What If the Climate Change Catastrophists Actually Have a Point?

Climate change has become so politicized that it’s hard to have a rational discussion about the subject. If you disagree with the statist/Environmentalist/socialist agenda of the Democrats and their media supporters, you are automatically labeled a “denier” of some kind, regardless of what you actually say and believe. For people who oppose that Leftist agenda, opposition often consists of outright refusing to accept the possibility of human activity causing harmful climate change, if for no other reason than to defend free market capitalism. This is understandable, because the catastrophists' position is unequivocally anti-freedom and wrapped up in a socialist push, causing some to conclude that defending freedom necessitates ignoring or minimizing the actual science and facts of anthropogenic climate change.

Some of us remain uncompromisingly true to valuing freedom but reject both positions and try to stay objective about climate. I'm one. And while I listen to both of these sides, sorting through the bullshit to get at the substance of what they’re saying, I depend on certain leading independent  thinkers who are not on either of those sides to help shape my thinking to maintain a balanced view without sacrificing my free market radicalism.

So when one of those thinkers alters his position, I sit up and take notice. One such thinker is Ronald Bailey of Reason. Recently, Bailey ran a column titled Climate Change: How Lucky Do You Feel?, in which he announced a significant alteration (or evolution) in his position on man-made climate change. (His column was seconded by Jonathn H. Adler.) Bailey rejects the hysterical panic-mongers who see “a ‘collapse in society’ in about 10 years.” And he never denied the possibility that climate change may become “a significant problem” longer term. But in his recent article, he goes considerably farther:

I have unhappily concluded, based on the balance of the evidence, that climate change is proceeding faster and is worse than I had earlier judged it to be. There are still big scientific uncertainties, such as just how sensitive the global climate is to a given increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. And the proper public policy remains far from clear. Still, most of the evidence points toward a significantly warmer world by the end of the century—probably more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. Such a temperature increase will definitely have substantial impacts on human beings. (For a more detailed review of current climate science, visit reason.com/climatedata.)

He goes on to discuss various proposed options for dealing with it, divided into three broad categories; Option 1: Privatize It, Option 2: Regulate It, and Option 3: Ignore It. And he concludes:

Will climate change be apocalyptic? Probably not, but the possibility is not zero. So just how lucky do you feel? Frankly, after reviewing the scientific evidence, I'm not feeling nearly as lucky as I once did.

I have great respect for Bailey, especially after reading his terrifically informative book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century, in which he argues that freedom and economic growth, not statism, are the only effective, progressive means of mitigating negative climate effects.

But this one statement raised a nagging question in my mind:

It's time for market-oriented folks to recognize these facts and figure out the best way to handle them. If we don't offer solutions to the public, the only ones on the table will be those proposed by people who misunderstand economic principles or are unfriendly to market capitalism.

“Unfriendly to market capitalism” is extraordinarily generous. “Capitalism hating” is more precise. That aside, “I’m wondering if Bailey and Reason (and others) are leaning more towards catastrophism not so much because they believe it but because they fear that freedom-fighters are losing to the statists. So by giving a nod to the catastrophists, the pro-capitalist forces can more credibly advance their policies and head off the truly catastrophic assault on capitalism being waged by statist/Environmentalist/socialist forces in the name of “saving the planet from global warming.” In short, pro-capitalists need a “seat at the table” so it’s best to get there through the “climate crisis” door.

I may be wrong. In any event, a free market response to the “Green New Deal” thinking that calls for government force to “totally remake the American economy to address the climate crisis” is desperately needed. Bailey remains loyal to his defense of freedom, while  seemingly opening the door to governmental policy solutions: 

Continued economic growth and technological progress would surely help future generations to handle many—even most—of the problems caused by climate change. At the same time, the speed and severity at which the earth now appears to be warming make the wait-and-see approach increasingly risky.

In his latest article, Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change, Bailey highlights a Wall Street Journal article by Ted Nordhaus, who argues that “The deniers and alarmists may make headlines, but behind the scenes, an expert consensus is taking shape on how to respond to global warming.” Nordhaus observes:

Beyond the headlines and social media, where Greta Thunberg, Donald Trump and the online armies of climate “alarmists” and “deniers” do battle, there is a real climate debate bubbling along in scientific journals, conferences and, occasionally, even in the halls of Congress.

I will add that I have seen no evidence that Bailey is backtracking on the wisdom of his book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century. He seems to be building on it.

I’ve been in the camp that climate change is real, humans are contributing significantly though not exclusively to it, likely has both positive as well as negative consequences, and that restrictions or banning of reliable, economical energy would do far more harm than the negatives. I’ll be paying close attention to this debate, and what respected experts like Alex Epstein, Ron Bailey, Michael D. Shellenberger, and other leading pro-capitalists energy/environmental thought leaders have to say about this. 

