Don Boudreaux says that we need to ignore global warming:

Those of us who recognize these important benefits of capitalism -- those of us who understand that capitalism's true greatness lies not (as many critics insinuate) in producing oceans of pointless trinkets and baubles but in making the lives of ordinary people richer and fuller and longer -- are reluctant to yield power to governments to tackle global warming. We worry that this power will kill the goose that's laying this golden egg.

If you think that such a worry is exaggerated, recall the language Al Gore used in his book "Earth in the Balance." The former Vice President asserted that we are suffering an "environmental crisis" that can be avoided only if we "drastically change our civilization and our way of thinking."

"Drastically change our civilization." Hmmm. This sounds like a call to significantly scale back markets, trade and industrial activities in order to lessen humankind's "footprint" on the Earth and its environment. We can, no doubt, make our environmental footprint smaller -- but how great a benefit will this achievement be if it returns us to the ages-old condition of high mortality and morbidity?

I wasn't sure whether to file this under "Science And Society," or "Economics." Had to go with the latter (particularly since so much of the global warming debate is entirely devoid of this topic).

Rand

I pull out a lot of these quotes in my book, "Moonrush".

Dennis

When the temperatures over much of the U.S.A. during the 1930 were very much higher than they are today, nobody talked about global warming. We didn't change our civilization; we mostly looked at the skies and sniffed the air for a change to coolness. As an old Michigan river rat I remember hearing all the concerns about the low water levels, but nothing about how CO2 was ruining everything. We didn't talk about how the Freon in our air conditioners was ruining everything. We talked about whether we'd have to go to Belle Isle to sleep tonight.

When a southerner, Al Gore, from an old tobacco growing family thinks and says things like this,

The former Vice President asserted that we are suffering an "environmental crisis" that can be avoided only if we "drastically change our civilization and our way of thinking."

blacks, negroes, and African-Americans better hope he's not looking at the world economy of 150 years ago as his "prime" model.

To get back to reality, the "drastic changes" Gore envisions mostly involve accepting temporarily slowed *growth* while the economy can transfer to a renewable, carbon controlled basis. He calls them "drastic" only in recognition of present-day America's horror at the prospect of minor inconveniences, when they're all pretty much common-sense solutions clearly proportionate to the challenge. The dilemma is, shall we wait until making the transition is totally painless, and in the process possibly make the problem significantly more difficult, or can we accept temporarily slower growth to get the ball rolling? Portraying Gore and others concerned with the problem as Luddites is a laughable straw man, and doesn't say much about the intelligence of Boudreaux or anyone who would select his remarks to represent their views.

Brian says (yes, I said Brian): The dilemma is, shall we wait until making the transition is totally painless, and in the process possibly make the problem significantly more difficult, or can we accept temporarily slower growth to get the ball rolling?

We don't need to slow anything when Global Warming is not an issue. Do we need to switch over to other fuels that burn cleaner? Yes. Do we need to switch to systems that pollute less? Yes. Do we need to slow the ecnomy for the switchover? No. We are part of the problem, but only a very small part. One volcanic eruption spews more pollutant particulate into the air than a full year of mankind's output. Just make the switch and keep the economy humming. I believe in conservation and less pollution, but I also believe the Global Warming is a myth.

I wasn't sure whether to file this under "Science And Society," or "Economics."

Why bother to differentiate?

I'd like to see an extended Nolan Chart showing that restrictions on economic activity inevitably lead to restrictions on social activity. And vice versa.

Well, that's what happens.

The dilemma is, shall we wait until making the transition is totally painless, and in the process possibly make the problem significantly more difficult, or can we accept temporarily slower growth to get the ball rolling?

I vote for the former though it will never be painfree. If oil prices rise substantially, that might naturally induce a transition to a non-fossil fuel based economy. Besides given the money the Developed World puts into renewable energy sources, the benefits we get from the current economy, and the mildness of global warming, I don't see a pressing need for extra effort.

Is this:

...wait until making the transition is totally painless,

or has this ever been the possibility? Change invariably comes at the expense of someone or something. Most change is brutal and occurs when there are no other options or outlets for continuity.

Brian

Sorry, this is not what Gore talks about or wants. From Earth in the Balance:

We have also fallen victim to a kind of technological hubris, which tempts us to believe that our new powers may be unlimited. We dare to imagine that we will find technological solutions for every technologically induced problem. It is as if civilization stands in awe of its own technological prowess, entranced by the wondrous and unfamiliar power it never dreamed would be accessible to mortal man. In a modern version of the Greek myth, our hubris tempts us to appropriate for ourselves—not from the gods but from science and technology—awesome powers and to demand from nature godlike privileges to indulge our Olympian appetite for more.

