas and cold areas remain ecologically interdependent? How do you assess the natural commerce of bird migrations, or the transport of heat, nutrients, species, and developmental opportunities for bio-organisms by ocean currents of varying temperatures and directions? Your commentary suggests either that you understand that, or that you are totally heedless with regard to it. If it is the former, you are the only person in the world with that insight.
And by the way, what do you think comparative biological productivity looks like between, for instance, western Nebraska, and a comparable area of the circumpolar southern ocean? What basis would you propose to deliver numbers to make that comparison? And can you guess why I chose western Nebraska?
It seems there is no such thing as societal responsibility for those who don't believe in society.
Persuading you. Yeah, they give me the tough ones.
"There are nowhere near as many educated and experienced people on each side."
That is irrelevant to the degree of veracity of any scientific claim.
but she did do something stupid.
"We have rock-solid models of what increases in temperature would do,"
You have freaking lost your ever loving mind. You know that, right? Rock solid? You're nuts.
"1) the agricultural productivity is nonexistent after a quite small temp increase – plants have a pretty narrow temp band,"
You are nuts. You genuinely are nuts. No, plants do NOT have a pretty narrow temperature band. I mean, seriously, have you ever grown anything besides maybe a tropical house plant? And, are you even aware that parts of the planet are too COLD? We're talking about climate zones moving North (In the Northern hemisphere, natch.) about 80 miles.
"2) the additional energy in the system means vastly worse weather;"
You actually managed to get the research backwards.
"Little had been known about whether the ongoing climate changes had already affected observed global tropical cyclones (TCs). This study revealed that a climate change in global TC activity over 1980 to 2018 has been more evident in the spatial pattern of TC occurrence, rather than the number of global TCs. The total effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, aerosols, and volcanic eruptions on global TC distribution is spatially inhomogeneous: Increases and decreases in TC occurrence depend on the region. However, our climate models project decreases in the number of global TCs toward the end of the 21st century due to the dominant effect of greenhouse gases on decreasing TC occurrence in most of the tropics, consistent with many previous studies."
Let me ask you: Which happens in larger numbers? Deaths from too much heat, or deaths from too much cold? 600k from heat, 4.5 million from cold. It's not even close!
You're not going by the science, you're a believer in a secular religion!
We have very good models about what increasing C02 in the atmosphere would do. We have *rock solid* models about what increasing the temp would do. To the point that there's no more low hanging fruit to fund there - it's all about the photochemical aspects now.
Not that you have bothered to learn anything about this - you're just using your own pure reason.
You are nuts. You genuinely are nuts. No, plants do NOT have a pretty narrow temperature band.
Ever tried to grow a plant that grows in NY in Northern CA? Some can handle it; the vast majority cannot.
Because you love citing to your own authority, here is some actual experts to tell you you may be nuts:
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/
Many crops start to experience stress at temperatures above 32° to 35°C, although this depends on crop type and water availability. Models show that each degree of added warmth can cause a 3 to 7 percent loss in the yields of some important crops, such as corn and soybeans.
Also check out many of the other effects they cite - it's almost like they took longer to think about this than you did!
And then you take my 'weather' and turn that into the quite a bit more narrow 'global tropical cyclones.' It's incredible to me that you're this sincere and this lacking in any kind of self-critical governors.
It's an article of faith in your religion that the climate is just exactly perfect everywhere, and any change must be for the worse.
But the truth is, if you warm the planet up, things get worse in some places, and better in other places. How do you handle that? Do the people enjoying positive externalities have to chip in?
You solve that by insanely denying that anybody experiences positive externalities.
'No, plants do NOT have a pretty narrow temperature band.'
Some are hardier and more adaptable than others, certainly, but not all, and there's going to be a lot of adaptation required, assuming the plants survive both the climactic chaos and the loss of biodiversity, which is not a given. If the bees go, there go we.
Tropical cyclones? The problem with those isn't that there are more of them, true, so far, it's that they're individually getting more and more intense and destructive.
Brett uses the studies he doesn't believe in when it suits his purposes.
