While global warming no longer seems to be the issue of the day (that is, I am not hearing about it every five minutes on cable news), there is still much fear and trepidation about what exactly we are to do about it. I have decided to proceed as though Global Warming is a significant problem and that it is man-made, or at least significantly so, despite yet being convinced of this last point. I want to take a look at what kind of approaches we have open to us in the event of such a dire scenario.
Philosophically, we generally have two structures to work with - a capitalist/market-based solution or a socialist/collectivist solution.
The Socialist Solution
A socialist solution holds the collective good (as defined in units as small as a single company’s union, a state, nation or even a global community but no smaller than two), above everything as principle. Global warming, like global anything (hunger, disease, war, etc..) is best solved through collectives owning and distributing (by force against the individual) the solutions to these problems through central planning. If a threat is seen as dire, a collective-wide plan will be established by popular elites and experts to deal with the solution in the spirit of utilitarianism. Compliance will be mandatory for all individuals who are part of the collective. This solution includes anything that follows these principles - carbon taxes, carbon caps, mandated alternative energies, subsidies to energy corporations, etc…
Socialism declares that people are not educated, motivated or otherwise able to make the best decision for themselves so the collective, on their behalf, will help them comply which what the collective deems is in their best rational interest. Moreover, people’s greed and selfishness creates exploitative relationships between people (virtual masters and slaves) and also between people and resources.
The Capitalist Solution
A capitalist solution holds individual rights above everything as principle. Global warming, like global anything (hunger, disease, war, etc..) is best solved through the voluntary cooperation of individuals all acting in their own self interest as determined by their own priorities. In the same way you don’t have to compel people to defend themselves from hordes of Hunns, you should not need to compel people to defend against a global catastrophe such as the worst prognostics of global warming.
If the threat is seen as dire, people on all levels of the world will act voluntarily - they won’t need to be forced. Individuals will cut down on their carbon use. Corporations will invest in earth-friendly technology. Insurance companies will start assessing risk. People will readily give up money, time and energy to preserve themselves in the face of such a threat.
Any other industry-wide, market-wide or even global-wide crisis is dealt with in this manner. Consider global sickness and disease: the market produced and built healthcare systems (through insurance and risk management) purely out of self-interest. Look at the crisis of financial accountability - the market creates independent standards and audit commissions to self-regulate. Even the global problem of standardizing communication and media devices - all done by people acting in self-interest without government.
Thus, if there is a disconnect between industry leaders and the more extreme global warming predictions, it’s not because of bottom line self-interest, but clearly because business leaders have not been convinced of the problem. The other option is that there really isn’t a major problem, but we are presuming the worst in this article.
What Course Have We Followed Thus Far?
Advocates of the socialist solution would argue that capitalism has got us into this mess. Rather than seeing the benefits of voluntary trade for self-interest, they think that greed and selfishness are exploitative, and inherently create a loser and a winner. While this can happen, it is easily dispelled by counting the number of double “thank yous” in any individuals day. When purchasing a lunch for example, the cashier getting the money says “thank you” and the customer getting the food says “thank you.” Both have benefited and both were selfish and greedy, only looking out for their own interest.
Self-interest is not merely rampant money-grabbing or wanton resource exploitation. A capitalist with any sense would strategize, invest and plan (all of which have major costs and loses even up front - heck, every start up business runs an average of two years with no profit - people put their life savings or even a life savings worth of debt on the line) in order to meet future problems. Profitable businessmen don’t get where they are by ignorance of these abstract concepts.
Despite this, socialists have won the day regarding the environment, and have instituted laws and regulations all over the globe. Capitalism has been effectively banned in the oceans, certain lands and especially the air and atmosphere. Not only has capitalism been banned in these places, but socialism has prevailed in that a central monopolistic body is regulating these resources and distributing them based on their own wisdom and preferences.
Socialist “protections” on the environment have carried with them the seeds of environmental destruction. In the case of man-made global warming, the consequences are precisely the result of socialist interventions (even those motivated with only the purest of intentions).
Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at exactly how this has happened, and if there is any hope in a capitalist solution fixing it.
Ah, an article after my own heart.
“When purchasing a lunch for example, the cashier getting the money says “thank you” and the customer getting the food says “thank you.” Both have benefited and both were selfish and greedy, only looking out for their own interest.”
