Climate Liberalism in Public Choice

A nice review of Climate Liberalism by Jordan Lofthouse (and a less nice one by Robert Bradley).

The economics journal Public Choice has published a nice review of my book, Climate Liberalism: Perspectives on Liberty, Property, and Pollution. The review is by Jordan Lofthouse.

The review begins:

Across the globe, many significant environmental challenges exist, but man-made climate change may be the most widespread and potentially dangerous. For decades, many scholars, policymakers, and activists have discussed ways to address air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. However, scholars in the classical-liberal tradition have understudied and underemphasized the issues surrounding climate change. Of course, many classical-liberal scholars have worked on this topic, but a conspicuous gap in the literature remains for such an enormous social issue . . .

The edited volume Climate Liberalism: Perspectives on Liberty, Property and Pollution helps to fill this gap. A variety of contributors discuss pollution- and climate-related issues from a classical-liberal perspective using multidisciplinary approaches, including philosophy, law, economics, and political science. The volume is a useful resource for understanding practical approaches for addressing climate change while also focusing on "preserving individual liberty and maintaining a free and dynamic economic marketplace"

And from later in the review:

Global problems like climate change do not have easy answers. Those answers are made more difficult when complicated with other considerations, including the classical-liberal values of limited government and decentralized authority. However, Climate Liberalism provides insightful and practical perspectives on how to understand and potentially tackle such a pressing social and ecological problem.

The full review is here.

Robert L. Bradley, Jr. of the Institute for Energy Research offers less favorable commentary on the book at Law & Liberty (which previously ran a favorable review). Bradley notes that climate science is uncertain, that warming can produce costs as well as benefits, and that government intervention to address climate change may be costly, clumsy, and a threat of its own. These are all points noted in the book, but Bradley breezes by that. Indeed, he never really engages with any of the actual arguments made by various chapters. Time permitting, I will respond in more detail.

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

A variety of contributors discuss pollution- and climate-related issues from a classical-liberal perspective using multidisciplinary approaches, including philosophy, law, economics, and political science. The volume is a useful resource for understanding practical approaches for addressing climate change while also focusing on "preserving individual liberty and maintaining a free and dynamic economic marketplace"

Absent from the list of multi-disciplinary approaches: ecology. That does not portend a serious discussion.

[JasonT20]

Absent from the list of multi-disciplinary approaches: ecology. That does not portend a serious discussion.

Well, if none of the contributors have any expertise in scientific fields related to the study of climate, then I would think that they would simply assume that the reports of major professional organizations in those fields, the IPCC, the National Academies of Science, etc. are correct. Then they can go on to talk only about the political, economic, and legal aspects of the problem for which they do have expertise. If the consensus of climate science professionals is wrong, they would be the wrong people to argue for that.

[Nige]

'Global problems like climate change do not have easy answers.'

They do, actually. The causes of and solutions to climate change are well understood. The real questions are why they haven't been implemented.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not much of a question, actually. You fixate on "solutions" that involve radically changing the way people live, and for the worse, and you're shocked you get push-back?

You tell people to stop eating meat, and expect to eat bugs, stop expecting to be able to travel long distances or own you own car, plan on freezing in the dark, and you can't understand why people don't gleefully sign on to your program?

The real question here is why you've been able to get as far as you have, with such a widely unpopular program!

[Nige]

Yeah, that's the pro-climate-change spie - lies, distortion, fake fearmongering to counter the real problems ahead. The choice is pretty stark, and if the changes are severe it's because clear warnings were deliberately ignored, you're just prolonging it. None of it needs it be as hard as you claim, but it's in your political interest to make it as hard a possible.

[Brett Bellmore]

The bottom line is that you want to impose extreme changes on society, so you claim an extreme threat is looming. People notice that you dismiss out of hand solutions that don't radically disrupt society, solutions anybody who REALLY thought there was an emergency would be open to, and draw conclusions from it.

I think some of the people going on about climate change are sincere, because they act like they sincerely think there's a dire threat, and don't reject solutions like nuclear power or geoengineering. Others act like it's just an excuse to reorder society.

You're pretty clearly in that latter camp.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit finding bad faith in people disagreeing with you.

[Nige]

No, you are lying, the threat came first, then the solutions, then the delays and the lying and the over-commitment to the things that are causing and exacerbating the threat.

'and don’t reject solutions like nuclear power or geoengineering.'

I love how you arbitrarily reason backwards, from people not liking the big dumb expensive 'solutions' with uncertain outcomes favoured by people who don't want anything to actually change while also making lots of money, to millions of people all over the world conspiring together to get you to eat fucking bugs.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Double Dumbfuck Twins have spoken.

[Nige]

'Thanks for showing us who you really are.'

[Brett Bellmore]

It's an unavoidable fact that nuclear power is the only scalable, reliable, and safe source of power around that's carbon neutral.

It is, objectively, as safe as solar or wind, even taking rare accidents into account, while being enormously more reliable. It provides power 24/7/365, without regard to random weather events, without need for massive battery farms.

