Question Earthority!

In the past, I’ve written about the problem with the “Precautionary Principle” as applied to politics — specifically, as applied to environmental issues. To briefly rehash:

The precautionary principle urges action — the adoption of policy, legislation, regulation — on the basis of a heightened appreciation of risk. It demands that we act not on what we know, but on what we fear.

But, as George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Unleashing the power of the state represents both known and unknown risks of its own, over the long term and immediately … and I oppose doing that almost always, and especially versus hypothetical future risks.

Now — if you follow this column, you know that I’ve signed on to Ronald Bailey’s statement: “We are all global warmers now.” I’ve even characterized some of those who’ve pitched their tents on the far side of the “skeptic” camp as the Luddites of the new millennium. Just as the weavers of France rioted against the introduction of the Jacquard Loom and the Industrial Revolution it represented, some of our “skeptics” seem less worried about the facts than about defending that Industrial Revolution from the factual conclusions that are ushering in its successor technologies.

Which brings me to my trip to Chicago last weekend, and a most enjoyable ambush.

I was in Chicago to visit with ISIL president Vince Miller and brainstorm some future expansions and improvements you’ll be seeing soon here on Question Earthority! and elsewhere. On Saturday, we made our way downtown to visit with Joe and Diane Bast of The Heartland Institute. We toured their (expanding!) headquarters, then headed out for lunch.

And that’s where it happened. Just as I was preparing to dig into my steak fajita wrap with hot chipotle sauce and guacamole, Vince turned to me with a mischievous little smile on his face (a signal I’ll remember for future self-defense alert purposes), and said “so, Tom, why don’t you tell Joe and Diane what you think about global warming?”

So, I did. I told them I believe global warming is a real phenomenon, that science has established to a high degree of certainty that human activity plays a significant role in it, and that I believe it’s time for the libertarian movement to accept that and start providing solutions. By way of reducing any tone of hostility in my own statements, I also mentioned that I’d been reading Heartland’s site, and found their compilation on Michael Crichton (this week’s “backgrounder”) particularly interesting and informative.

I’ll be honest here: I expected the conversation to quickly go downhill after that. I have a lot of respect for Heartland’s work (and not just in the environmental area), but there’s no getting around the fact that they’re “skeptics” on global warming.

Instead, after one very pertinent aside (which I’ll deal with below), Joe Bast cut right to the point. I’m quoting from memory here, so consider it a paraphrase, but he said something like this: “You’re saying we need to offer libertarian solutions, but the left already has its solution out there and in play: Carbon taxes.”

And he’s right. We’ve been headed off at the pass. Carbon taxes are one obvious “solution” that fits well into the whole idea that the state, rather than the market, is the agency best configured to deal with climate change. They’re being pushed, along with ethanol, as quick and relatively painless (if by “painless” we mean “not requiring innovation or creative thinking that might rock the boat of having government do everything“) fixes.

Oddly enough, on this particular point Joe Bast is at least partially in agreement with many on the environmental “left.” Many environmentalists see carbon taxes (or “offset” schemes) and ethanol as “band-aids” that make us all feel really good about ourselves, but don’t address the real problems. And, of course, Joe’s additional obvious concern — that we’re looking at another round of government confiscations and regulatory jihads which can only damage the ability of a market society to solve problems in its own organic way — is also valid.

But, here’s where we come back to the problem I have with many pro-freedom, pro-market thinkers: We’re looking at the Precautionary Principle re-stated. Just as the environmental “left” is often guilty of demanding government action versus future hypothetical risks, many on the market “right” are similarly guilty of shrinking from the facts versus future hypothetical risks that recognizing those facts will result in unleashing government on those risks.

I have a healthy respect for “skeptics” who treat the subject honestly, and as far as I can tell Heartland is doing its damnedest to marshal real data and reach supportable conclusions before going out on any weird limbs … but I still see that variant of the Precautionary Principle eating away at the ability of pro-market thinkers to really get ahead of the “left” in devising and offering arguments for market solutions. The “left” is stealing a march on us. They already have their “solutions” and the danger is that those “solutions” will be both implemented and entrenched before we get to the battlefield.

It’s a conundrum, and I hope we can solve it.

In the meantime, I very much enjoyed meeting the Basts and am heartened by the fact that we managed to have not just a civil, but pleasant, talk about an issue we have significant disagreements on. I’m fortunate in that every time I start getting grumpy with my own ideological allies, some of them are there to gently remind me that we’re on the same side, and that we should be friends.

Now, back to that aside I mentioned and promised to go into: This is a pet peeve of mine, so I hope Joe won’t think I’m picking on him over it. I jump in front of it every time I see it coming down the road:

One controversy that the “skeptics” bring out is the argument over whether or not human activity plays a significant role in global warming. Usually, when I look at the statistics that the “skeptics” use to justify their holding that human activity’s role is insignificant, what I see are statistics that show that said activity represents a small percentage or proportion of warming factors. And I have no doubt that those statistics are correct.

However, “significant” has a definition, and that definition is not dependent on proportion or percentage. It’s dependent on effect.

By way of example, let’s hypothesize a boulder that spontaneously breaks loose, rolls 100 meters down a hill, and comes to a stop one centimeter from the edge of cliff. Let’s then further hypothesize that I walk up to that boulder, give it a nudge, and push it over the cliff.

Gravity and momentum carried that boulder 100 meters. I pushed it 1 centimeter … one ten-thousandth of the distance it rolled … one one-hundredth of one percent of the total distance it traveled. I think we’d all agree that my one-centimeter push was a “significant” factor in the boulder’s plunge off the cliff.

In thinking about global warming, we have to reach supportable conclusions about a number of questions:

1) Is global warming a real phenomenon? (My conclusion is “yes,” and that conclusion has long since become widely accepted, even among “skeptics”)

2) Does the current trend of global warming represent a departure from the natural cycle? (Once again, my conclusion is “yes;” not all “skeptics,” but many, are coming to agree)

3) Are the implications of the trend disastrous for humanity, or for the environment humanity lives in, if the trend is not interrupted? (Here’s where I find a fence to sit on; the science seems to point in that direction, but there’s room for argument, and many “skeptics” are making full use of that room)

… and, finally …

4) Does human activity represent a “significant” factor in the trend? (If the answer to number 3 is “yes,” per my description of “significance” above — if, for example, changes in human activity could make the difference between the continued viability of life on earth and a “runaway greenhouse effect” like that which many scientists posit as responsible for the climate of Venus — then we’ve got work to do. I believe that the current “skeptical” method of handling of the question of “significance” is flawed and that real significance begins to attach at much lower thresholds)

But enough of that. Funny how asides can turn into whole articles when I’m not looking.