Related Reading:

‘Climate Denier’: The Leitmotif of the Climate Propagandist

It’s Time to Listen to the ‘Climate Denialists’

The Climate Debate Should Focus on How to Address the Threat of Climate Change, Not Whether Such a Threat Exists--JONATHAN H. ADLER for THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY 

Clean Free Market Policy Beats a Carbon Tax. Here's Why.--JIGAR SHAH AND ROD RICHARDSON for Reason.com

If clean technologies can now compete and win, then we need to open closed markets by removing barriers to participation.

That's the core proposal of clean free market policy. Several free market think tanks (including the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit which publishes Reason) have distilled this insight into The Declaration on Energy Choice & Competition, which calls on government leaders to protect everyone's right to produce, buy, or trade the clean, reliable energy of their choice, and remove barriers to energy competition.

Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change--Ronald Bailey

The Breakthrough Institute's Ted Nordhaus urges Americans to reject both doomism and denialism.

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels—Alex Epstein

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century—Ronald Bailey

Climate Expert Shreds Claims Made By Ocasio-Cortez, Thunberg In Congressional Testimony--Ryan Saavedra for DailyWire.com

Related Viewing:

Fossil fuels are not mankind's enemy--Illinois Channel TV interview with Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

When Climate Dogmatism Meets Energy Reality

From the New Jersey Star-Ledger of January 28, 2020: Murphy just unveiled N.J.'s master plan for energy and made a big pledge to fight climate change

The document lays out the [Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil] Murphy administration’s vision for how to ensure the state reaches its lofty green energy goals: 50% clean energy by 2030, and 100% clean energy by 2050.

The plan is intended to slash the Garden State’s greenhouse gas emissions, reducing New Jersey’s contribution to climate change.

Murphy warned Monday that climate change is direct [sic] threat to New Jersey. He citied [sic] a recent Rutgers University report that said sea levels along New Jersey’s coast are expected to rise more than one foot by 2030 and two feet by 2050.

“Quite frankly, it will be hard for future generations to create their Jersey Shore memories if the Jersey shore becomes only a memory,” the governor said. “We are not gonna let this keep happening without a fight.”

Sounds apocalyptic. Murphy is certainly no slouch in such scary rhetoric. He called his plan "ground zero” for “weaning the state off its century-old addiction to fossil fuels.” Environmentalists are cheering—or are they? Not so fast:

New Jersey got 94% of its energy from natural gas and nuclear power combined in 2018, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Garden State environmentalists are pushing for the state to phase out those two energy sources, but Murphy’s plan allows for both to continue.

The master plan defines clean energy as being “carbon-neutral." That includes nuclear power and allows for natural gas power plants as long as steps are taken to offset the carbon emissions that the plants create.

This is a sticking point for New Jersey’s environmental advocates, many of who joined together in early 2019 and called on Murphy to place a moratorium on all natural gas development in the Garden State.

Despite the “climate crisis,” why is Murphy leaving the door open to these two sources of reliable energy? Environmentalists don’t give a damn about human well-being. But Murphy is not so reckless. How do you get rid of 94% of NJ’s energy production, including carbon-free nuclear, without causing a true humanitarian catastrophe? You can’t. Murphy’s leaving the door open to continued nuclear and natural gas energy looks like an escape hatch for Murphy. It allows him to parade as a leader in the “fight against climate change” without crippling the state. His plan includes:

Murphy’s master plan uses seven key strategies for emissions cuts. That includes expanding use of electric vehicles, accelerating the growth of the state’s renewable energy sector, strengthening energy efficiency standards and expanding the clean energy economy in New Jersey.

All well and good—and all beside the point. However effective these initiatives are at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, natural gas and nuclear will always be there to provide our vital energy. Murphy’s master plan guarantees it. Murphy is flat out admitting that so-called “renewable” or “clean” energy is not, with current technology, capable of replacing fossil fuels and nuclear as our primary energy source. If actually realized, electricity will of course get more expensive due to redundancy of generation. The more renewables that are added, the more reliable backup (natgas) we’ll need. But at least the reliability will be there. Murphy blinked.

And why? The question for the climate catastrophists is, are you willing to take the actual steps necessary to “save the planet?” How much human suffering are you actually willing to inflict. It’s easy for people like Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of environmental group the Sierra Club, to flippantly call for moratoriums on new natural gas projects—and, for good measure, to kill nuclear power. At least in this case, reality appears to have won out. That’s a relief. It may be the canary in the coal mine for the climate catastrophists. If a Phil Murphy, backed by an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, won’t pull the trigger, who will? When push comes to shove, the politicians who talk the talk won’t actually have the guts to walk the walk. In New Jersey, energy reality has won a round against climate dogmatism.   