And he ignores floods and droughts and heat-waves to focus precisely on one thing if it helps him pretend this the studies agree with his take, when they explicitly do not.
Nige, for every plant that's on the warm end of it's growth zone, there will be one on the cold end of that zone. Excepting cases like Australia, where the zone may just migrate out to sea, of course.
Which means it is very much a fact that global warming improves things in some places. And not just Iceland, either.
Again, do the people who confront positive externalities have to ante up?
"And he ignores floods and droughts and heat-waves"
Are you under some kind of impression that floods and droughts and heat waves are new to this world?
Are you under some kind of impression that floods and droughts and heat waves are new to this world?
Yes, Brett, that's my argument - that we've never had floods or droughts before and that's the issue with climate change.
'Which means it is very much a fact that global warming improves things in some places.'
If only these supposed improvements were happening entirely in isolation and not occurring simultaneously with widespread catastrophes and disruptions affecting the entire planetary eco-system.
'Again, do the people who confront positive externalities have to ante up?'
Survival of a disaster might be classed as a positive externality, I suppose, but people generally prefer to avoid disaster where possible.
‘Are you under some kind of impression that floods and droughts and heat waves are new to this world?’
Ah. You should have just said you don’t know what climate change actually is.
Well, maybe stupid, maybe careless, as she claims.
In any case, the punishment hardly fits the crime, does it? Would there have been a fuss if she had gotten a one-year sentence, say, or if there were not a widespread perception, correct IMO, that she was treated harshly for political reasons?
Besides, we sympathize with people who suffer consequences for all the behavior I mention above. Somehow, when it's a Black lesbian we have a lot of folks getting all puritanical. Says more about them than it does about Griner.
The punishment does seem harsh to Americans, but in many parts of the world the punishment is about what would be expected. Is the harshness of the sentence connected with the terrible state of US-Russia relations? Probably strongly connected. But when Ms. Griner went to Russia, relations were not much better. So what she chanced was without notarized evidence of a medical prescription was especially stupid.
I don't see that Griner's being a black lesbian influenced very much in Russia, though it plays well among certain groups in the US. She was a highly visible American who broke the law at a politically unfavorable time.
I don’t see that Griner’s being a black lesbian influenced very much in Russia, though it plays well among certain groups in the US.
No. It probably didn't influence the Russians, but I think it very clearly is responsible for the contempt many in the US, including some of our commenters, have shown for her.
Why else do people like Bumble feel it necessary to mention those characteristics? Suppose a heterosexual white male had done the same thing as Griner, and met with the same consequences. Would any of those traits have been brought up repeatedly in discussions of the matter?
Bernard,
No disagreement about American comments. As you say, why bring those up. They were in all likelihood irrelevant in Russia
"Why else do people like Bumble feel it necessary to mention those characteristics?"
Maybe because it transparently played into why the administration chose her to rescue instead of Whelan.
it transparently played into why the administration chose her to rescue instead of Whelan.
Transparently!!!
Oh fuck off, Brett. You have zero idea what went on in the negotiations, so you let your paranoid flag fly.
It couldn't be because the Russians really wanted to keep Whelan, of course. Not to you. It absolutely has to be a deliberate choice by Biden, because you can't accept any other possibility.
You're deranged.
And I suppose you think Brinton was chosen for his obvious reliability, too, had nothing to do with his being a lunatic. Likewise Levine.
The bottom line is that this is an administration that prioritizes color and oddball sexual orientations over... basically everything. They pick people to make gestures, not do jobs.
Griener getting picked over the marine is just another manifestation of that.
See? Told you it was bitterness and resentment. You don’t get long tedious arguments justifying gloating over the marine getting shoved in a Russian jail because he made a stupid mistake and recklessly broke the law in a foreign country. Heck you don’t even get snark about him being a *disgraced* marine the way you get snark about her being black and lesbian.
S_0,
You distort bevis' argument. Multiple scientists who have been leaders in climate science or who have been recognized by their National Academies of science for their work in atmospheric science have suddenly found it difficult to get a paper published as soon as they have expressed a view slightly out of alignment with the Greta Thunberg children's crusade.
