Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
In a piece in the Atlantic titled, “A Conservative’s Approach to Combating Climate Change,” Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University and, more importantly, an old friend, argues for, among other things, reductions in greenhouse gases, preferably via a carbon tax, supplemented by adaptation.
While I have many issues with Jonathan’s piece, I will focus here on the logical disconnect between his purported rationale for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and his policy proposals.
He states that, “Were I a utilitarian, and if I placed substantial faith in such cost-benefit studies, I might find [convincing arguments that global warming is not a serious problem because the net short-to-medium term effects of global warming may well be positive] but I’m not and I don’t.” In his discussion, he identifies poorer nations as more victimized by global warming than the wealthier nations because the former are less able to adapt. He argues that harm from global warming is tantamount to a violation of one’s property for which the victim ought to be redressed. He then argues that if we believe in property rights then there is no room for utilitarian calculus, and if someone’s property has been damaged then that person is owed redress by the party or parties responsible for that damage.
As remedies, he advocates four sets of policies and measures. First, the federal government should offer prizes to induce the development of low-carbon technologies. Second, it ought to identify and reduce barriers to the development and deployment of alternative technologies. Third, the US should adopt a revenue-neutral carbon tax rebated to taxpayers—presumably, American taxpayers—on a per capita basis. As rationale, he offers a set of technical reasons, but for “a broader theoretical justification,” he argues, “if the global atmosphere is a global commons owned by us all, why should not those who use this commons to dispose of their carbon emissions pay a user fee to compensate those who are affected.” Finally, he would supplement the above policies with adaptation measures, e.g., greater reliance on water markets.
But none of these measures, including a carbon tax on American consumers, would make whole the party or parties supposedly harmed by global warming. This is obviously true if the tax is rebated to the American taxpayer. It is also true if it is rebated to the global taxpayer—or, for that matter, the Bangladeshi taxpayer—on a per capita basis (because not everyone would be equally harmed by global warming).
So I must ask Jonathan: how would your proposals remedy the alleged property rights violation and provide redress to the harmed party? Yes it punishes the American consumer, but how does it make whole the inhabitants of countries that may have been harmed. Also, how would you set a carbon tax, if not via a utilitarian calculus? Essentially, all estimates of the carbon tax, whether by Nordhaus, Tol, Stern or whoever, use cost-benefit analysis, that is, utilitarian calculus. [Don’t get me wrong, I probably have even less faith in these efforts than Jonathan does (1)].
1. Goklany, IM. 2009. Trapped Between the Falling Sky and the Rising Seas: The Imagined Terrors of the Impacts of Climate Change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Third, the US should adopt a revenue-neutral carbon tax rebated to taxpayers—presumably, American taxpayers—on a per capita basis.
There can be no “revenue-neutral” tax as additional bureaucrats and their bureaucratic mechanisms will need to be fed, thus outgoing will be less than incoming.
The method of rebating what’s left will necessarily be flawed. First, where does the government assess the tax? Tax the raw fuel, such as coal offered for sale, or crude oil? From both come products that will not be burned, like activated carbon and fertilizers. Tax those actually burning the fuel? That would be such as users of heating fuels, vehicle fuels, and electricity producers. All such taxes will be paid by end users anyway, as the cost of taxes is passed down the production chain.
So who gets the remaining money should be the end user. Then the cry of progressivism will be loud. Companies shouldn’t get the money, being companies. Rich people don’t get it. It should go to the poor who can least afford energy. Anything else will get loudly shouted down.
And how does one show what they’re due? Collect bills and receipts of energy purchases? You could’ve paid cash, and receipts normally only have a few digits of a bank card number. Ultimately an individual energy user identification number issued by the government would be considered the best solution, use when purchasing the energy. That would be quite a database for the government to mine. Are you ready for a bureaucrat on your doorstep asking you to prove you’re using that fuel in a government-approved efficient low-polluting manner?
Lastly, a “carbon” tax does address certain unspoken desires. There are many Greens who are certain the world is overpopulated. A carbon tax would hurt the poor, like the elderly, on limited incomes. The people who would die from energy poverty, are obviously the least productive, obviously a drain on others, so will not be missed, and the planet benefits. For the government, straining to provide health care and income to these people, it’s an indirect means of reducing the burden while avoiding direct blame.
John B says: “In Law then, if you have been damaged by me, or think you will be, sue me – but do be sure to bring along plenty of evidence.”
