Global warming is perhaps the most discussed “global” issue in news media today. Turn on the radio, television, or hop onto the internet and somehow the issue of global warming is waiting to be debated or touted as the impending crisis of the 21st century. However, the real crisis behind the issue of global warming is freedom.
Never mind that global warming proponents would like to control your car, where and how often you drive, how much energy you consume, where you live, and all things livestock related, society nods their head and tips their hat to such notions. After all, no one really minds as long as these are suggestions or “encouragements.” Enthusiasts discuss their ideas and most people replace at least one light bulb in their house.
Politicians around the world are lobbying for better climate control laws via global treaties such as the Kyoto Treaty. In fact, the U.S. Congress is working on legislation surrounding climate change. However, aside from emission-control state laws most legislation has a small trickle down affect being aimed at corporations rather than individuals. The hat tipping and light-bulb changing continues and family life is relatively unimpacted.
Stop to consider for a moment what would happen if these aforementioned “encouragements” became law. How these laws would be enforced? The only way to enforce climate change laws is to restrict the freedom of individuals. Once a suggestion becomes law, the choice to comply is removed or rather, it is becomes a non-choice of compliance or penalty. Perhaps many people would not mind small penalties for using non-incandescent bulbs in their homes. In fact, most people don’t mind that cars are mandated to be more fuel efficient. Yet, the philosophy behind global climate change legislation is dangerous. The implication behind the “need” for such laws is that of removing the choice from individuals and giving control to governing authorities.
It grows immediately more concerning when such ideas potentially impact entire families on a personal level. Recently, politicians and professors in both Australia and Britain suggested that population control and baby carbon taxes should be strongly considered. Australian editor, Michael Cook explains:
The Aussie proposals may sound wacky, but in truth they are the logical conclusion to today’s trend for measuring humanity by its waste and ‘carbon footprint’. After all, if human life is seen as fundamentally polluting, then why shouldn’t the creation of new human life be viewed as irresponsible and problematic?
The viewpoint of regulating individual actions is based on the idea that others have the right and responsibility to control your choices and penalize you accordingly. It goes beyond choosing to calculate your carbon footprint to deciding who has a right to reproduce and breathe air. It assumes that life is owned by a collective group of strangers rather than one’s self.
“While every individual should be cherished, mankind’s reproduction is akin to the replication of a virus. We are swamping the planet and devouring its resources.”-North West England MEP, Chris Davies
The first loss of personal freedom may just be a light bulb, or car, however it when carried further it will inevitably lead to the marginalization of the natural rights to life and liberty and possibly the loss of both.
Great article!
Good article, Sadie.
I have to admit, when I first watched Al Gore’s documentary, I was somewhat alarmed. Much in the same way I was alarmed when I was told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. However, I have to say that I am unconvinced that global warming is caused by human beings at all. I am no scientist, but I think it is more likely that global warming is caused by the sun rather than carbon dioxide. Even if carbon dioxide is a major factor, humans produce relatively little carbon dioxide compared to the oceans, volcanoes, etc.
What makes me even more skeptical of the theory of human-caused global warming is the industry that is being built around it, and we all know the relationship between industry and legislation is our country. My prediction is that this will go down in history the biggest scientific blunder of all time once the warming trends begin to reverse in a few years. And you can bet your bottom dollar someone will take credit for it, and say that it was human intervention that thwarted our ultimate destruction.
There is so much going on in this article it’s difficult to reply. I will however try to point out a few things. So without entering the discussion of Global Warming legitimacy…
1. I don’t think any Christian could, if they sat back and thoughtfully considered it, agree with carbon tax on life. Having such a tax suggests that life is an inherently bad thing, and the bible gives the exact other opinion quite clearly.
2. It therefore seems that your very near to making a slippery slop argument; light bulbs today, taxing babies tomorrow. There may be some who would follow in such a fashion, but I don’t think that it would be a lot. When I first heard about the baby taxing proposals I would under the impression that they didn’t get much support.