As the Climate Panic Now din grows louder, we saw a highly recognized expert dimished from a departmental speaking engagement at MIT.
Such actions are a direct assault on Galilean Science. We have seen exactly the same happen with respect to SARS-CoV-2. Only one view, that of the CDC and NIH, is considered acceptable by the party in power despite many of the pronouncement of the CDC (especially those from 2020) having been proven incorrect.
It's entirely scientific to be proven incorrect. It's another thing entirely to spread lies and disinformation.
the Greta Thunberg children’s crusade.
the Climate Panic Now
Sure looks, Don, you're as much into this climate change as culture war nonsense as the right is.
As to your substantive point, academic backbiting is a thing across all disciplines. But so too is not giving time to cranks.
You've done nothing to distinguish the two, and seem to think that not only is it all the first, but that this somehow proves the climate change skeptics are right.
That's not an argument, it's sour grapes pretending like it's an argument.
Nope, S_0. Not so. Greta and her crusaders are frauds. Christopher Moncton and his entourage are frauds on the other side. Unfortunately many non-scientists are gullible and driven by base politics.
I respect both Kerry Emanuel and Dick Lindzen of MIT. I respect both Judith Curry and William Collins (Berkeley).
I respect Steve Koonin and Mike McCracken. They all making plausible arguments. They all have certain holes in their arguments. They are all good scientists.
I have answered your objection. I have heard a lot of BS from people with all opinions.
None of the scientists whom I named denies that their is some anthropogenically forced temperature anomaly. The dispute is all about how much and what to do about it.
There are many "no regrets" policies that can be adopted. But not selling gas fired outdoor grills in CA is not one of them.
The fact is that the response of the climate to atmospheric concentration is logarithmic. Therefore, many policies of adaptation should pragmatically have higher priority than only BEVs by 1935. Biofuel hybrids can in fact have a net minus carbon footprint with the right fuel source, but CA rules then out.
Greta and her crusaders are frauds.
Well, if you say so. I'm glad you know not only whether they are correct, but their internal motives.
I don't care much who you respect or not on this. Do you think your dropping of what names you agree with and which you don't makes you a trustworthy authority? No, it just shows you know some names. Who you trust is important to you, I'm sure. But you've done nothing to establish sufficient authority that it'll matter to anyone else.
And you undercut any pretense of objective authority by using the contemptuous right-wing rhetoric of unestablished fraud and 'children’s crusade' and 'climate panic' and the like you've given up any pretense of objectivity. You enjoy coming off like the learned objective one in the room, and then you go and drop those turds.
I have my opinions on climate change science and policy. They may agree with you more than you think. But I keep my own counsel because I'm aware how appeal to authority works, which is about the maximum depth we're going to get here, absent some copypastas.
You see, your answer betrays you lack of seriousness on this topic.You clearly never even looked to see who the people I named are or what their opinions are. If you had you'd know that they hold widely different opinions and one could not agree with them all. As for calling out examples "name dropping" that is a cheap shot and the kind of total nonsense that I'd expect from a high school debater, not from an attempt to has a serious identification of the range of respected academic opinions. All the people I named with their wide range of opinion and expertise in atmospheric science have excellent credentials. None of them are or claim to be the "pope of climate science' as do Thunberg and Moncton.
As for panic, when politicians and activists press for actions that do not stand either economic or scientific scrutiny, panic is what is promoted. You don't like the word? You seem to fall back on right wing conspiracy theory, whenever you disagree.
When I put your comments all together I also find the result is "sour grapes looking for an argument." I give you credit for a god turn of phrase.
As for Thunberg. she is little more than a teenage mouth piece who is known to fly first class. She obviously has NO training in relevant disciplines, yet she puts herself out as the prophet of a new age of climate responsibility. Yes, she is a fraud. Don't like knowing that? Too bad.