************

Here is what Meadows, Gore's mentor says:

The human world is beyond its limits. The present way of doing things is unsustainable. The future, to be viable at all, must be one of drawing back, easing down, healing. Poverty cannot be ended by indefinite material growth; it will have to be addressed while the material human economy contracts. Like everyone else, we didn’t want to come to these conclusions.

******************

Here are the changes that Gore's mentor, Meadows said had to happen. This is from "Limits to Growth"

*****************

The capital, plant, and population are constant in size. The birth rate equals the death rate and the capital investment rate equals the depreciation rate.

All input and output rates—births, deaths, investment, and depreciation—are kept to a minimum.

The levels of capital and population and the ratio of the two are set in accordance with the values of society. They may be deliberately revised and slowly adjusted as the advance of technology creates new options.

_____________________________________

The problem is that in order to do what they want, a new facist world order of unpreccedented scope would have to be created. This is basically how people lived for thousands of years. In a resource limited world, human power becomes much more valuable, and slavery will certainly reappear in our world.

Dennis

(Sorry Rand for the extensive quotes)

Why exactly do we want to stop global warming?

Warming would open the Northwest Passage and the North Sea, which would revolutionise world trade much like the Panama canal did. It would shorten the route from SE Asia to the UK and Europe by 5000km.

The increased temperatures would also open large swaths of siberia to agriculture. Much more than would be swallowed up in the pacific and indian oceans due to rising seas.

I was going to ask Brian *how* growth would be "slowed" and who would do the slowing, but I think Dennis' last paragraph does the job.

As for Al Gore not being a luddite, if Dennis' quote from Gore about hubris and "technological solutions for every technologically induced problem" doesn't count as an expression of luddism, I'm not sure what would. Yes, his immediate focus is on the shortcomings of human nature, but the implication is not only that humans are too weak to resist the temptation of technology, but that *technology is something whose temptation must be resisted*.

Perhaps he only means that *some* technology is "bad", and that we should be more cautious and far-sighted about what technologies we as a society choose to adopt and what their potential negative effects may be. Of course, that's what the Amish do...

Oh I can give side by side quotes from "Limits to Growth", "Beyond the Limits", and "Earth in the Balance" to show how Gore bought into the Club of Rome's mindset hook, line, and sinker.

Gore himself said that it was when he was in college that he was exposed to these ideas and that they transformed his life. I really don't take Gore as bad, just crucially flawed in thinking.

A friend of mine was on the committee that funded the original Club of Rome study that begat this entire mindset. In the book :Limits to Growth" they specifically say that Space has no solution for the problems on the Earth. Gore said exactly the same thing on Larry King recently.

I say that it is the fault of space advocates for not taking the field to more forcefully counter Gore and those who share that mindset. NASA is not going to do it as they are only focused on the mechanics of space, not the larger societal issue of how space, space resources, and energy from space (in many forms) can help to solve our energy and resource problems here on the Earth.

The problem is that in order to do what they want, a new facist world order of unpreccedented scope would have to be created. This is basically how people lived for thousands of years. In a resource limited world, human power becomes much more valuable, and slavery will certainly reappear in our world.

I'd have to mildly disagree. My take is that slavery happened in large part because human labor wasn't that valuable. In a sense, your labor wasn't enough to buy your freedom. The problem was that for a period of time (maybe 800 BC to 600 AD?), the population growth rate exceeded the growth rate of the global economy, such as it were.

I say that it is the fault of space advocates for not taking the field to more forcefully counter Gore and those who share that mindset. NASA is not going to do it as they are only focused on the mechanics of space, not the larger societal issue of how space, space resources, and energy from space (in many forms) can help to solve our energy and resource problems here on the Earth.

IMHO, that's going to be a near impossible sell given the current limited progress in space. It doesn't help that a lot of people who buy into the resource-limited Earth-centric future also resist space development.

I think we'll just have to be satisfied with keeping the green wolves at bay while the industry fires up. Once there is profitable resource gathering activity in space, the argument will be a lot more compelling.

Karl

I agree conditionally.

We don't have to sell the whole Enchilada, just a profitable path toward that goal. This is why Burt Rutan is good and discussions about Solar Power Satellites saving the world tomorrow are bad.

The big question is: How much time do we have until this option is no longer possible? Politicians on the whole are not that bright. It is through capitalism that we will make this happen but if there is a financial draw down due to rapidly inflating energy prices, then what do we do?

Dennis