A recent study published in Nature claims that global warming kills phytoplankton. A blogger claims that this means the end of life on Earth. Kevin Drum argues that we could avoid certain death if we were willing to pay another $100 a year on our electric bill. Megan McArdle, in a remarkably balanced post, points out that this is nonsense on stilts.
But that's not what I wanted to talk about. One of the reasons that I'm skeptical about global warming is that is too perfectly fits the agenda of the far left. Capitalism is evil, the environment uber alles, our only hope is that we cede power to international institutions of technocracy and, by the way, we're going to need a whole lot more taxes. If your recommended solution to a new, serious problem that pops up out of nowhere is exactly the same as the solutions you were recommending to our pre-existing problems, you'll have to excuse me if I suspect that the new problem is more convenient than real.
Which is why its somewhat annoying that, more and more, my preferred policy responses to the possibility of induced global climate change are exactly the same as my responses to most other policy problems we have: we (meaning the entire human race) need to dump regulation and focus on getting as rich as we can as fast as we can. At this point in history, richer functionally means smarter. Richer societies can spend more money on pure research and on applied research. We can put more minds to work trying to understand the problems facing us and more minds means more possible solutions. Once we have a theoretical solution, being richer improves our chances of being able to turn theory into practice and makes us better able to withstand whatever problems global warming causes.
That of course assumes that global warming is a real threat. On the other hand, if it's not a threat, well, we'll just have to make do with being richer and smarter.
Contrast that with the left's plan to impoverish the world because of the chance that global warming is a real threat. We will live miserable lives and still -- taking the science seriously -- suffer global warming. If the science is wrong, we will have made ourselves poor for no reason at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
From a related article from Science Magazine: "Indeed, Worm's team estimates that phytoplankton numbers have plummeted 40% since 1950."
It seems to me that this 40% global reduction has had remarkably little impact. Something seems fishy.
How are you going to make bankers smarter?
And even if you did, how would you make them honest?
Making bankers richer does not make us richer. Quite the opposite.
If anybody were really smart, he'd be worrying about how to handle the next ice age. Global warming may or may not be coming, but the next ice age is a certainty.
Regarding Bret's question, since 1950, an entire new class of small ocean creatures has been discovered. Last I heard, nobody had any idea what they do, although they are probably the most numerous creatures.
Cannot recall where I came across that, but it was a good source.
If anybody were really smart, he'd be worrying about how to handle the next ice age.
Maybe for you shortsighted, selfish types worried about humans, but those of us rooting for the phytoplankton can hardly wait. Harry, do you mean smart like this?
Once again science speaks from on high and once again it is received as eternal truth. There is no place for Bret's scepticism based on screaming implausibility that a decline that dramatic would hardly go unnoticed all these years by those who go down to the sea in ships. What are you, some kind of obscurantist? What is your alternative theory of phytoplankton? I suppose you believe we can just keep on truckin' and G-D will take care of everything?
But wait. We must read the fine print. Here is the lead researcher as reported by the BBC:
Sorry:
If the planet continues to warm in line with projections of computer models of climate, the overall decline in phytoplankton might be expected to continue.
But, said, Daniel Boyce, that was not certain.
"It's tempting to say there will be further declines, but on the other hand there could be other drivers of change, so I don't think that saying 'temperature rise brings a phytoplankton decline' is the end of the picture," he said.
But I'm sure he will be grateful for his Nobel prize nonetheless.
I dunno about science speaking on high (and anyhow, if you read my post, I'm as dubious as Bret). One guy presents one paper, using one integrative technique.
A few reporters say, that's interesting.
I doubt you have looked to see whether 'science' is excited about the paper.
The way I see it, there could have been considerable declines (or increases) over considerable areas that might not have been noticed. The eastern tropical Pacific, where you can have hurricanes that no human ever observes, would be a likely place.
And since we already know (thanks to El Nino-SO observations) that we don't know the baseline for that part of the world, even if there were observations, we might not be able to tell whether there is a trend.
It is my supposition, based on both historical and astronomical suggestions, that the next ice age probably started some centuries ago, we just haven't noticed yet.
[The entire human race needs] to dump regulation and focus on getting as rich as we can as fast as we can. ... Richer societies can spend more money on pure research and on applied research.
Sounds swell, but is there any practical application for this idea?
What kind of regulation would you jettison? Health & safety stuff? Environmental protection stuff?
China has precious little of those, and is gettin' rich quick, but they're also not spending any money on any kind of research other than military in nature.
