| « | Falling in Love |
»
|
|
Friday, February 12, 2010
“Climate Change” And The Tragedy Of The Commons
Fran here. The Curmudgeon's piece on the "global warming / climate change" controversy, as good as it is, neglected to address a subject of interest at least as great as the pseudo-science he demolished:
Climate is about the atmosphere, the "last great commons" where propertarian approaches are, at least for now, not readily applied. Garrett Hardin's paper on "The Tragedy Of The Commons" reflects at length on the incentives for "overuse" of a commons and the difficulties of coping with the resulting deterioration. Though not all of Hardin's conclusions are unchallengeable, nevertheless his insights about the incentives involved in exploiting a resource held in common are beyond question:
- What no one can privatize, no one has a reason to conserve.
- What no one can privatize, no one has a reason to protect.
...at least, if we restrict ourselves to economic values of "reason."
The problem is important for several reasons, not the least of which is this one: "commons" phenomena are chief among governments' rationales for extending their powers over us.
Property-rights approaches to climate defense, should the need ever arise in truth, would be practically impossible. There is no plausible way to imbue any part of the atmosphere with the critical characteristic of private property: the ability to exclude unwanted others. But the desirability of a propertarian approach to defending the climate is high, because governments given the power to manage commons have always messed them up.
Consider rivers as a prime example. Some firms are allowed to discharge noxious effluents into certain rivers, while individuals and less privileged firms are forbidden to do so. The difference is political clout: larger companies have more of it, for reasons too simple to require elucidation here. Politicians anxious for the good will of such companies will labor to get them the privileges they desire, even at significant cost to the rest of the country.
More, governments and their adjuncts routinely award themselves exemptions from environmental-defense laws. For example, America's largest identifiable polluter, privileged to be so by federal law, is the United States Army. A case can be made that that exemption is necessary and proper, but that doesn't lessen the environmental impact.
The incentives that bring about these undesired outcomes would encompass any institution given coercive powers over a commons -- i.e., any institution allowed to exercise quasi-private-property rights over it. So there's no getting out of the trap by delegating such powers to a QUANGO and wiping our hands of the mess.
From the perspective of our time, the sole effective approach to defending a commons that cannot be made into someone's private property, such as the atmosphere, would be the inculcation in all of Mankind of the conviction that that commons is worth defending, even at cost to us as individuals. That conclusion applies uniformly to all sufficiently large commons...but how we might implement the indicated approach is, to say the least, massively unclear.
The problem is stiff. It won't go away. Whether it arises in a climatological context or in some other, equally intractable setting, sooner or later we'll be forced to confront it. Our nature as an expanding technological species, at present confined to a single habitat, guarantees it.
Comments
[FWP: This time around, “Darrel” has chosen to respond off-topic, without addressing any of the substantive points made in the essay. Perhaps he’s a bit slow on the uptake, but I don’t tolerate that here.]
Posted by Darrel on 02/13/2010 at 01:25 AMYou don’t need to put my name in quotation marks, my name is Darrel.
I responded directly to your main point and gave several counter examples showing why your claim is untenable.
We have many instances of collectively allowing actions, as a society, which we later learned were harmful to “the commons.” Rather than foolishly thinking nothing could be done, we proceeded to take action and make the necessary changes.
There is no reason this cannot be don’t with climate change.
My response directly addressed your topic. I can think of no reason why you could censor my comments other than you find them too difficult to respond to. It’s safe to say you didn’t censor it because you have a good response!
Again:
***
FRANCIS: “...the sole effective approach to defending a commons that cannot be made into someone’s private property, such as the atmosphere, would be the inculcation in all of Mankind of the conviction that that commons is worth defending, even at cost to us as individuals. That conclusion applies uniformly to all sufficiently large commons...but how we might implement the indicated approach is, to say the least, massively unclear.">>DAR
Is it really unclear? We’ve done it many times before. A few examples:When we learned lead in the gasoline was making the kiddies stupid, we banned it.
When we learned the harm of CFC’s to the atmosphere, we invented new products and phased out the old.
We require coal plants to scrub their waste even though it pours into “the commons.”
There are no end of examples of course.
You note that:
“Some firms are allowed to discharge noxious effluents into certain rivers...”
The fact that there are exceptions, and/or laws are broken, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have these laws or that they aren’t overwhelmingly beneficial to our environment by being successful in reducing harm. While it’s against the law in most states to burn your garbage, lot’s of people still do it (like my republican neighbor) but this doesn’t mean great utility doesn’t come from it being against the law.
D.
[FWP: I’m allowing this one to appear because “Darrel”—sorry, Bubba, you get quote marks until you produce a FULL name that I can verify and apologize on your knees for calling me a coward—is too dim to realize what’s apposite to the arguments made in the post and what isn’t. But that’s typical of left-wing fascists: they can’t argue to the point, so they change the subject, or insult the opponent, or call him a Nazi.
“Darrel,” ol’ buddy, if a Martian were to regard the two of us, he’d conclude that you’re a member of a lesser species. Probably think I kept you as a pet. And before you ask, why do I get to insult you? Because it’s my site and you’ve earned it. Now go play with your left-fascist friends. I’m tired of trying to teach you the difference between fact and opinion, and between logic and mere assertion.]
Posted by Darrel on 02/13/2010 at 03:07 PM
