Cranky108, I think that IRstuff nicely covered what I would have said in response to the conversation on deforestation.
I would like to return to something you said before, that I didn’t address.
cranky108 said:
My biggest issue is not so much if it exists or not, but that we are attempting to limit peoples freedom based on the assumption that it exists, and the seas will rise 6 feet, and we will have more storms, and death and destruction. I want to see that there really is science, and not just some made up issues. What is the solution other than punish those who do not believe, and tax the hell out of everyone.
”I want to see that there really is science, and not just some made up issues”
While it’s clear that you aren’t sold on the science, I greatly appreciate the sincere efforts to ask questions to understand the science. I’ve tried to present the science to you as best I can. I understand that you may not agree with all of it but it’s far from a “made up issue”. If you continue to have doubts about certain areas, we can try to answer them. Like rb1957, you've shown an interest to ask questions and an honesty in what aspects you have trouble agreeing with.
“My biggest issue is not so much if it exists or not, but that we are attempting to limit peoples freedom”
I previously illustrated 3 mitigation efforts that I support (“[1] incentivizing energy-efficient products/methods, [2a]increasing efficiency standards ([2b]and banning certain products/methods that don’t meet those standards) and [3]revenue-neutral taxation initiatives”). I’m not in agreement that these “[attempt] to limit peoples freedom”. However, I will discuss the three and attempt to do so from a libertarian perspective.
1) Incentivize energy-efficient products/methods
While incentives (of any nature) are perceived to impose an artificial disturbance of the free-market from a libertarian perspective, I don’t believe this limits peoples’ freedom. It may limit the markets freedom but this is hardly unheard of in our current society. New technologies always require a bit of push to get market adoption and incentives are an effect way to do this. In fact, fossil fuels receive massive tax breaks and incentives. So to have issues with one, you surely must have issues with both.
2) Increase Efficiency Standards
Again, increasing efficiency standards hardly limits peoples’ freedoms. However, it could be stated that by increasing standards, you ban products/methods below that standard which could be taken as a loss of freedom. But, again, this is hardly limited to climate change mitigation initiatives. Do you feel the requirement to drive a car with seat belts is a loss of your freedom to drive a car without seat belts? Possibly you do but I would think the pros (safety) outweigh the cons.
3) Revenue-Neutral taxation
This is undoubtedly the toughest one to agree with from a libertarian perspective. However, currently, the pricing of fossil fuels allows the market to privatize the profits while socializing the risk/damages. In other words, the pricing of fossil fuels does not include the externalities associate with air pollution and impacts on climate.
An analogy is libertarians issue with universal healthcare. Many libertarians feel that if I choose to live an unhealthy life, I should pay a proportionally larger amount for healthcare than someone that actively chooses to live a healthy lifestyle. So, equally, if I choose to live a carbon heavy lifestyle, I should pay a proportionally larger amount for the impacts on the public that lifestyle causes. It would seem in keeping with libertarian ideology that incorporating the true cost of my actions in my share of the costs would be agreeable.
Surprisingly, many libertarians, who fight against universal healthcare and social services, all of the sudden begin to develop a keen sense of the disenfranchised when it comes to carbon taxes. They claim that carbon taxes would unfairly hurt the poor more than the rich (where this same sentiment is in the healthcare/social safety net program debate, I’m unsure). There is an element of truth to this, despite the fact that the poor live a much less carbon heavy lifestyle, and therefore would not be impacted as much (hence why I say “element” of truth). But much of this concern is erased in revenue-neutral taxation programs where part of the revenue goes to support low-income people or provide tax breaks to people in the lower income brackets.
I’d also add that a key fear of carbon taxation structures from a libertarian perspective comes from the assumption that it is a “power play” from governments (or, inexplicably, the UN). Again, a revenue-neutral system eliminates much of this fear as the revenue gained from the tax is injected back into the populous, normally in the form of support for low-income people and income tax and corporate tax breaks. This greatly decreases the possibility for increased level of government control or power resulting from the tax.
General comments
Now, I don’t expect this will change your opinion cranky108 but it’s important to understand that much of what you read on blogs and papers that oppose climate change mitigation is overblown and exaggerated. I fail to see how climate change mitigation efforts are purely an attempt to rob you of your freedom or how governments/individuals/scientists(!?!?!?!?!) stand to (sinisterly) profit from it (note: I do see how individuals could profit off of cap-and-trade/carbon credit trading, which is one of the major reasons I don't advocate for it). I also fail to see how these changes will be crippling to our economy. While they may be costly, it’s about investment in infrastructure and new, better, more efficient technologies. This is hardly a waste of money, regardless of the extent of future climate change.
Climate change mitigation is about protecting people from the risks of possible future climate change. These risks are not 100% certain. However, as I stated before, climate change science and the resulting policy is a risk assessment exercise. While the risks might not be as high as we think, they also might be worse than we think. In fact, most probability distribution functions on the impacts of climate change have a much lower probability of being smaller than we think than they do being larger than we think (i.e. it’s not a perfect bell curve, it’s a positive skew). I don’t say this to promote the fact that it’s probably worse than we think. I say this to help skeptics understand that the argument “well, it might not be as bad as we think” is simply not how you approach a risk assessment (especially when dealing with a positive skew).
Another important point is that even if the actual outcomes are on the low-end (less damaging), the situation is still somewhat damaging. The range is between less bad to very bad. Not good to bad (see my thread on climate change sensitivity for more on this). However, by “very bad” I don’t mean fire and brimstone will rain down from the sky. I don’t mean that humanity will enter some post-apocalyptic state. I mean that climatic changes could put a significant stress on the carry capacity of the planet for 10 billion people. Of course this might not happen (again, the risk is not 100% certain) but that’s what might happen at the upper-end of the risk spectrum. This isn’t “alarmism” this is differentiating between false representations of “alarmism” and what the science says.
Lastly, it’s important to realize that there is “alarmism” on both sides. The pro-mitigation crowd can demonstrate alarmism by saying things such as “society as we know it will crumble if we don’t do something!” or “won’t somebody please think of the polar bears!”. The anti-mitigation crowd can demonstrate alarmism by saying things such as “climate change is a socialist plot to control you!” (which would explain why those socialist, tree-hugging hippies at the
US Military agree that climate change may be a serious issue), “all these scientists are a bunch of liars and crooks out to steal our money!” or, a more sane version, “climate change mitigation will cripple our economy!”. None of these are substantive, supported statements; they are emotionally or ideologically driven, unsupported allegations. This should not be encouraged on either side of the discussion.