Meanwhile, Europe is widely regarded as being much more heavily regulated than are the U.S., but it's in Europe that we find the leading edge of research into alternative energy and basic physics.
So I think that culture matters much more than absolute wealth, when speaking of "research".
But I'm very curious about what kind of regulation that you think could spur productivity to a massive extent, if we'd only throw off its yoke, without also resulting in massive negative effects.
And, even if you did somehow double wealth in, say, America, how are you going to free up those resources for "basic research"?
The American public has very little appetite for funding non-military research. Witness the failure of the Superconducting Super Collider, and that NASA's budget is under twenty billion dollars, which is literally pocket change in America - whereas, according to Reuters, "the retail dollar value of U.S. carbonated soft drink sales was up about 2.7 percent to $72 billion" in 2007, so America's appetite for sugar water is roughly FOUR TIMES what America's willing to spend on space exploration. And of course, there's the overwhelming public opposition to nuclear-powered spacecraft, despite that currently being the best available option.
Or take the miserly $5 billion spent, over sixteen years, on the National Ignition Facility. If America was really into basic science, or were truly concerned about AGW, then one might think that America would be spending $5 billion a year on tinkering with and proving out such game-changing technology as controlled nuclear fusion.
So, while I have a warm and fuzzy feeling for sentiments such as "let's get richer and smarter", A) I don't think we can get much richer, net of the negative effects, by "dumping regulation" - look at China's ongoing environmental carnage; and B) even if we could, how do you plan to get the individual owners of that wealth to give it over to society for pure and applied research, rather than spending it on More Better Toys?
If you can answer those questions, then you've got a winner.
[The entire human race needs] to dump regulation and focus on getting as rich as we can as fast as we can. ... Richer societies can spend more money on pure research and on applied research.
Sounds swell, but is there any practical application for this idea?
What kind of regulation would you jettison? Health & safety stuff? Environmental protection stuff?
China has precious little of those, and is gettin' rich quick, but they're also not spending any money on any kind of research other than military in nature.
Meanwhile, Europe is widely regarded as being much more heavily regulated than are the U.S., but it's in Europe that we find the leading edge of research into alternative energy and basic physics.
So I think that culture matters much more than absolute wealth, when speaking of "research".
But I'm very curious about what kind of regulation that you think could spur productivity to a massive extent, if we'd only throw off its yoke, without also resulting in massive negative effects.
And, even if you did somehow double wealth in, say, America, how are you going to free up those resources for "basic research"?
The American public has very little appetite for funding non-military research. Witness the failure of the Superconducting Super Collider, and that NASA's budget is under twenty billion dollars, which is literally pocket change in America - whereas, according to Reuters, "the retail dollar value of U.S. carbonated soft drink sales was up about 2.7 percent to $72 billion" in 2007, so America's appetite for sugar water is roughly FOUR TIMES what America's willing to spend on space exploration. And of course, there's the overwhelming public opposition to nuclear-powered spacecraft, despite that currently being the best available option.
Or take the miserly $5 billion spent, over sixteen years, on the National Ignition Facility. If America was really into basic science, or were truly concerned about AGW, then one might think that America would be spending $5 billion a year on tinkering with and proving out such game-changing technology as controlled nuclear fusion.
So, while I have a warm and fuzzy feeling for sentiments such as "let's get richer and smarter", A) I don't think we can get much richer, net of the negative effects, by "dumping regulation" - look at China's ongoing environmental carnage; and B) even if we could, how do you plan to get the individual owners of that wealth to give it over to society for pure and applied research, rather than spending it on More Better Toys?
If you can answer those questions, then you've got a winner.
Rough,
All good points and questions, and part of the reason that wealth creation in most or all political systems is so difficult to maximize.
But I'll step out on a limb and answer your questions in terms of what I would do (knowing full well they're not currently politically viable).
"What kind of regulation would you jettison? Health & safety stuff?"
I would jettison all health and safety regulations at the federal level. States are then free to regulate however they choose. People are then free to move to the states that have the right balance of protection and opportunity for them. Note this relies on my fundamental assumption that adults should have the liberty to choose that balance and if they choose foolishly, they should bear the cost.
"Environmental protection stuff"
Again, at the federal level I would remove nearly all environmental regulation. The exception would be if upstream and upwind states (or entities within those states), damage common resources (air, water, etc.) of downstream and downwind states (yes, I realize that the devil's in the details, but I'm confident the details can be worked out).