3. You said; “It assumes that life is owned by a collective group of strangers rather than one’s self.” I think a better way, perhaps a more honest way, of stating the idea behind the environmental movement would be to say something along the lines of; “It assumes that the earth is a common property and who it is polluted should be determined by the people as a whole.” You might be able to derive your statement out of this, but I don’t think it’s their intentions to take away freedom, in fact it’s likely not even on most of their radars.
4. A question I always have for libertarians now: why is freedom better anyways? Seriously, if in giving up freedom ones standard of living is increased, why should one take the freedom? And see if this can be answered without a slippery slop argument involving dictatorships and such.
I don’t know honestly. I use to be a libertarian, and I still have on my shelf, but I’m just not convinced freedom should always be the highest goal anymore. I’m not saying it’s not important, but it might not be the end all like it has to be in libertarianism and this kind of article.
Ack, messed up that final link in my comment. Sorry.
What makes me even more skeptical of the theory of human-caused global warming is the industry that is being built around it, and we all know the relationship between industry and legislation is our country.
I agree with you here Chris. I think science and humanity is served by the people who believe this is a problem who share their views scientifically, patiently and without fear-mongering. However, much of what I see in the global warming talk is paranoia and fear-politics akin to terrorism or something. I am immediately suspect when people’s basic message on a subject is: don’t ask questions, we have no time, we must act or the sky will start to fall!
why is freedom better anyways? Seriously, if in giving up freedom ones standard of living is increased, why should one take the freedom? And see if this can be answered without a slippery slop argument involving dictatorships and such.
Giving up freedom does not lead to an increase in living standards at all. In fact, the empirical evidence (what little we have, as opposed to theoretical evidence) seems to indicate that living standards in the universal sense are best served by freedom. I think Milton Friedman makes a great case for this is the timeless specials: free to choose (1980 version). I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone.
Aside from this pragmatic argument, there is an ethical component as well: namely, that men have no right to enslave other men. Freedom is the natural state of man - from a Christian perspective, it is the essence of God’s creation of man (I suppose a Calvinist would view this whole thing differently).
“The viewpoint of regulating individual actions is based on the idea that others have the right and responsibility to control your choices and penalize you accordingly.”
Well, duh. Of course our choices need to be controlled and penalties need to exist. Anarchy, anyone? This is a basic problem I have with libertarianism–people are not good enough inside to trust them to live without laws. I’m quite happy to trade some “freedom” for some safety. When I’m safe then I can enjoy the freedoms that I do have.
OK, that was a general statement, and somewhat off topic. As for global warming, I suspect we have lots more to learn on the topic, but I take the scientists seriously (scientists do not equal politicians). I see global warming, or any of the other environmental issues, as a long term result of an overindulgent lifestyle. Expressing our freedom to over consume is not without consequences.
Thainamu, anarchy is different from libertarianism. Anarchists want no government and no laws. Libertarians believe government and laws are necessary and right. Libertarians do believe in a minimalist form of government, but that’s not the same as no government at all.
“Seriously, if in giving up freedom ones standard of living is increased, why should one take the freedom?”
I’d just like to have the option to choose. I might choose to give up some rights in order to gain an increased standard of living. But I might not. I’d like to have the choice, rather than having someone in Austin or in Washingon D.C. deciding for me.
“Thainamu, anarchy is different from libertarianism. Anarchists want no government and no laws. Libertarians believe government and laws are necessary and right. Libertarians do believe in a minimalist form of government, but that’s not the same as no government at all.”
Libertarianism’s weakness is applying itself to all situations. For example, I am very much a libertarian when it comes to smoking bans; I believe that it is a huge encroachment on liberty to force bars and people in their cars (California) to stop smoking for the sake of weak scientific evidence regarding secondhand smoke. But on drugs, I am not a libertarian. There are greater issues at risk than individual freedom with regard to the legal status of drugs. For one, just by making a drug legal doesn’t mean its demand will go down. For example, meth is a huge problem in rural Minnesota. And it isn’t just a problem because it is illegal; it has very negative side effects, ruining families all over the place. Meth addicts lose all interest in the basics of life. This is where the analogy with the alcohol prohibition falls apart: alcohol can be consumed without negative side effects and is generally not addictive, while meth and other illicit drugs are quite the opposite.