Related Reading:

The ‘Jihad on Pipelines,’ New Jersey Front

The False Promise of ‘Clean Solar Powered Utility Scale Energy’

My Letter Rebutting Sierra Club Opposition to N.J. PennEast Gas Pipeline

Human Energy Needs vs. 'Mother Earth'

Environmentalists Seeking to Deprive NJ Residents of Reliable Energy

Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change—Ronald Bailey

In "Ignore the Fake Climate Debate [“The deniers and alarmists may make headlines, but behind the scenes, an expert consensus is taking shape on how to respond to global warming.”], an essay in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the Breakthrough Institute's Ted Nordhaus cuts through the co-dependent alarmist/denier dialectic that drives headlines and fuels overheated tweet-fights.

Related Viewing

Epstein: Fossil Fuels are Not Mankind's Enemy

 “Our climate has never been safer. Fossil fuels haven’t taken a safe climate and made it dangerous. They’ve taken a dangerous climate and made it safe.” 

Law Enforcement, Private Enterprise, and Personal Data

The internet era has brought privacy into the forefront of our concerns. But the central issues get too little notice. The following article highlights this neglect.

In a May 2018 article, To catch a killer: Are DNA detectives creating a Brave New World?, updated in June 2019, Julie O'Connor wrote for the New Jersey Star-Ledger Editorial Board:

The Golden State Killer brought terror to the city of Sacramento with a series of spectacularly sadistic rapes and murders, escaping every time, almost taunting the police as he picked his next victims.

But finally, they caught him, at the age of 72, thanks to a sleuthing team of detectives who used a genealogy website to track him down.

The tactic came as a shock to most Americans, who had no idea this was possible.

Yet what most people still don't realize is the threat to privacy this case highlights: Once you submit your DNA to one of these sites, you've effectively lost control of it.

The companies say they set up guardrails, but police have access to this data for the rest of your life. Millions are volunteering their DNA. And even if you don't spit into a vial and send it, a distant cousin could catch you up in a police manhunt.

Now, this case has thrust the issue into the spotlight, much like Cambridge Analytica did for Facebook. It shows just how tentative our grip on privacy really is. 

One expert, John Cohen, a former homeland security official and police officer, defended the police tactic:

And when people decide to hand over their personal information to a private company that profits off it, why should we exclude law enforcement from using these databases to solve crimes? How, Cohen asks, is that in the public interest?

"Why should police be banned from using the same tools available to Cambridge Analytica?" he wonders.

[My emphasis]

O'Connor goes on to make the following equivocation between commercial activity and law enforcement:

And we need government oversight of the companies. Should they be allowed to sell your DNA profile to Big Pharma, which may someday market a drug to you based on your genetic health risks? Maybe you'd rather not know you're prone to Alzheimer's.

I left these comments, edited and expanded for clarity:

There is a dangerous equivocation in the question, "Why should police be banned from using the same tools available to Cambridge Analytica?" The government has a power no private company can have--the power of the gun. Government can compel obedience to its laws. It can seize your wealth. It can throw you in jail. Private enterprise cannot. Private companies cannot harm you, within the law--e.g., barring fraud or breach of contract, upon which the government can prosecute the wrongdoers. Private companies collecting data freely given for commercial purposes does not violate anyone’s rights. 

Government makes the laws. It needs this lawmaking power to fulfil its responsibility to protect us from and prosecute criminals. But it’s for this very reason--its power of the gun--that we have a constitution designed to limit that power; that is, to prevent the government from becoming the criminal.

Giving the same freedom to police to collect our data as Cambridge Analytica amounts to giving the police free reign to search our homes without a warrant. Cambridge Analytica or Facebook or “Big Pharma” should be free to collect our freely given data, so long as it operates within the law--e.g., obeys the government’s privacy and contract laws. They cannot force us. They can only offer us a product. The police, as agents of the state, should be barred from accessing data without a warrant--that is, without “probable cause.” Isn’t there something in the Fourth Amendment about this?

I realize the issue is complex, and the article does call for “rules.” But it’s the equivocation that bothers me. O'Connor is right at the start: It’s government access to our data that we should fear. Government vs. private enterprise are, by their natures, opposites. There is a huge difference between accessing your private data for commercial purposes and accessing for law enforcement purposes. The government can compel. A private firm cannot. 

O’Connor further observes:

But talk to Kimberlee Moran, head of forensics at Rutgers-Camden, and you'll feel leery again.

