Did you know ... ? (amv)

On average, we have more and more efficient units of exhaustible resources to supply our needs due to technological progress outpacing sheer digging. In other words: exhaustible resources are on average less scarce now then sixty years ago:

HT Marginal Revolution

Global Warming: No Urgent Danger; No Quick Fix (amv)

by Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and is on leave as research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia:

It's summer, it's hot and global warming is on the cover of Newsweek. Scare stories abound. We may only have 10 years to stop this! The future survival of our species is at stake!
OK, the media aren't exactly nonpartisan, especially on global warming. So what's the real story and what do we need to know?

Fact: The average surface temperature of the Earth is about 0.8 C warmer than it was in 1900, and human beings have something to do with it. But does that portend an unmitigated disaster? Can we do anything meaningful about it at this time? And if we can't, what should or can we do in the future?

These are politically loaded questions that must be answered truthfully, especially when considering legislation designed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas.

Unfortunately, they'll probably be ignored. Right now there are a slew of bills before Congress, and many in various states, that mandate massively reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Some actually propose cutting our CO2 output to 80 percent or 90 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

Let's be charitable and simply call that legislative arrogance. U.S. emissions are up about 18 percent from 1990 as they stand. Whenever you hear about these large cuts, ask the truth: How is this realistically going to happen?

I did that on an international television panel two weeks ago. My opponent, who advocated these cuts, dropped his jaw and said nothing, ultimately uttering a curse word for the entire world to hear. The fact of the matter is he had no answer because there isn't one.

Nor would legislation in any state or Washington, D.C., have any standing in Beijing. Although the final figures aren't in yet, it's beginning to look like China has just passed the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Like the United States, China has oodles of coal, and the Chinese are putting in at least one new coal-fired power plant a month. (Some reports have it at an astonishing one per week.) And just as it does in the United States, when coal burns in China, it turns largely to carbon dioxide and water.

What we do in the United States is having less and less of an effect on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere.

We certainly adapted to 0.8 C temperature change quite well in the 20th century, as life expectancy doubled and some crop yields quintupled. And who knows what new and miraculously efficient power sources will develop in the next hundred years.

The stories about the ocean rising 20 feet as massive amounts of ice slide off of Greenland by 2100 are also fiction. For the entire half century from 1915 through 1965, Greenland was significantly warmer than it has been for the last decade. There was no disaster. More important, there's a large body of evidence that for much of the period from 3,000 to 9,000 years ago, at least the Eurasian Arctic was 2.5 C to 7 C warmer than now in the summer, when ice melts. Greenland's ice didn't disappear then, either.

Then there is the topic of interest this time of year — hurricanes. Will hurricanes become stronger or more frequent because of warming? My own work suggests that late in the 21st century there might be an increase in strong storms, but that it will be very hard to detect because of year-to-year variability.

Right now, after accounting for increasing coastal population and property values, there is no increase in damages caused by these killers. The biggest of them all was the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926. If it occurred today, it would easily cause twice as much damage as 2005's vaunted Hurricane Katrina.

So let's get real and give the politically incorrect answers to global warming's inconvenient questions. Global warming is real, but it does not portend immediate disaster, and there's currently no suite of technologies that can do much about it. The obvious solution is to forgo costs today on ineffective attempts to stop it, and to save our money for investment in future technologies and inevitable adaptation.

This article appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on August 21, 2007 and is published on the homepage of the Cato Institute.

Correlation vs. Causation (fg)

HT Prof. Mankiw.

Good old sheperd is back (fg)

Today, the conference of the "Verein für Socialpolitik" just opened its doors with a speech by Hans W. Sinn (please find Sinn's paper linked on the NBER site) about climate change and implications for public policies. To him, insecure property rights of resource owners and the externality of global warming distort the private incentives, leading both to overextraction relative to the criterion of intertemporal Pareto optimality. His advice is to

• implement useful policy measures that mitigate the problem of global warming by flattening the carbon supply path in the world energy markets. Taxes on carbon consumption or switching to alternativ energy sources might not help flattening the supply curve of the resource owners.
• use unit taxes on carbon extraction and source taxes on capital income as feasible policy options that satisfy this requirement.