"But I'm very curious about what kind of regulation that you think could spur productivity"
Regulation, nearly by definition, inhibits productivity, so there is no regulation that can spur productivity overall.
"...how are you going to free up those resources for "basic research"?"
This very question relies on two assumptions that I reject out-of-hand: first, that government control of resources ends up directing more money to "basic research" (how is that different from non-basic research? It seems to mean research that is unlikely to have any value ever and certainly it won't have value anytime soon); and second, that incremental commercially viable advancement can't get us to the solutions we need at least as fast as government directed research. Just like I don't personally believe that there's an intelligent designer that created humans, I believe there doesn't need to be a supposedly intelligent government deciding what research to do to provide for us all in the future.
"...how do you plan to get the individual owners of that wealth to give it over to society for pure and applied research, rather than spending it on More Better Toys?"
The whole point is that since the owners of wealth want "More Better Toys" and a nicer world in which to play with said toys, they'll be happy via commercial transactions to fund those things.
New slogan: Tax the Toys!
The odds that, absent government force, ANY research money would be invested in cleaning up anything seem to me to be pretty close to zero.
In the days before force was applied, it was zero.
Why isn't that the default assumption?
Harry,
Do you really believe that the federal government is solely and completely responsible for all research related to products and technologies that make the environment cleaner? Like vacuum cleaners, steam cleaners, carpet cleaners, soaps, detergents, cleansers, scouring pads, sealants, polishes, air filters, air purifiers, air conditioners, heaters, mowers, mulchers, blowers, trimmers, composters, and on and on and on?
Secondly, note that my preference was that the federal government stay out of it whenever possible, not that all governments stay out of environmental regulation.
Different types of pollution.
I was mentally reviewing all 5 volumes of Singer's 'History of Technology,' which goes up to the beginning of the period when governments began to control pollutants by regulation (as opposed to the courts via nuisance suits), and I could not recall a single example of any discharge ever being reduced by business decisions.
The only examples of any kind of cleanup that were private were the water companies, and their efforts were feeble enough.
The first disinfected water supply dates from 1904.
Some of your examples, polishes, for example, would be regarded by most environmentalists (and even by me) as adding to pollution.
Not a single business decision, ever?
I'm not exactly sure where your dividing line is, but I'll give some examples.
Taxis switching from horse to motorcar basically eliminated the vast quantities or feces and urine that polluted the streets of cities?
People and businesses switching from wood and coal burning to oil, natural gas, nuclear, and electric burners furnaces, stoves, foundries, generators, etc. ?
How about the business decision to invent and sell the flush toilet (which, by the way, is by far my favorite invention of all time)?
How about the invention of the telegraph, telephone, television, telecommuting, tele-etc. which saves a huge amount of transport and the associated pollution?
”I would jettison all health and safety regulations at the federal level. States are then free to regulate however they choose. People are then free to move to the states that have the right balance of protection and opportunity for them.”
While I would support this for social and political reasons, I really don't see how this would result in greater productivity, except via people agreeing to accept greater health and safety risks and working faster thereby – but we all know that cutting corners eventually catches up to us... BP, for instance...
“This very question relies on two assumptions that I reject out-of-hand: first, that government control of resources ends up directing more money to "basic research" (how is that different from non-basic research? It seems to mean research that is unlikely to have any value ever and certainly it won't have value anytime soon)...”
Basic research often does mean that which has no known commercial application, but that's absolutely not the same as “having no value”. And because there's no known commercial application, only governments direct resources to such research: Examples would include the Large Hadron Collider, the Hubble and Chandra space observatories, the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers, ARPANET and USENET, the World Wide Web and the Mosaic web browser, many of the functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration...
”The whole point is that since the owners of wealth want 'More Better Toys' and a nicer world in which to play with said toys, they'll be happy via commercial transactions to fund those things.”
Not always. For instance, consider the National Ignition Facility. If it works, not only will it probably lead to a “nicer world”, but it'll generate trillions of dollars worth of revenues for plant operators.
Given the many funding battles that the NIF has faced, and the massive degree to which the program has exceeded initial cost estimates, some company or commercial organization could've cut a sweet deal in return for kicking in a paltry half-billion bucks or so – exclusive rights to use the technology for multiple decades.
The Detroit International Bridge Co. has already spent that much just preparing the supporting infrastructure for an additional bridge they hope to build over the Detroit River, between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario; the full cost of the project is projected to be between $3 - $5 billion; and the only reward is an expected $70 million a year in toll revenues, a meager 2% annual ROI.
