Ancap view on Climate change?

natermer · 2日前

We would have to figure out:

Is global warming man made or not. It's a fact that increasing the Co2 will increase the temperature. But the thing is that Co2 is just a tiny factor in a massively complex system. The amount of impact the Co2 can be negligible or it could be massive if combined with some unknown multiplication effect (which is what the more scientific oriented of the climate alarmist folks worry about). Climate change is natural and it does happen regardless of man's activity. There is never been a 'normal' temperature or constant historic temperature. The question is how much man's activity is actually impacting things.
If it's man-made is real is it possible to reverse it or do something about it. It may not be possible to do anything.
If it's possible to do anything about it then do we need to figure out if we really want to reverse it? Higher Co2 concentrations is extremely beneficial to plant life, for example. Modern plants evolved during periods were Co2 was typically much higher then it is today. Greenhouse gardeners will often purposely introduce large amounts of Co2 into their gardens to increase plant growth.

Mankind also evolved in semi-tropical and tropical areas. The only reason we exist across the planet is because of our technology. We kill animals and wear their skin because our skin would be damaged by the natural climate in most places. We need agriculture and preserve food because we would starve to death in most places during the winter. Without our tech man could only exist in narrow bands on either side of the equator.. things getting a few degrees hotter will make most places more hospitable.

We see today that businesses are generally irresponible about thing like ocean polution, carbon emission, etc.

Well the thing is that Co2 isn't a pollution. It isn't poisonous and is in fact a required element for survival and food. Without it we would all be dead.

Calling Co2 a pollutant is like calling pure water a pollutant. Water vapor is a much more influential greenhouse gas then Co2 is. The influence that water vapor has over a region's climate is several orders of magnitude greater then Co2. (it's just that water is self-regulating... when it gets too much in the air it just starts raining. Co2 can't do that.)

Actual pollution pollution is a different matter. Poisons are pushed into streams. Plastics collect in certain regions in the oceans. Cancer causing agents are collecting in the soil, in the air, and in our food. Smog screws up lungs. Lack of clean air inside of houses and chemicals leaching out of carpets and other things cause all sorts of problems for children's development. New strains of drug resistant bacteria are being created by abuse of drugs by hospitals and individuals. Genetically modified plants are modifying genome of key food plants world-wide so that chemical companies can sell 'Agent Orange' to kill off weeds since they are evolving to resist pesticides.

All that terrible stuff is happening, yet it's completely unrelated to Co2 or anything to do with climate change.

In fact I find it very suspicious that as the 'green movement' is gaining power in the USA and other places and actually started to threaten major corporations and governments.... that this climate stuff appeared and now the rest of the stuff that was so important just a few years ago.. pure water, clean air, healthy food, education about chemicals... all this seems to not to matter so much to most people. It's almost like it's a purposeful distraction...

EmpIStudios · 2日前

Things like non-air pollution can be mitigated by granting ownership of a (portion of a) body of water, giving people a financial stake in the cleanliness of the environment. I would imagine a clean lake is more profitable than a lake designated as a waste dump site, and a factory that dumps waste into a river is vulnerable to ligitation from Bob's Fishing downstream for the costs on their business. For air pollution, air content can be measured and although some investigation would need to occur, an air polluter has an incentive to be as clean as possible if they don't want to open themselves up to litigation from plaintiffs with proof their pollution is having a negative impact on their bodies.

wrothbard · 2日前

We see today that businesses are generally irresponible about thing like ocean polution, carbon emission, etc.

Do we? I haven't seen any general irresponsibility about any of those things. In fact, businesses seem to be trumpeting about how they're combating those things with their awesome 'planet-friendly' practices.

tibizi · 2日前

It's a mask for communists after the Soviet fell. Check Walter Block on this issue. Here's a video for start: https://youtu.be/3Gmds8R7lyw

Cole7rain · 2日前

Well the political rhetoric says "Climate change is a huge problem that has to be dealt with", and the solution is to "tax carbon".

So forgive me for being sceptical, but as you get older you start to learn to factor in money into the possible motivations behind political issues.

For me the biggest problem is that every graph I see from climate alarmists are only showing analysis of temperatures from around 1880 to present time, while ignoring the broader picture you get when looking at ice core data over the last 5000 years.