I bet, Greg Mankiw would firmly introduce Mr. Sinn to his Pigou Club.

The Double Standard in Environmental Science (amv)

Stanley W. Trimble (University of California) has published a shocking and alarming article in the current issue of Cato's regulation. It is about the degeneration of environmental "science" (better to call it environmentalism). It is a very interesting paper written by an insider who also reveals some aspects about the current hype on climate change. Here some extracts (BUT READ THE WHOLE PAPER: download here):

"Ideology, not science, had established a significant grip on the top scientific press. This article attempts to portray the emotionalism, exaggeration, and even ideological viciousness — qualities that to me define extremism — that have invaded the field of environmental science.

[...] The implication is that flimsy or even no evidence for environmental degradation is acceptable, but any evidence for improvement is suspect. For those of us in academe, all of this can have profound implications for careers that depend on having many (but not necessarily good) publications for advancement. And based on prima facie evidence, environmental extremism is good for the career. It is also troubling that so much of the argument against the skeptics on environmental problems is the old ad hominem one: they are all in the pockets of the capitalist-industrialist-polluters. But I have rarely seen it suggested that any environmental pessimists might just be influenced by groupthink-careerism-environmentalist-ideologues. Most of my own uncertainty about the degree and causes of many environmental problems is driven by what I have seen in my own field: if the published work on other environmental problems is fraught with as much hyperbole, misinformation, and lack of expertise as I have encountered in the study of soil erosion, then we all have every right to be at least somewhat skeptical.

[...] Most troubling to me is the perception that at least some scientists have abrogated their social contract with the public. Merely reporting the actual conditions of a problem seems to no longer be adequate — exaggeration and scare tactics must be used to elicit the desired political action.

[...] If we learned nothing else from authoritarian regimes of the past, it is that ideology and science do not mix. Group-think, emotionalism, ad hominem attacks, and suppression of dissent are unthinkable in both a free society and certainly in a productive scientific atmosphere."

Vaclav Klaus on the devastating effects of the climate hysteria (amv)

The Financial Times Deutschland published a guest comment from Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, on the dangers of the recent climate hysteria. It is an extremely insightful point of view from someone who has personally experienced the consequences of wrong ideologies and their ruthless and economically uneducated prophets:

Klima-Wahrheiten
von Vaclav Klaus

Nicht die Umwelt ist gefährdet, sondern die Freiheit. Der globale Temperaturanstieg um einige zehntel Grad führt zu hysterischen Reaktionen, die sich gegen Wohlstand und Lebensqualität richten.

Wir leben in merkwürdigen Zeiten. Ein außergewöhnlich warmer Winter reicht aus, und Umweltschützer und ihre Anhänger fordern auf der Stelle radikale Maßnahmen, um etwas hinsichtlich des Wetters zu tun - ungeachtet der Tatsache, dass im Lauf des 20. Jahrhunderts die Temperatur weltweit nur um 0,6 Prozent gestiegen ist.

Während des vergangenen Jahres ist einiges geschehen: Al Gores sogenannter Dokumentarfilm kam in die Kinos, Großbritannien - eigentlich Tony Blair - hat den "Stern-Report" veröffentlicht, der vierte Bericht der Uno-Sachverständigengruppe über Klimaänderungen wurde zusammengestellt, und auf dem G8-Gipfel wurden Ambitionen verkündet, dass in Bezug auf das Wetter etwas getan werden muss. Vernunftbegabte und freiheitsliebende Menschen müssen reagieren. Das Diktat des politisch korrekten Handelns ist streng, und nicht zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Menschheit wird uns nur eine gültige Wahrheit aufgezwungen. Alles andere wird angeprangert.

Der Autor Michael Crichton hat gesagt: "Die größte Herausforderung, der sich die Menschheit stellen muss, ist die, zwischen Wirklichkeit und Fantasie, zwischen Wahrheit und Propaganda zu unterscheiden." Das sehe ich auch so. Die Hysterie über die globale Klimaerwärmung ist ein vortreffliches Beispiel für das Problem "Wahrheit oder Propaganda?". Es gehört Mut dazu, sich der "etablierten" Wahrheit entgegenzustellen. Viele Menschen - einschließlich führender Wissenschaftler - sehen das Thema Klimawandel vollkommen anders. Sie protestieren gegen die Arroganz derer, die die Hypothese von der globalen Erwärmung unterstützen und diese mit menschlichem Handeln in Verbindung setzen.