As for child's crusade, what else is it when kids who know no relevant science are whipped into a frenzey of marches. They contribute nothing to understanding and nothing to finding realtistic solutions. And all you can call that is "right wing rhetoric."
'Greta and her crusaders are frauds.'
What, they don't actually want governments to take action in climate change?
'You clearly never even looked to see who the people I named are or what their opinions are.'
How many fucking times do you think I'm going to wade through these fucking lists and find the usual suspects - a load of Moncktons and a bevy of engineers who used to or still work for the oil industry?
'She obviously has NO training in relevant disciplines,'
She has never claimed to.
'yet she puts herself out as the prophet of a new age of climate responsibility.
She's one activist amongst many.
'Yes, she is a fraud.'
You haven't shown that at all.
'As for child’s crusade, what else is it when kids who know no relevant science are whipped into a frenzey of marches.'
It's what happens when the adults refuse to take actions against a well-understood threat that will make their future bleaker for no good reason. They may not be scientists, they are stakeholders.
"In the southern hemisphere, for example, there is no land between the tip of South America and Antarctica. There’s nowhere to grow all those crops."
Yeah, and the average summer high in Tierra del Fuego is about 48 degrees, so go ahead and pretend we're looking at temperatures where the tip of South America will get too hot for agriculture. Just go ahead.
Have you looked at South America lately?
Loos like it narrows substantially as you go south.
"On what basis do you presume that warming colder areas , “improves,” them?"
Because the only way warming can't improve things SOMEWHERE is if you assume that every point on the globe that isn't already optimal is on the hot side of optimal. Is that a remotely sensible assumption? Even a tiny bit plausible?
I'm trying to seriously engage here: If somebody is doing something that has net negative externalities, but in some places the externalities are positive, how do you handle that? Does the person engaged in the conduct get credit for the positive side of the ledger? Do the people getting the benefits have to kick in on compensating the losers?
I'm trying to engage, which is not remotely the same thing as just going "Global warming, Boo!", or signing on to idiotic articles of faith like "Warming makes things worse in every last place and time!" I'm trying to explore the implications of global warming being a realistic threat, not a horror movie boogieman.
Now, on the theme of treating global warming as a realistic, not supernatural, threat, let's get a starting point clear:
Global warming consists mostly of the lows rising, not the highs getting higher. Winter warms more than summer. Night more than day. Close to the poles more than the equator.
This is exactly what anybody with the slightest grounding in thermodynamics would predict. We're not talking about increased insolation, after all. CO2 doesn't bring in more sunlight, it interferes with IR radiating away. It's added insulation, not added heat.
This isn't some fantasy of "climate deniers", it's what every climate scientist will tell you. It's utterly uncontroversial: Warming is mostly the lows rising, not the highs. Temperatures becoming more uniform.
That's not necessarily good if they go up enough: Temperatures are pretty darned consistent on the surface of Venus, after all. But it does imply certain advantages within limits.
Second, it's a total fantasy that we know exactly what warming will do to plant growth. It's not remotely cut and dried.
'Winter warms more than summer.'
All those summer heatwaves across the globe must be imaginary. Along with the droughts and crop failures.
Brett, you cannot switch between 'some positive effects exist' and 'positive effects will overcome the negative effects'
Quit it.
This doesn't make sense. There is more *net* IR/heat. It enters and is prevented from radiating away. This is like a bucket with a large hole under a faucet. If the faucet and hole are in balance, the water exits at the rate it enters. Reduce the size of the hole without reducing the flow of water and the bucket fills to overflowing. If IR/heat comes in but the CO2 "insulation" keeps it from leaving, that results in net increased heat overall and our "heat bucket" overflows.
Also, consider what the heat is going to do to sea levels when it warms up the cold areas. It's going to create coastal flooding where most of the world's population lives. It's going to invade groundwater resources and reduce fresh water. It's going to flood farms and fields and unbalance coastal fisheries. Think famine and mass migration. So even if, somewhere, the extra heat makes life a little better, refugees are going to target those places for their new lives. No one gets a good deal out this even if warmer weather means a second or third annual crop.