You’ve been listening or reading John Stossel, haven’t you?
But if I could channel Stossel further, doesn’t he, a libertarian say, that there are certain limits to Capitalism, especially in regards to the environment. Because Capitalism is a slow beast to turn, it doesn’t immediately change directions with the winds of demand. And if global warming is as dire of a situation as Gore would have us believe (and for the sake of the argument we will say it is) and needing IMMEDIATE, drastic measures to reverse, is Capitalism ALONE the best option? Isn’t SOME regulation necessary? That’s what Stossel said at a speech of his that I attended last year; some government regulation is necessary to protect environmental issues that Capitalism can’t always address. A great example is a company that secretly dumps waste to save on costs or employs child laborers. Eventually Capitalism and societal mores will catch up with that company, but not until our environment has been damaged or children abused.
One other thought… for those interested in the economic viability of current ideas to fight global warming, read Bjorn Lomborg’s Cool It book.
That said, global warming is a crock and probably part of the reason that Colin doesn’t hear about it as much is that the scientific evidence is mounting against it. For one, the earth hasn’t warmed since 2001 (in fact, recently it has slightly cooled) and this past winter was the coldest in 20 years for the globe as a whole (here in Minnesota, we just got 2 feet of snow this week because of our very below-normal temperatures).
I’ll save my ideas on why capitalism solves the problem for tomorrow. But I will address these two:
I have always liked John Stossel. The double thank you came from him.
How does the government find out about this company or these abusers until after the fact? Why is the government any more able to deal with these problems in an immediate way? Government’s only ability different than private entities is force. In other words, the only way they can respond to increasing potential for waste dumping and abuse is increasing use of force. It invariably leads to totalitarianism (even if it is hundreds of years in the future).
As I will argue, it is in everyone’s long term benefit to work these out with freedom, even though there will be some short-term problems.
Good point… I wasn’t so much arguing for that side as repeating what I’ve heard Stossel say, who, like you, is a libertarian. Sounds like you don’t agree with him on that point.
Good food for thought. I look forward to tomorrow’s post.
Stossel and I are on fairly different ends of the libertarian spectrum. We’d agree on a lot, but he still favors intervention in places that I would not.
This isn’t rocket science. a gradually rising carbon tax, as we should have done in 1974, combined with an offsetting tax credit for non carbon based sources of energy would work very nicely. Bonus points, it will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There is plenty of sources of alternative energy, but until there is a permanent floor on the price of oil via taxes no one will make a true commitment. Everyone who tried in the 80’s got killed when oil dropped to $12.00 a barrel in the the early 90’s.
Alas, this sensible solution will never happen since the capitalism side hates the word tax and the socialism side only wants to control everyones life with regulations. Also,
Sounds like I’m a John Stossel Libertarian…who knew?
Colin wrote, “How does the government find out about this company or these abusers until after the fact? Why is the government any more able to deal with these problems in an immediate way?”
Your argument presumes that any “infraction” is a one-time event. Child labour or slavery probably aren’t good examples, because you would agree that force is required to free those people. But let’s take the toxic dumping scenario: if the government catches a company dumping toxic waste, it is probably not the first or last time that the company will dump. Are you suggesting that nothing should be done until consumers boycott the company and purchase from a company that does not dump toxic waste?
Really the question is: where are they dumping the waste? I kind of want to save this for tomorrow… but…
If they are dumping the waste in your or my backyard, then we have a legal precedent with or without a government. No one would argue that if you put a pile of filth on my lawn, I have every right to seek justice. However, if it is being dumped in an area being “preserved” as commons by government, then government created that problem in the first place, really. There are no “consumers” to perform a boycott in such a case - because “everyone” owns that land/water/air. In other words, that problem of a polluter dumping in commons is caused by socialism. That’s not hard to disagree with - but it is hard to see how capitalism might fix this. I’ll try it out tomorrow.
Where would you get the idea that by consumers I meant anything other than that polluting company’s customers? How can you say the company doesn’t have any customers because an individual does not own (for example) the lake that was polluted? Either you aren’t making a lick of sense, or I’m lacking any comprehension abilities.
Anyway, your argument doesn’t make any sense *even after* you change the meaning of all the words…if ‘everyone’ believed that ‘everyone’ owned the land, then nobody would accept pollution of said land, would they?
We’ll discuss further tomorrow…