Renben9 · 2日前

Climate change is always happening and there is nothing people can or should do about it. The best we can do, and are of course doing, is developing technology to make us independent of climate. There were always droughts, now we can transport water where it's needed. There were always floods, now we can build damns and pumps. There were always pests, now we can extinguish them and so on. All we need is the technology and the energy source to power it. Currently and most probably for a very long time, this source will be fossil fuels.

I suspect humans unfortunately don't have any significant impact on climate. I really wish we could just use a sort of knob to turn the heat up and down, by simply using more or less coal/gas/oil plants instead of more or less nuclear energy (the only two reliable energy sources known to man at this point in time.)

As to pollution: oceans, air (more like the air in and around properties), rivers, forests etc. are nothing but large ponds and gardens. Make them private property and have private courts and law enforcement, voila. You dump toxic waste in my lake? Of to the prison you go! It's not that hard from a legal point of view. The enforcement is just a technicality, like would you have autonomous thermal vision flying drones to guard your private rain forest areal, or employ trained monkeys, I don't know. The market will take care of these kinds of problems, which are technical and therefore easily solved.

A side note on Carbon Dioxide: If I had such a knob, I would turn the CO2-levels from the current just shy of 400 ppm to a nice 800 to 1000 ppm. This would yield more crops. Also 400 ppm is kind of on the low end of what plants need to live. Some can do like 70, but most die at around 150 ppm. I almost feel bad, because I don't drive my car very often or travel much by plane.

TheAmpca · 2日前

If people want to stop carbon emissions they need to stop buying from companies that emit gasses, and driving their gas guzzlers eveywhere. Companies that pollute other people's land a la fraccing need to be sued.

rddt1983 · 2日前

The only plausible route I could see would be if paying climate-related claims became so burdensome to insurance companies that they started started suing CO2 emitters, assuming they could compile evidence proving causality. Or perhaps they'd find it cheaper to attempt some sequestration project.

Otherwise it would just have to fall more to a grassroots moral crusade.

Acanes · 2日前

This talk pretty much sums up my opinion. Global warming is happening, there are some bad things about it, there are some good things about it, we can't be certain enough to involve the state and I favour acting as though you can't determine the effects. Friedmann suggests it's probably going to be beneficial on net, I think it'll probably negative on net. Although that may be the mainstream bias talking.

cyrusol · 2日前

The Hockey Schtick

MaunaLoona · 2日前

First, you can't stop climate change. One thing that's always changing is the climate. The most recent ice age lasted 60,000 years -- all without human intervention.

Second, is the current trend of what appears to be global warming harmful or beneficial? In the news you hear only the negative side of it. But what about the benefits? Currently far, far more deaths happen due to cold than due to heat. There is currently no place on Earth that's not populated solely due to heat. The same can't be said about cold -- look at Antarctica, parts of Russia and Canada. Higher temperatures, even if by a few degrees, would mean fewer deaths due to cold. Higher temperatures would also open up large areas of farmable land, which means more food production and higher carrying capacity for the planet. Higher CO2 levels increase the Earth's vegetation cover. Farming under higher CO2 levels is more efficient.

Third, can we do anything about it? There is actually one feasible way to reduce CO2 pollution and it's not solar power -- it's nuclear power. For some reason environmentalist reject nuclear power outright, even though it's safer source of energy by orders of magnitude, even safer than solar, and less expensive, too. This all hinges on the assumption that CO2 is the major driver of global warming. Some clever calculations show that only 25-30% of the recent warming can be attributed to CO2. The rest has to come from other sources, such as fluctuations of the sun. (I'll see if I can find a link to the youtube video.)

Fourth, is there really global warming? Temperatures remained pretty constant for the past 19 years. True, it might be a pause in the long term trend. But it might also be temperatures plateauing out. ALL of IPCC's models overestimated warming.

As for other type of pollution, it happens because no one owns the resource. Private property is the solution to pollution. That includes private property of air, land, sea and outer space. Fuck the Common Heritage of Mankind -- the governments are simply colluding to claiming that which they have no power to claim.

Elder_Yautja · 2日前

How do we even know it is bad? Climate change seems to me to be assumptions built on assumptions built on assumptions. One must assume (since the science is very shaky at best) that the climate is actually changing dramatically. This rests on the assumption (even less well established), that humans are causing it, which rests on the assumption that we can also stop it, and the whole premise rests on the assumption that this is a negative thing in the first place. Maybe global warming is good for planet Earth?

Anarcho_Capitalism

調停者