She believes only the convicted should go into law enforcement DNA databases, not arrestees. That's what they now do in the UK. The European Court of Human Rights ruled it a violation of privacy to keep arrestees who were not found guilty in law enforcement's DNA databases.

But the U.S. constitution doesn't explicitly say we have a right to privacy. And police are navigating a new frontier. They have to get a court order to draw blood from a suspect to get his DNA, or root through his trash. But they apparently searched for distant relatives of the Golden State Killer without one.

[My emphasis.] 

I’m always amazed at people who should know better, such as a reporter, making statements like this about rights in the U.S. Constitution. The constitution doesn’t have to “explicitly say we have a right to privacy.” The Constitution explicitly highlights some of the more important individual rights, such as those listed in the First and Fourteenth Amendments, for example. But the Constitution implicitly protects all rights. The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” 

This is not exactly some obscure point. As the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School explains of the Fourth Amendment:

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law.

[My emphasis.] 

In other words, contra Cohen, the police should be banned from using the same tools available to Cambridge Analytica. The Constitution draws a bright red line between government and private entities with regard to searching and seizing the personal information of private individuals, even if such data is freely given and otherwise publicly available. Yet the whole privacy rights discussion routinely sidesteps this crucial red line. If we value our individual rights, we should keep in mind two critical points; the crucial difference between government and private activity, and the fact that the Constitution limits government, not our rights, whether or not the U.S. constitution explicitly says we have that right.

Related Reading:

Facebook/Cambridge Analytica Data Breach Should Not Be a Pretext for Government Controls

The Internet is Not a ‘Surveillance State’

The Dollar and the Gun--Harry Binswanger

Who Determines ‘Educational Needs’?—and the Need to Answer Opposing Views

In a comment to my post "Letter: ‘Vouchers Will Hurt Public Schools.’ So?", correspondent Burr Deming offered:

As always, you present a coherent argument for the libertarian view, in this case against the exclusive funding of public education over private alternatives.

We published a link to your article. As might be expected from a left of center site, there was articulate disagreement.

The thrust of that opposing argument is that public education came to be precisely because of educational needs not addressed by private education.

I like your habit of publishing views with which you disagree, alongside your reasons for disagreeing. We try to follow your good example.

I answered Burr as follows:

Thanks for the encouraging comments. 

As to those arguing that "public education came to be precisely because of educational needs not addressed by private education," my answer is: Go ahead, address it. In a free market, or even a semi-free market of universal school choice, who could stop you? One of the best features of a fully free and private education market is precisely to allow education entrepreneurs to identify unmet needs and offer new and innovative solutions. Everyone should be free to implement their ideas — by voluntary consent and agreement. The minute someone decides to use government force to impose and pay for her “solution” to what she has decided are “unmet” educational needs, she is denying to others with different ideas the same freedom: She is defeating the very purpose by which she defends public education. 

Mike Kevitt also offered food for thought:

The "educational needs" not addressed by private education are the collectivist indoctrination of students. Those are the "needs" of advocates of government schools. It's government schools which don't address educational needs, such as civics.

I replied to Mike: Good point. What about the educational needs not addressed by public education?

I would also argue that complete abolition of public schools is not necessary even if you buy the argument about “educational needs not addressed by private education.” My Objective Standard article Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits presented a tax credit proposal would leave traditional public schools operational. So would a form of Education Savings Accounts that would simply allow the allotted per-pupil cost of each district to follow the student to the parents’ schooling of choice, choices that would include the traditional public school. 

Granting government monopoly decision-making power, thus excluding the vast private sector from the decision-making process, we would be much less likely to meet students’ educational needs. The bottom line is, it is simply immoral and unfair to assign government planners the exclusive power to determine the educational needs of students, shutting out the parents and all others from the process.

Back to Burr, I was particularly pleased with his observation “I like your habit of publishing views with which you disagree, alongside your reasons for disagreeing.” Most of my posts do just that. I believe people’s opposing views should be properly presented, which is why I rely on direct quotes as much as possible, along with links. I don’t think “straw man” arguments are fair to the person one is critiquing. But also, the person offering the critique loses all credibility. On a personal note, advocating my own views in the context of focussing on opposing views helps me sharpen my own arguments by causing my to consider objections I may not have otherwise considered.

Thanks, Burr.

Related Reading:

School Choice Doesn’t ‘Discriminate’; It Expands Opportunity Through Liberation

Contra Congressman Donald M. Payne, a ‘For-Profit Model’ is Just What Education Needs

The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools—Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard

Real School Choice Depends on Free Exercise of Individual Rights

Former N.J. Governor Florio’s Immoral Hostility Toward the Needs of the ‘Most Motivated Students’