One would think a Law Professor would understand that if we stand accused, and we have accusers, both deserve their day in court. But Adler merely assumes there are parties who would have complaints, rather than attempting to meet the requirement of actually finding individuals who alledge personal harm or property rights violation. Perhaps recognizing that he would then lack standing to sue himself, he proposes to sue on behalf of the imagined harmed parties. Knowing no actual court would let him do so, he proposes that Congress act as the court. Moreover he demands that Congress act as a court that shall make the decision to punish the accused without even giving the accused parties opportunity to defend themselves. Our only recourse as those parties, so denied our basic rights by this nonsense, is to vote out the bastards who Adler declares the new Judge and Jury of our legal system…the Congress. The hypothetical Congress that would actual do what he demands, I might add.
This Professor of “Law” appears to have no concept of it. He ought to lose his job, as being so ignorant in the subject you are employed to understand and/or teach is surely grounds for dismissal.
GeoLurking says:
June 5, 2012 at 9:16 am
[snip . . not really advancing anything at all . . kbmod]
You can snip me all you want, but the fact of the matter is until these criminals are held to account they will continue to push their agenda. I did not call for any harm to them, just for them to be charged and brought to account for their corruption of science and the vilification of anyone who disagrees.
A bully does not understand compromise or discussion. A bully only understands incarceration.
Snip away.
ferd berple says:
June 5, 2012 at 7:16 am
In fact, there should be a global tax on all power generation, and on the estate of Edison, due to the damage caused by the un-natural magnetic fields induced by AC power. This would allow us to shift rapidly from AC power generation to DC power generation, removing the hazards of induced magnetic fields.
—————————————————————————-
I think this was sarcasm, but you do understand that DC current still creates magnetic fields, don’t you?
Although I do not agree with his views on climate change, Jonathan Adler is no liberal. I would characterize him more as libertarian with left-leaning sympathies on the environment.
He is a contributor to the National Review Online (nationalreview.com), and the Volokh Conspiracy (volokh.com).
From 1991 to 2000 he worked for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_H._Adler
By this logic of “property rights” shouldn’t the opposite also apply? If there were such a thing as AGW then the longer growing seasons and increased plant growth due to more food (CO2) will benefit the poor countries. No adverse effects have yet been proven for AGW, any that have been accounted to AGW have been shown to be caused by other factors.
Therefore the poorer countries will be advantaged due to the more advanced countries so-called pollution. In this case and by the suggested logic, they should pay in monetary terms for that priviledge.
Stephen Robinson,
Longer growing seasons are also due to the extra hour of sunlight, as this smart Aussie points out.☺
Some of you guys need to chill out.
Jonathan Adler is one of the most intellectually honest persons I have come across. Disagreement is not an excuse for being uncivil. We should leave name-calling and that kind of behavior to people who label people who disagree with them deniers (or worse). I would like to think that as a group we are above that kind of anti-intellectual behavior.
He is also one of the brightest guys I have met, even if he is, in my opinion, wrong on some matters.
By the way, he is more libertarian than conservative.
[Moderator’s Affirmation: Thank YOU, Dr. Goklany. A timely reminder that not all we disagree with are enemies. Uhh… the corollary is that not everyone we sometimes agree with are friends. -REP]
Indur;
All that you say about Herr Adler may be so, but his text reads as though he is incapable of contemplating the evidence that CO2’s effects are currently, historically, and prospectively benign. That possibility mitigates absolutely against implementing punitive taxation or legislative action against its production — even if serious efforts to do so did not border on species-suicidal.
His sincerity is no recommendation.
Andrew says “You are kidding right? You may argue perhaps that such a policy makes sense, but that it is a free market mechanism? Surely you mean a market mechanism, as there is nothing free market about a policy of government intervention.”
Pigovian taxation is the favoured response of NeoLiberal economists such as Gary Becker of the Chicago school of economics e.g. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/becker-on-carbon-taxes.html or Tim Worstall of the Adam Smith Institute in the UK http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100017600/yes-climate-change-is-a-problem-and-yes-we-do-have-to-do-something-but-in-britain-weve-done-it-already/
or http://timworstall.com/2010/08/27/so-what-does-james-hansen-suggest-we-do/
PeteB says: “Pigovian taxation is the favoured response of NeoLiberal”
The rest of your reply is just names. Don’t be stupid. What you said was that it is a “free market mechanism” and no, it isn’t. A tax is a government intervention. That economists who allegedly favor freer markets than not support it does not change the fact that it is not a “free market mechanism” BY DEFINITION.