Libertarianism has a religious zeal for “market forces.” In contrast, I believe that the free market is useful in some instances, not so much in others.
“As for global warming, I suspect we have lots more to learn on the topic, but I take the scientists seriously (scientists do not equal politicians).”
Thainamu, science has been compromised by politics when it comes to global warming. It is so politically incorrect to question the official theory of global warming that it equates those who do with holocaust deniers. That may sound extreme, but this is the literal truth. There is no question that the earth is going through a warming trend, but not all scientists agree on the cause. That’s where the controversy is.
However, many scientists are afraid to question the human-caused global warming because it could literally destroy their livelihoods and reputations. Much of the available scientific funding revolves around the assumption that the commonly-held theory is true. So if you are a scientist and need funding it would be most “inconvenient” for you not to accept the theory as “truth”. For a scientist to deny human produced global warming its almost (but not quite) like a scientist not believing in evolution. The industry that is revolving around global warming ensures that the public will not be educated on the basis of sound science.
Thainamu, read this: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
It’s written entirely by scientists.
We have to also consider the selfish motivations of scientists, especially those that stand to benefit via grants, projects and jobs - especially from zealous governments empowered by the fear of a global catastrophe.
Darius,
Thanks for the link. Here is an excerpt of pertinent information about the science from the National Post article…
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
Yeah, I just posted on my blog about that letter.
If you’re a global warming believer, you should read Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. He believes that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, yet says that it isn’t something to be scared of. He gives the argument that warming would actually BENEFIT the world, by SAVING more people than it kills. It is a must-read book! Another absolutely necessary read if you want all the facts about climate change is Chris Horner’s A Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.
“We have to also consider the selfish motivations of scientists, especially those that stand to benefit via grants, projects and jobs - especially from zealous governments empowered by the fear of a global catastrophe.”
Exactly. Hence my argument about the politics corrupting the science. I know personally of instances where monies are even being made available to those in philosophical ranks to help make the case for global warming. Seminars are being held with professors from diverse academic backgrounds that have the cumulative effect of formulating the global warming doctrine - and all paid for by global warming money. It is beyond science at this point. Even those in social sciences are receiving global warming grant money for think tanks and the like. So this is an industry. It has lobbying power. Corporations have even begun to capitalize on it, and who can blame them? It’s everywhere. And if you listen to the nightly news, the question about the legitimacy of the theory of human causation never comes up even once. This argument is even being used as a justification for human depopulation.
It’s just the most recent attempt at wiping out humanity. Global starvation was the last end run, but failed once people realized that our technological advances in agriculture made starvation an impossibility. At the heart of it all is some very sick, twisted self-hatred of mankind. It’s subconscious in most people, thus they would never admit to it. Yet, when man has been reduced to merely a compilation of cells and is not better than the fly that lands upon his shoe, why wouldn’t they hate mankind? We are cursed and live out our years with much pain and toil. Why would we want to pass that along to our children if this is all there is?
^^^^
That rant was difficult to follow.
Sadie,
What a great article! Thank you.
I have to say, though, that it is only half an article. The line of thinking that you have gone down REQUIRES that you tell us what should be done. You have assumed in your article that Climate Change is a fact (an assumption that I, too, will make). If over-consumption by Kansans destroys the property of Floridians on the coast, hasn’t freedom had the same effect as tyranny? I completely agree with your premise that Climate Change is being used as a stick (much like “terrorism”) but don’t tell us it’s being handled wrong without telling us how to handle it right.
Slippery Slope arguments must always be considered, because that is pretty well always how evil establishes itself. That said, I don’t think your slippery slope from incandescent light bulbs to baby bans reflects a reality we need be concerned with. Banning harmful products is nothing new. When was the last time you saw a gallon of lead paint at the Home Depot?
