skepticism

Follow the Money? That’s Exactly What Rent-Seekers Do

by Iain Murray on January 11, 2010

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Sanctimony

This fellow from New Zealand appears to think that Climategate proves that the big money is in climate skepticism. How does that work?

Here’s my attempt to follow his argument: The US Government has spent $79 billion in the past two decades on climate science. But Big Oil and Big Coal want a piece of this. They spend heavily on lobbyists to get it. They would be well served by certain provisions in bills and international treaties. [I agree with this so far...] But “the aims of the climate change lobby groups and the large industries they represent dovetail quite nicely with the arguments put forward by the sceptics.” So [he implies] therefore the skeptics have all the money.

Huh?

Global warming skeptics don’t want carbon capture and storage. They don’t want targets for emissions reduction. They don’t want international treaties and thousand page bills that take money out of the productive class and spend it on vastly expensive ways of doing things we know how to do already. Global warming skeptics do not want “a seat at the table.” They don’t think there should be a table in the first place.

Our science blogger friend has confused skeptic with rent-seeker. We skeptics have a grudging respect for our ‘alarmist’ opponents. In most cases they have a sincere belief that there is a serious problem and want to solve it. (Part of the problem revealed by climategate was that many of them, however, want to solve the problem by any means necessary and are insincere in their methods). Rent-seekers, on the other hand, want to exploit such beliefs for personal/corporate gain*, at the expense of the rest of us. Therefore rent-seekers are a bigger problem than alarmists, because they do indeed bring the big bucks. That’s why rent-seeking businesses want carbon capture and storage, which they will be paid handsomely for. They want international treaties and thousand page bills that contains nice incentives for them, their executives and their shareholders. They want the free market distorted to their benefit. The ends they desire, however, are completely different from those desired by the skeptics. Their aims do not dovetail with the ends of the skeptics in the slightest.

That’s why the big money is with those looking to establish a regime for emissions reduction. Now those thieves have certainly fallen out, and there are still some honorable types who want no handouts to big energy companies at all, but the money is certainly on that side of the aisle.

If genuinely skeptical groups have gotten as much as $790 million total worldwide for global warming efforts since 1989 – 1 percent of that devoted to climate science – I’d be extremely surprised. A tenth of that amount is more likely in the right ballpark. You can’t change that by lumping rent-seeking industries in with skeptics. Rent-seekers really do follow the money.

* Rent-seekers are also only too happy to exploit belief in the free market, arguing for free enterprise up until they can see a benefit from government restricting market entry, and so on.

Surprising comments on NYT article on climate treaty

by Fran Smith on October 20, 2009

in Environment, Global Warming, International

Today’s New York Times carries an article, “Hopes fade for comprehensive climate treaty.“  It’s not that important an article about the lead-up to Copenhagen.  What’s most interesting are the comments from these NYT readers — many expressing skepticism about catastrophic global warming, confusion about the science, and linkages between energy use and economic growth. Here are some examples of those views – of course, the usual “sky is falling” comments are there too.

MrPitchfork

Maybe some day, someone will finally say, “Global warming is a fraud perpetrated by Al Gore and other green technology invested twits to make themselves rich at tax payers expense” and it fall and die and turn into “Global cooling”… again..

Dan DiLeo

Faced with the pressing desire of their citizens for improved living standards,it is hard to imagine the leaders of poor and emerging countries to do anything that might conceivably inhibit the most rapid and most well-tested possible path to development. The only conceivable way to get them to sign on is through some enormous and very reliable transfer of wealth to those countries. Very hard to envision.

Paul

Good news! I knew we could count on the international bureaucrats to disagree and throw a monkey wrench into this farce called global warming. As the world starts a cyclical cooling trend maybe they will come to their senses, if that is even possible for these people.

Glenn

[Excerpt from lengthy comment]… My suggestion? I would love for a news source like the New York Times to host a series of debates between the scientists on both sides of this issue. No politicians or other loudmouths allowed. I’d like to see an agenda created ahead of time, negotiated by both sides so the issues are framed properly and also have the encounters structured so that the key issues are given enough time to be thoroughly explored. If the AGW folks win this hands down – as they should if the debate it’s structured properly, than folks like me can feel more assured in demanding the very difficult policy decisions that we must make from our leadership.

Finally, I know that the Gore’s of the world, and many other’s, say “the debate is over” but clearly, in the real world, it’s not, otherwise we’d be seeing different behavior. Let’s do this, let’s make it global and make it a learning experience for all of us. Instead of cursing the darkness and hoping our government can force policy on folks who don’t believe in AGW, let’s lead people to understand this issue more clearly. I think that may be the only chance we have, and if the planet is really at risk, then of course the effort is worth it.

AlexBell

The USA march toward European Socialism will result in the colapse of our ecconomy and way of life. Countries like Brazil, India, China, and Russia are growing because the have and is energy as a way of growing their ecconomy. The USA can not shrink its self to propserity. Renewable energy – Yes. Energy indepentence – Yes. Cap and Trade (tax) – NO NO!!

Taylor Tells of Tol’s Ton Toll

by Iain Murray on December 18, 2008 · 1 comment

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Precaution & Risk, Tech & Telecom

Jerry Taylor of Cato has an excellent summary of what the scientific literature tells us about the social cost of carbon emissions, drawing on the comprehensive but sometimes opaque work of Richard Tol. His conclusion:

So what does Tol 2008 tell us about the social cost of carbon emissions (assuming that the underlying science from the IPCC is correct)? Given our skepticism about the underlying logic of discount rates of 1% or less, any number between $3 per ton and $24 per ton seems defensible. The lower end of that distribution would seem to be more reasonable, however, keeping in mind that the better and more recent studies produce lower cost estimates than do others.

What would this mean for the average US household? A couple of years ago I did some calculations of what taxes (or carbon permits trading at the price) would mean for the average electricity and gasoline bill if set according to a social cost of carbon at $14/ton of CO2 and $5 per ton. For what they’re worth, here they are.

At $14/ton, the tax on 1 KWh of coal-fired electricity would be 1.5c, at $5/ton, 0.5c.
At $14/ton the tax on a gallon of gasoline would be 12c, at $5/ton, 4c.

The average household uses 10,660 KWh of electricity (not all of it coal-fired) and 1,143 gallons of gasoline each year.

So at $14/ton, household bills would increase by at most $297 annually.
At $5/ton, household bills would increase by at most $98 annually.

In other words, the actual increase would be pretty small. Certainly enough to be noticeable at higher levels ($510 if we used the $24 figure, for instance), but probably not enough to change behavior. If you believe, unlike Pigou, that a Pigovian tax should aim at changing behavior, then a mere tax that reflects the social cost of CO2 will not be enough for you. You’ll have to get into the realm of punitive taxation. In any event, a drive to reduce CO2 will probably cost more than the damages inflicted by CO2, and that is pretty silly public policy.