So, why not put together a consortium to roll the dice on something that could easily provide a 200% annual ROI, should it work?
That kinda high-reward scenario oughta bring out the high-risk players, right?
And yet, no private dough. Why is that?
Rough wrote: "...but that's absolutely not the same as “having no value”."
Sorry. I meant "having no value" to me. I don't much care about colliders, observatories, and rovers; my opinion is that the Internet would've been invented anyway without the government (and Al Gore); and my opinion is that most of the useful functions of NOAA would've been provide by private concerns if NOAA didn't exist.
The question is why someone else should be able to raid my wallet to fund their pet projects, whether or not they might possibly, eventually, if pigs fly, have a decent ROI, given they have no value to me. Why can't I raid their wallets to buy a nice new Ferrari. Hey, I'd even be willing to give them a ride if they did so.
Rough wrote: "And yet, no private dough. Why is that?"
My opinion is that it's probably a wildly stupid investment at this point. Governments don't care if they make wildly stupid investments and neither do you since it's a pet project of yours funded out of my wallet and the wallets of lots of poor and middle class people.
Sure, eventually the government will get lucky on one of these wildly stupid investments and then everyone will point to it and say, "Look at how wonderful government investments are!!!" What they miss is the unseen opportunities lost due to government investments taken as a whole and as a result, we're all poorer.
As a last note, I'll readily admit to being a little extreme in my statements above and I do think that it's possible to have a balance that includes some government directed funding as I wrote in some of the later paragraphs in this old post.
My opinion is that it's probably a wildly stupid investment at this point.
Eh, super-high-risk, but that's not necessarily stupid, as we've discussed several times over at Great Guys.
In any case, one could say the same about any basic research which has no immediate or foreseeable practical or commercial application, which is why the owners of wealth will NEVER "be happy via commercial transactions to fund those things."
However, I agree with your point about how using OPM is a very slippery slope.
Bret, not one of those adoptions was made because they were cleaner. They were all made because they were cheaper, or faster.
If business decisions could EVER be driven by notions of cleanliness for the sake of cleanliness, utilities would not be spending so much money opposing scrubbers.
Harry Eagar wrote: "...not one of those adoptions was made because they were cleaner."
Turns out that cheaper, faster, more efficient often means less pollution as well. That's the whole point of why regulation isn't so much needed, especially at the federal level.
"Turns out that cheaper, faster, more efficient often means less pollution as well. That's the whole point of why regulation isn't so much needed, especially at the federal level."
But that's exactly why regulation is needed - what do we do to incentivize industry to pollute less while we're waiting for "cheaper, faster, more efficient" to be invented?
Also, regulation spurs development of "cheaper, faster, more efficient" by providing necessity.
Further, some industries don't adopt "cheaper, faster, more efficient" even when it's available, for whatever reason, so what do we do then if not regulate?
The U.S. steel industry is a classic example of an industry which decided that it was more desirable to operate with 19th century tech, despite significant advances being available, while the Indians and Japanese were building steel industries with the latest tech. As you no doubt recall, the end result was that pollution from steel mills did abate quite significantly in America - 'cause 80% of 'em got their lunches eaten and closed for good.
Unions killed the U.S. steel industry.
Nope. Refusal to adopt advanced techniques killed it. Bethlehem built the last big mill in the United States at Burns Harbor, spent $5 billion on it, and didn't bother to use modern methods.
Notably, the advanced techniques came from countries erp would consider socialist, like Austria and Japan.
Steel is the classic example of an industry that contradicts all the soothing bromides of the free-market theorists.
Rough wrote: "...'cause 80% of 'em got their lunches eaten and closed for good."
How does that refute my point? Steel, worldwide still got more efficient and less polluting without U.S. government regulation.
P.S. I'm off for a week vacation starting tomorrow morning and I won't have access to the Internet.
Harry Eagar wrote: "Steel is the classic example of an industry that contradicts all the soothing bromides of the free-market theorists."
How? Is there not enough steel worldwide? Has it not improved worldwide over time?
Enough and too much, because many countries want to have a steel infrastructure whether it makes economic sense or not.
But I was thinking of the American steel business, which managed to go from biggest and, in many but not all respects, best, to piddling.
Some of this was just indifference. A business in my county wanted can lids with labels on them -- hundreds of millions of them. Nothing difficult about this.
No US steel company would submit a bid. The Japanese were happy to.
Post a Comment