Bedrohung für die Freiheit

Ich habe den Großteil meines Lebens unter kommunistischer Herrschaft gelebt. Daher fühle ich mich verpflichtet auszusprechen, dass die größte Bedrohung für Freiheit, Demokratie, Marktwirtschaft und Wohlstand meiner Ansicht nach inzwischen ein ehrgeiziger Umweltschutz und nicht der Kommunismus ist. Diese Ideologie will die freie und spontane Entwicklung der Menschheit durch eine Art zentrale (heute globale) Planung ersetzen.
Umweltschützer fordern ein sofortiges Handeln der Politik, weil sie nicht an die langfristigen, positiven Folgen des Wirtschaftswachstums glauben. Und sie ignorieren sowohl den technischen Fortschritt, in dessen Genuss zukünftige Generationen zweifellos kommen werden, als auch die erwiesene Tatsache, dass mit dem Wohlstand der Gesellschaft auch die Qualität der Umwelt zunimmt. Sie sind Pessimisten à la Malthus.

Die Wissenschaftler sollten uns helfen und die politischen Folgen ihrer wissenschaftlichen Meinung bedenken. Sie haben die Pflicht, ihre Annahmen zu Politik und Werten darzulegen und wie sehr diese die Auswahl und Interpretation der wissenschaftlichen Beweise beeinflusst haben.

Gestiegene Anpassungsfähigkeit

Ist es sinnvoll, von einer Erwärmung der Erde zu sprechen, wenn wir sie im Kontext der Entwicklung unseres Planeten über Hunderte Millionen von Jahren betrachten? Jedes Kind lernt in der Schule etwas über Temperaturveränderungen, über die Eiszeit, über das viel wärmere Klima im Mittelalter. Wir alle haben bemerkt, dass selbst während unserer eigenen Lebenszeit Temperaturveränderungen (in beide Richtungen) vorkommen.

Aufgrund der technologischen Fortschritte, der Zunahme des Wohlstands, der Rationalität von Institutionen und der Fähigkeit der Länder, sich selbst zu organisieren, ist die Anpassungsfähigkeit der menschlichen Gesellschaft drastisch gestiegen. Sie wird weiter steigen, und dank ihr werden die Menschen mit den möglichen Folgen kleinerer Klimaveränderungen fertig werden. Ich bin einer Meinung mit Professor Richard Lindzen vom Massachusetts Institute of Technology, der sagte: "Künftige Generationen werden sich verwundert fragen, warum die Industrienationen Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts wegen eines weltweiten durchschnittlichen Temperaturanstiegs von einigen zehntel Grad in hysterische Panik verfallen sind und warum sie aufgrund krasser Übertreibungen höchst ungewisser Computerprognosen, die in unglaubwürdigen Schlussfolgerungen zusammengefasst wurden, erwogen haben, das Rad des Industriezeitalters zurückzudrehen."

Beim Thema globale Erwärmung geht es mehr um Sozial- als um Naturwissenschaften, mehr um den Menschen und seine Freiheit als um einige zehntel Grad Celsius Veränderung der weltweiten Temperatur.

Als Zeuge der heutigen weltweiten Debatte über den Klimawandel merke ich Folgendes an:

Kleine Klimaveränderungen machen keine weitreichenden restriktiven Maßnahmen nötig.
Jegliche Unterdrückung von Freiheit und Demokratie sollte vermieden werden.

Statt die Menschen von oben zu organisieren, sollten wir jedem gestatten, zu leben, wie er will.

Wir sollten uns gegen die Politisierung der Wissenschaft wehren und uns dem Begriff "wissenschaftlicher Konsens" widersetzen, der stets nur von einer lauten Minderheit, nie von der schweigenden Mehrheit erzielt wird.

