25 February 2007

Sunday Brunch

There cannot be a "conservative environmentalism" for any recognizable values of "conservative" or "environmentalism."

7 comments:

erp said...

Please elaborate.

David said...

My hope in the Sunday Brunch posts is more to spark discussion than to lay down bloglaw, but I'm pretty happy with what I said about the subject here at BrothersJudd.

Susan's Husband said...

What struck me, though, was the parallel to "my views on American foreign policy":http://blog.thought-mesh.net/archives/2007/02/my_country_because_its_r.php. In broad strokes, both views start with the view that our society is the thing of highest importance. We then attempt to arrange that which is outside to suit our society. In both cases, the long term view is like pays back like. In terms of environmentalism, one should be careful and conservative (in both senses of the word) because it is eventually damaging to our society to do otherwise. Similarily, our interests are not served by abusing and exploiting other nations, but by attempting to elevate them to our own level of liberty and prosperity.

In both cases, the common countervailing ideology puts a higher value on something outside of our society, either "the environment" or "international law", both of which are basically mystically received value sets that operate with little regard (if not outright disdain) for humans.

P.S. Nice picture, erp.

erp said...

Thanks SH. We had some studio pictures taken recently and I thought this one was a particularly good likeness.

David, you've laid out the problem very well. The environmentalists are merely another part of the lefty coalition and don't care any more about conservation than the feminists care about women's welfare.

David said...

erp: Yep. The real question is whether environmentalism exists except as camouflage for socialism.

SH: This dovetails nicely with our discussion of cap and trade regulatory schemes. The question when it comes to fisheries is how does the government know how many tons of fish is the "right" amount. The government simply doesn't have the right incentives. Bureaucrats will talk about preserving the fish, but what if the best use of the fish is to fish them to extinction? Will the government react to changing market conditions? The problem with the government isn't incompetence, or only incompetence. The problem is corruption, including corruption by the democratic process. Teachers unions are coddled not so much because they are unions as because they are powerful vote providers. The regulatory process will be captured by someone who's interests are different from an owner's interest, because there is no owner. Fisherman will want certain rules, environmentalists will want certain rules, consumers and the oxymoronic consumer advocates will want certain rules. They will all be accommodated according to their political strength. There's no reason to think that the result will look anything like what a wealth maximizing owner would impose.

Peter: I agree with what you say, but I find it depressing. There can be no rational discourse without shared fundamental assumptions. Now you're saying that the discussion is controlled by those whose assumptions are gibberish to us. Worse, to have any hope of in any way ameliorating their head long rush into penury and barbarism, we have to adopt their vocabulary and pretend that we share their assumptions.

erp said...

David, We'll have to wait until socialism is dead and all its vestal virgins have gone on to their reward before we can tackle environmental matters in a logical way. Right now it's so mired in myth, it's almost impossible to find out what's really happening. The Love Canal, Two-Mile Island and other environmental "disasters" have turned out not to have been disasters at all, but I doubt one out of hundred, even a thousand know it.

I have a rule of thumb that works well for me. If the moonbats are supporting an issue, I know I'm on the opposite side, it matters not what the issue is. Saves me a lot of time researching and pondering.

Susan's Husband said...

I was just throwing it out as a potential compromise position for those who aren't libertarians. I would be prefer a purely private scheme but I think not a place we'll get in my lifetime. One might also consider the limit setting as part way down a good slippery slope :-).