Re: [asa] Why the opposition to global warming

The point about armies is a good one. Government indeed often is the
appropriate provider / regulator of a "public good" such as an army.
("Public good" here is used in a specialized economic sense to mean a good
that is essentially non-excludable (you can't feasibly keep anyone from
enjoying its benefits) and non-rival (it can be used by many people
simultaneously without getting used up)). An army isn't a pure "public
good" because at some point it gets "used up," but generally, national
defense is considered a public good. Likewise, the environment generally is
considered a public good, and therefore, preservation of a safe environment
cannot be left solely to private property rights (the famous "tragedy of the
commons" comes into play here). However, the trick is to find the
appropriate level of regulation at the appropriate level of government,
which balances freedom and the dynamics of Coasian contractual bargaining
with the need to preserve the commons. If you know exactly what that is,
you get the Nobel in economics.

On 2/4/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> As you say, generalizations are too simplistic. Plenty of loons opposed
> to the environmental movement could be cited for unfair generalizations
> about the other side.
>
> As to the 2d point, it's not simply a matter of "cuteness." Genuine
> conservatives, as distinguished from the current neo flock, know that
> government is supposed to do precisely the things which cannot be done by
> individuals. Without that awareness you end up with private armies &c. &
> while individuals can do some things about global warming, the notion that
> the problem can be dealt with entirely at that level is utterly
> unrealistic. That does not mean of course that it can be dealt with only by
> a totalitarian world government.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> *Cc:* Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> ; wdwllace@sympatico.ca; Randy
> Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> ; asa@calvin.edu ; Andy Bootsma<bootsmaa@rogers.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 04, 2007 3:07 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Why the opposition to global warming
>
>
> *the assumption that "the conservative movement" as a whole is
> > "socialist, pantheistic and oppressive" is an overstatement at best.*
>
> Well, generally, generalizations are too simplistic. But let's be real --
> some very significant streams of the environmental movement tend towards
> socialism and a sort of pantheism. Don't forget Paul Ehrlich's
> environmentalist manifesto "The Population Bomb," with chapter titles such
> as "Too Many People," "Too Little Food" and "A Dying Planet" (
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568495870/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-7169106-6605613#reader-link)
>
>
> What kind of world would we be living in today if Ehrlich had his way?
> One with domestic and international involuntary population control laws,
> which could include things like "sterilants" in the water supply ("The
> Population Bomb" at p. 130). The population control meme was a major tenet
> of environmental globalism until global warming took center stage. I think
> it's good for conservatives to remind us of this, before we hand over the
> keys to the government to a small number of knowledge elites, even if the
> global warming problem has a sounder scientific basis than Ehrlich's
> population theories.
>
> As to "conservatives" and "conservation," that's cute, but the fundamental
> principle of modern conservatism is that people should be free to govern
> themselves to the extent possible. A corollary to that principle is that
> inefficiency and corruption increase along with the size and power of a
> governing body. It's highly doubtful that global governance would do a
> better job at solving environmental problems. More likely, it would only
> produce more opportunities for inequality and graft. International
> cooperation and agreements are necessary, but international rule-making and
> enforcement bodies should be subjected to healthy skepticism.
>
> On 2/3/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> > 1st, >
> > 2d, it's always seemed strange to me that so many "conservatives" are
> > opposed to, or are at best lukewarm about, "conservation." I recall
> this
> > point being made back around the beginnings of the environmental
> movement,
> > ~1970, by James Buckley - Bill's brother - who had just been elected to
> the
> > U.S. Senate from New York on the Conservative ticket (if you need any
> bona
> > fides).
> >
> > Shalom
> > George
> > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Hamilton" < williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
> > To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; < wdwllace@sympatico.ca>
> > Cc: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>; "Andy
> Bootsma"
> > <bootsmaa@rogers.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Why the opposition to global warming
> >
> >
> > I agree with David. The scientists who are convinced that global warming
> is
> > a
> > serious problem (and I agree with David that it is a problem) need to
> > distance
> > themselves from the environmental movement, who have turned
> conservatives
> > off
> > with their socialist, pantheistic and oppressive government ways. If
> they
> > will
> > do that perhaps some intelligent discussion can take place, which will
> lead
> > to
> > real solutions.
> >
> > --- David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > > We've discussed this before, but I think you need to understand the
> > > context
> > > of the environmental movement to answer this question. The
> environmental
> > > movement has made many doomsday predictions that have failed to
> > > materialize,
> > > the most notorious involving population control. Coupled with those
> > > predictions, some leaders in the environmental movement have operated
> from
> > > a
> > > neo-pantheistic worldview and have made suggestions that smack of
> > > totalitarianism -- again, population control being the most notorious
> > > example. And, as to warming in particular, the most prominent policy
> > > proposal, the Kyoto treaty, represents a massively costly global
> > > regulatory
> > > regime that impinges on state sovereignty and voter oversight --
> thereby
> > > weakining some basic building blocks of democratic governance.
> > >
> > > So, among conservatives of any stripe -- not just fundamentalist
> religious
> > > conservatives, but also more serious economic and libertarian
> > > conservatives
> > > -- there is a deep suspicion of *any *suggestion that the world is
> facing
> > > an
> > > immanent, massive crisis that can be addressed only through world-wide
> > > regulation. Personally, I think at least some of that skepticism is a
> good
> > > thing, even if (as I believe) there is a very real problem that needs
> to
> > > be
> > > addressed in global warming. We need to find ways to address this
> problem
> > > without sacrificing freedom and liberty, and the libertarian skeptical
> > > voices at least remind us of that.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/3/07, Dave Wallace <wdwllace@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On your blog, Randy you ask "Why the opposition to global warming".
> > > > Late yesterday and again this morning the online version of the
> National
> > > > Post leads off with the headline
> > > >
> > > > The real deal?
> > > > Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists.
> > > >
> > > > With the experts on climate change weighing in, the Post talks to
> > > > scientists who go against conventional...
> > > >
> > > > Further down they have:
> > > > # Global warming likely caused by humans
> > > > # Video: Suzuki reacts to climate report
> > > >
> > > > http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/index.html
> > > >
> > > > The National IMHO is Canada's best paper which is not saying a
> lot. We
> > > > used to have much better news papers, however, they have gone down
> hill
> > > > in the last ten to twenty years. Too many do not seem to be able to
>
> > > > tell the difference between news and editorials.
> > > >
> > > > The ten part series they write starts out at:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0
> > > >
> > > > If people read just the headlines let alone some of the lead
> articles
> > > > and the above series it appears that climate warming is not well
> > > > supported, at least the human causation factor. David Suzuki might
> > > > convince people otherwise, however, some people will say that if
> Suzuki
> > > > thinks global warming is real then it must be at best marginal or
> even a
> > > > hoax. IMHO he has cried wulf too many times.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David W. Opderbeck
> > > Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> > > Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> > > MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
> > >
> >
> >
> > Bill Hamilton
> > William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> > 248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
> > "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Finding fabulous fares is fun.
> > Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight
> and
> > hotel bargains.
> > http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.