Statt über "die Umwelt" zu reden, sollten wir durch unser persönliches Verhalten auf sie achtgeben.

Wir sollten bescheiden, aber zuversichtlich bei der spontanen Entwicklung der menschlichen Gesellschaft vorgehen.

Wir sollten uns nicht mit katastrophalen Prognosen gegenseitig Angst einjagen oder diese Prognosen heranziehen, um ein irrationales Eingreifen in das Leben der Menschen zu rechtfertigen.

President Klaus knows his Hayek, indeed! So here is Murray N. Rothbard with the final word:

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

Is there really a Great Global Warming Swindle? (fg)

For the sake of completeness, we can find biased judgements of human-caused global-warming critics, too. In march, there was a broadcast on british channel 4 supposing to prove the global warming swindle. With hindsight, most of the scientists countermanded their statements in the film since they were quoted wrongly. For some reply statements see the following links:

• Letter to channel 4 and to the director Martin Durkin by scientist C. Wunsch
• An open letter of 37 scientiste to Martin Durkin
• Highly recommendable replies by Marting Durkin (pretty vulgarly)
• A Times article on the dispute

Environmentalist's Paradise (amv)

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" (amv)

Do Not Believe Everything Just Because Everyone Else Does! Think! Make Up Your Own Mind! Here is a very, very insightful report. I'm still undecided.

Climate Change: Scientific Consensus vs. Common Sense (amv)

Seeing the news one may receive the impression that common sense and critical thinking can be substituted for Scientific Consensus. Well, I doubt it. First, climotologists may be right about the weather but they usually do not have a clue about economics. If they would, they may be more reluctant to surge governments to act "now," at all costs, because all costs today are few compared to the costs of Climate Change. As Robert Higgs rightly claims

we need to develop a much keener sense of what a scientist is qualified to talk about and what he is not qualified to talk about. Climatologists, for example, are qualified to talk about the science of climatology (though subject to all the intrusions upon pure science I have already mentioned). They are not qualified to say, however, that “we must act now” by imposing government “solutions” of some imagined sort. They are not professionally knowledgeable about what degree of risk is better or worse for people to take; only the individuals who bear the risk can make that decision, because it’s a matter of personal preference, not a matter of science. Climatologists know nothing about cost/benefit cosiderations; indeed, most mainstream economists themselves are fundamentally misguided about such matters (adopting, for example, procedures and assumptions about the aggregation of individual valuations that lack a sound scientific basis). Climate scientists are the best qualified people to talk about climate science, but they have no qualifications to talk about public policy, law, or individual values, rates of time preference, and degrees of risk aversion. In talking about desirable government action, they give the impression that they are either fools or charlatans, but they keep talking―worst of all, talking to doomsday-seeking journalists―nevertheless.

Further, keep in mind that we are all driven by our self-interest, not only by the income we may earn, but also by the reputation we may raise in participating in significant scientific councils. And today, all major scientific councils are in some ways sponsored by governments. Again, it is Higgs who makes this point clear:

If your work, for whatever reason, does not appeal to the relevant funding agency’s bureaucrats and academic review committees, you can forget about getting any money to carry out your proposal. Recall the human frailties I mentioned previously; they apply just as much in the funding context as in the publication context. Indeed, these two contexts are themselves tightly linked: if you don’t get funding, you’ll never produce publishable work, and if you don’t land good publications, you won’t continue to receive funding.

When your research implies a “need” for drastic government action to avert a looming disaster or to allay some dire existing problem, government bureaucrats and legislators (can you say “earmarks”?) are more likely to approve it. If the managers at the NSF, NIH, and other government funding agencies gave great amounts of money to scientists whose research implies that no disaster looms or no dire problem now exists or even that although a problem exists, no currently feasible government policy can do anything to solve it without creating greater problems in the process, members of Congress would be much less inclined to throw money at the agency, with all the consequences that an appropriations cutback implies for bureaucratic thriving. No one has to explain all these things to the parties involved; they are not idiots, and they understand how the wheels are greased in their tight little worlds.

I, for my part, remain sceptical about this "scientific consensus." I prefer common sense.