You evidently don’t understand the difference between a free market, and advocates for markets freer than they presently are in general. It doesn’t matter who favors it. It’s a government mechanism, based on market forces. It is not a product of a market free from government intervention.
Andrew – OK, if you accept the point that you need a mechanism to correct for negative externalities, then those of us that favour a free market would like a mechanism that minimises government involvement, and makes everybody compete on a level playing field i.e. the price of a product includes any costs that it imposes on the wider community. Not having that tax is effectively a subsidy, because other people are paying for the negative costs associated with that product.
PeteB says: “those of us that favour a free market”
I presume you favor a freer market than the present one. An absolutely free market? Evidently not. But fair enough. I also favor a freer market than the present one, but don’t presume whatever you say to represent the opinions of every individual that wants that.
“if you accept the point that you need a mechanism to correct for negative externalities”
As a general principle? Eh, I guess so. Although one has to ask, whether we should also have a mechanism that corrects positive externalities-people benefiting from others actions without the intent of those taking the actions, and without paying a price for them.
“would like a mechanism that minimises government involvement”
Except that you are favoring a mechanism that increases government involvement from where it presently is. It would be more accurate to say you would like a mechanism that includes the least amount of government intervention necessary to achieve the thing you want, ie to price the externality. Does taxation involve the least government intervention necessary? I think it inevitably goes over what is necessary.
“Not having that tax is effectively a subsidy, because other people are paying for the negative costs associated with that product.”
The difficulty is that what you really mean is not having a policy which puts the appropriate cost to society into the cost of the product is effectively a subsidy…but you imply the only such policy is a tax. The former I am prepared to accept as a general principle (not in any specific case) the latter, not so much.
Andrew says “whether we should also have a mechanism that corrects positive externalities-people benefiting from others actions without the intent of those taking the actions, and without paying a price for them.”
Absolutely – from wikipedia (sorry !) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
“…In the presence of positive externalities, i.e., public benefits from a market activity, those who receive the benefit do not pay for it and the market may under-supply the product. Similar logic suggests the creation of Pigovian subsidies to make the users pay for the extra benefit and spur more production.”
Andrew says “but don’t presume whatever you say to represent the opinions of every individual that wants that.”
Sorry – I didn’t mean it like that – I meant compared with the current government response which (in the UK) seems to be a mixture of politicians ‘picking winners’, an array of taxes and subsidies that make no sense – see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100017683/the-real-climate-change-conspiracy-or-is-it-a-cock-up/
“So this is where I identify the conspiracy in climate change. Not in the basic science, which I’m perfectly happy to accept. But in the discussion, the rules, the regulations, about what we should do about it. Just about every decision that is actually being made seems to flow from ignorance, mendacity or even, as with the CCL and nuclear, just plain flat-out stupidity.
I still haven’t worked out whether this is simply a conspiracy of damn fool idiots or whether they really do have it in for us.”
PeteB says: “I meant compared with the current government response which (in the UK)”
Ah. Well I’m American. Sorry. In retrospect, your spelling should have made that obvious. 🙂
It is refreshing to read this discussion; some people are taking Adler seriously and thinking it through the economics and the principles of his proposals.
Regardless of whether one agrees or not, Adler’s article is an important piece — a serious attempt to grapple with the problem, without abandoning conservative principles.
Adler correctly notes — in contrast to Alan W’s comment above — that
“Most skeptics within the scientific community readily accept the basic science. They contest the more extreme climate projections, but accept the basic scientific claims. Take, for example, Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute. . . The position espoused by Michaels, Balling and most (but not all) skeptics is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but it is more of a nuisance than a catastrophe.”
But most of Adler’s paper is devoted to making the case that
“the same general principles that lead libertarians and conservatives to call for greater protection of property rights should lead them to call for greater attention to the most likely effects of climate change.”
Even if you disagree, its’ worth reading the entire piece. FYI There’s another take on Adler’s piece and a link to the original at ClimateBites.org: ‘Eloquent & principled’ — A conservative tackles climate change.
Your comments there are welcome. We all — on both sides of the climate debate — spend far too much time ranting, preaching to the converted, and talking to people who already agree with us.