I get that you have an irrational fear and/or hatred of the technology, but you'd overcome that if you genuinely thought this was an emergency, instead of treating it as an excuse to redesign all of society according to your preferences.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with you on nuclear being helpful, though don't join on the panacea status you give it.

Bottom line - reasonable people can differ on this. There are risks. You and I may think they are clearly worth it, but millions do not. That is not bad faith, no matter how certain you are you're right. This is a policy discussion, not a factual one.

[Nige]

It is an easily avoidable fact.

'if you genuinely thought this was an emergency,'

Like I say, assuming your conclusions, reasoning backwards.

I'm sorry other people get a say in the design of society. It must be very annoying for you.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm assuming my conclusions less than you are. The safety and reliability record of nuclear power is an established fact, not an extrapolation from computer models like your hysterical fears of warming.

[Nige]

You're assuming that nuclear is a silver bullet. It's expensive, it takes ages to get up and running, it has the most deadly poisonous byproduct that can be used to make weapons, and everybody hates it.

This is the same petulance that killed and hurt so many people during covid. You have no viable soutions, will accept no solutions that you claim are against your bizarre political stances, and your one proposed solution is laughably unviable, so you're going to deny the problem in real until it's too late, block all efforts to deal with the direct effects, and blame everyone but yourselves for the mess.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Then burn coal.

We've got plenty of it, and it really doesn't cause all the problems that you attribute to it, including this climate change BS.

And as to the Wuhan Flu, Big Government Fascism did more harm than good.

[Nige]

Who the fuck in the US will tolerate coal pollution? You can force it on poor people, certainly, but smoke will blow around the place and get soot on all the rich people places and in rich people lungs.

Big Government Fascist Trump?

[JasonT20]

Trump promised coal country that he would bring back their jobs if he was elected in 2016. How did that work out? Maybe coal demand has been decreasing in the U.S. for decades because it simply isn't as economical to mine it and manage the pollution as you seem to think. Look up coal ash disasters, and like Nige, I am fairly certain that Republican voters outside of places that depend on coal jobs don't want the air pollution from it either.

[JasonT20]

You’re assuming that nuclear is a silver bullet. It’s expensive, it takes ages to get up and running, it has the most deadly poisonous byproduct that can be used to make weapons, and everybody hates it.

I have seen some videos by science/tech YouTubers that I know aren't climate denialists that have talked about potential developments in nuclear that could address some of those issues. But those potential developments are in the same category as all of the other 'exciting' things they talk about on those channels. They seem really cool, that they would be great if they work, but they're still in the realm of R&D and years away from commercialization.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nuclear, just as it is, is a better solution than what the Watermelons have been pushing. Technical advances would be nice, but they're not really needed.

The cost is primarily due to regulatory churn, not technical issues. The new reactor models will be just as expensive as the old ones if that can't be resolved, and if it is resolved the present models would be plenty economical enough.

The fundamental problem with nuclear is that the regulatory authorities see their job as winding the industry down, not rationally regulating it.

[Rossami]

"lies, distortion, fake fearmongering" is a quite accurate description of the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change position.

[Nige]

Derp.

[JasonT20]

They do, actually. The causes of and solutions to climate change are well understood. The real questions are why they haven’t been implemented.

I don't think it is that hard to understand why that happened. While the scientific evidence was surely sufficient to justify substantial action by the early 90s, the problem was convincing the general public of the need to start changing behaviors then for a problem that would see the largest burdens of the problem occurring after most of their lifetimes. That is a psychological and ethical problem. And it left fertile ground for business interests to sow doubt in order to avoid reducing their profits.

I actually remember first hearing from people claiming skepticism about global warming in the early 90s. This really kicked up in response to the Bush 41 administration participating in international talks in Rio in 1992. Coinciding with and after James Hansen's testimony to Congress in 1988, countries around the world were starting to take the issue seriously.

This was coming off of the Montreal Protocol, agreed to in 1987, which mandated phasing out CFCs to protect the essential Ozone Layer of the atmosphere. This, by the way, has been very successful. Current trends suggest that the Ozone Layer could return to the state it was in before we started using those kinds of compounds within a few decades.

But ozone depletion was something people could being a problem to them in the near future if nothing was done about it. Everyone has gotten a sunburn at one time or another, and skin cancer has only become more of a concern since then. (Long gone are 'tanning oils' that were SPF 6 or so.) People in the 90s seeing graphs that showed the global average temperature raising by ~2 deg Celsius in 100 years? That was simply harder to get people to worry about it.

And it really seems to have come down to modern cultures in developed countries that had simply assumed that future generations were going to have it better and easier. They would have all the wealth and technology they would need to deal with it then. Consumerism made the present always the priority. The future would take care of itself.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

The moral argument is everything: why is Africa , with 6% of our energy usage, being barred from the utterly needed progress that requires fossil fuels. Like the pushing of abortion and homosexuality on the continent (by Obama and Biden) this is another fatal misstepr. Under Biden I count 7 coupls in Africa. Africa is beginning to hate us. Read the military and policy journals for the undeniability of this hate.

[JasonT20]

The moral argument is everything: why is Africa , with 6% of our energy usage, being barred from the utterly needed progress that requires fossil fuels.