“That said, I don’t think your slippery slope from incandescent light bulbs to baby bans reflects a reality we need be concerned with.”
It might be when leading minds in Europe are calling for baby bans.
gurr8 said: “If over-consumption by Kansans destroys the property of Floridians on the coast, hasn’t freedom had the same effect as tyranny?”
Ideally, those responsible for causing the property damage must pay for the damage. In reality, it’s hard to quantify these things. If I use an incandescent light instead of a fluorescent, how do we determine the level of my responsibility for the climate change that caused a tropical storm that destroyed your house? We can’t trace the cause and effect well enough. There isn’t an easy answer to this question.
“It’s just the most recent attempt at wiping out humanity. Global starvation was the last end run, but failed once people realized that our technological advances in agriculture made starvation an impossibility. At the heart of it all is some very sick, twisted self-hatred of mankind…”
This is coming from the guy who called me a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist? Ha ha. But all jokes aside, I actually agree. There is some very real evil here. The rant may have been difficult to follow, but that doesn’t make it less true.
“I have to say, though, that it is only half an article. The line of thinking that you have gone down REQUIRES that you tell us what should be done.”
I disagree, gurr8. Just because someone points out a wrong doesn’t mean they should presume to know how to fix it. Now if Sadie were a politician, that would be a different story. Besides, maybe telling us “what should be done” might have made the article too long and less open for discussion.
Bjorn Lomborg is an amazing scientist. I have followed his work for sometime.
Yeah, I reread my “rant” and it is indeed hard to follow (it made sense in my head :)). Anyway, my point was that humanity, in general, has a death wish. It’s quite subconscious in most people, non-existent in some (primarily Christians), and very literal in others. It is the natural end to the thought that we are no different than larvae. Our choice is to venerate animals or to lower our esteem of mankind. However, the first option is really no different from the latter. Thus, you find both views inherent in the typical secular liberal mindset; save the polar bears while killing off the humans.
Thanks for the great comments and conversation. I will have to join in later after my headache from the classroom day subsides. You all have made some interesting points that I’d rather address (if I can) in a coherent state.
Darius said: “Libertarianism’s weakness is applying itself to all situations.”
I consider that a strength. Would you rather judge a political philosophy by its convenience? Either the tenets of libertarianism are right, or they are wrong. If they are right, they apply regardless of whether we find them convenient.
“For example, I am very much a libertarian when it comes to smoking bans”
It might be more correct to say that you agree with libertarians about smoking bans. You aren’t really a libertarian, though. If you were, you wouldn’t pick and choose when to apply it.
I see what you’re getting at, though. You have a political philosophy that sometimes but not always agrees with libertarianism, so you find libertarianism appealing sometimes, but you have different guiding principles that inform your opinions.
I’m trying to work out my political philosophy right now (one reas I’m taking Social and Political Philosophy at school). My major problems with Libertarianism at the moment can be summed up in a few points:
1. Viewing everything as a person’s property does away with, or at least minimizes, God’s created order for the world.
2. It places the individual as primary, instead of the community.
3. It seems to make freedom an ends to itself.
4. Although I haven’t thought through this one as much, it would seem to go hand in hand with a pragmatic view of morality.
These aren’t arguments against it, but the reasons I cannot agree with it at this point (off the top of my head keep in mind). I should say however, that at this point I still agree with the libertarian principle that all rights are property rights, I see no getting around that.
“Anyway, my point was that humanity, in general, has a death wish. It’s quite subconscious in most people, non-existent in some (primarily Christians), and very literal in others. It is the natural end to the thought that we are no different than larvae. Our choice is to venerate animals or to lower our esteem of mankind.”
I totally agree, but I would even take it a step further. The death wish, ingrained in the human consciousness since the Fall, is more pronounced in those that have the power to make it a reality - idealogues, governments, and elitists. Certainly there is a hierarchy of demonic influence - principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness of this world - but their power is made known by their ceaseless manipulation of the minds of men. Neither God nor the Devil accomplishes his will on the earth apart from mankind.
Bryan’s questions are being discussed in our forums.