Why does it require fossil fuels? Since you're just tossing the number out there, if Africa really does only consume 6% of the energy that the U.S. does, how does that compare the amount of renewable energy that the U.S. produces? (Quick search puts renewables as 21.5% of all utility-scale energy production in the U.S. for 2022.)

The moral argument then shifts, and that is the thing that the right doesn't like. Developing countries could increase their energy production and reduce their carbon footprint if developed countries would use some of the wealth that they generated over the last 200 years of burning fossil fuels to make that happen. But that is wealth redistribution, the right says, and that is wrong.

It really doesn't help your case to try and make it a moral issue. (Of course, your comment about abortion and homosexuality also gives you away, there.)

[Lee Moore]

Bradley notes that climate science is uncertain, that warming can produce costs as well as benefits

I think you got that the wrong way round. And I think you confused warming with higher CO2 concentration. Other than that Prof, your play was great.

He is making the point that higher CO2 concentration produces benefits.

[Brett Bellmore]

Higher temperatures produce benefits, too. Remember, we still have enormously more people dying of low temperatures than high temperatures. Not dying of the cold certainly qualifies as a benefit.

[Lee Moore]

Not if you regard humans as a parasitical CO2 belching life form.

[Nige]

As opposed to all the human collateral damage sacrificed to the glorious triumph of the fossil-fuelitariat.

[Nige]

'Higher temperatures produce benefits, too.'

We already know about the various benefits and drawbacks of different temperatures. So long as they're stable.

[Nige]

Yeah, well, people make profits during the most horrific of wars. Not an argument for war. Unless you're evil.

[Lee Moore]

What have higher crop yields, and the additional growth of plant life around the globe, got to do with war and profiting from war ?

[Nige]

What a pity crops need water and stable weather patterns.

[JasonT20]

CO2 is plant food!

I suppose it would be too much to ask Lee to cite the research that shows that crop yields have increased because of the higher CO2 concentration. As far as I can tell, no such research exists because it isn't true. Perhaps botanists have even tried controlled experiments in greenhouses where CO2 concentration was the only variable. But it certainly isn't the only variable in actual crops.

And as Nige points out, water is far more of a limiting factor in crop yields than CO2 is. And I don't think the future prospects of increasing fresh water supplies is good under business as usual.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Perhaps botanists have even tried controlled experiments in greenhouses where CO2 concentration was the only variable."

There's no perhaps about it, commercial greenhouses use CO2 supplementation on a routine basis because it works.

Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide
Supplementation

Note that the CO2 level for peak growth rates just, I suppose by pure coincidence [/sarc] happens to be the level prevalent when most of the plants we're familiar with evolved...

[JasonT20]

But it certainly isn’t the only variable in actual crops.

You missed this, of course. Proving that increasing CO2 in a greenhouse increases growth rates of plants (which I never doubted) does nothing on its own to support Lee's contention that crop yields will increase. Too many other essential factors are going to change as well to look only to rising CO2 levels.

More CO2 -> more photosynthesis (all other variables held constant) is just too obvious of a proposition to dismiss out of hand, which I most certainly did not, and you quickly found supporting research. (To repeat, my whole point was that Lee was not citing any research because any research that considered the effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere in the future would also consider all of the other expected changes to climate.) Even the paper you cited makes some important notes about CO2 supplementation in greenhouses: (Quoting only the ones not specific to greenhouse supplementation)

Pros:

"Increase in photosynthesis results in increased growth
rates and biomass production."
"It helps to reduce transpiration and increases water use
efficiency, resulting in reduced water use during crop
production."

Cons:

"Plants may not show a positive response to supplemental
CO2 because of other limiting factors such as nutrients,
water and light. All factors need to be at optimum levels."
"An excess CO2 level can be toxic to plants as well as humans."

At the end of the paper, Things to remember:
"Never allow CO2 to exceed plant requirements. Have an
alert system when CO2 level reaches 2,000 parts per mil-
lion, because a high level of CO2 (5,000 parts per million
and above) can kill people."
"Use a pure form of CO2, and provide enough oxygen for
combustion to eliminate toxic gases." (I note this because burning fossil fuels does more than increase CO2 levels. Other gases that are harmful to humans and the environment are produced as well.)
"Maintain ideal growing condition like proper lighting,
moisture, temperature, nutrition and humidity to make
CO2 supplementation effective."
"Plants may need additional nutrition because of faster
growth rates."

If you really want to know how increasing CO2 levels will affect crop yields along with all of the other projected effects to climate, then you should look to research that does exactly that. Here is one of the first things I found when I searched that question:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops

The big takeaway from that article describing some recent (as of 2016) research is that the increasing CO2 levels under a business as usual scenario could offset much of the damage to crop yields due to increased temperatures (which causes something called "stomatic stress" on plants) and drier conditions. (Effects would be different depending on whether the crops use C3 or C4 photosynthesis. Most plants on Earth are C3, which is less water efficient, and those see larger benefits from increasing CO2. C4 crops like corn are more water efficient already and see less benefit from higher CO2 levels.)