UPDATES BELOW.
A California friend sent me the following post by Don Boudreaux, chair of the Dept. of Economics at Virginia’s George Mason University. Boudreaux had sent it to the
Washington Times, apparently in response to an editorial.
Cool reception
“Let’s grant (if just for the sake of argument) that environmental scientists have proved that Earth’s ideal average temperature was reached about a century ago and that the temperature is rising because of human activity (“Just the facts,” Op-Ed, yesterday).

“The truth remains that these scientists have no expertise to judge whether government can be trusted with the power and resources to “combat” global warming. Nor can these scientists tell us how a free market likely would deal with global warming’s consequences.
“Contrary to widespread belief, environmental scientists can legitimately say nothing about whether, or how, to respond to global warming.”
I tried to find the editorial in question, but was unable to locate it.
Even so, Boudreaux’s was such a fatuously stupid argument I wondered whether he had been misquoted. It was in the Washington Times, after all. So I Googled around a bit and found his “The case for neglecting global warming.” After reading it I sadly concluded that there had been no misquoting. The two statements were in sad harmony with one another.
Apparently because capitalism leads to a better material standard of living – a claim I have agreed with loudly for maybe 40+ years – it can do anything. Any problems it causes create entrepreneurial opportunities where someone can make lots of money by solving them. I am reminded of what happened in Tokyo some years back. Entrepreneurs began installing booths where for a little money people could get whiffs of clean air. This would fit Bourdreux’s model of creative adaptation pretty well, I think. A problem caused by capitalism and a creative entrepreneurial approach to it. Sure beats air quality standards. I wonder why he didn’t mention it?
Global warming issues may enable us to see the intellectual and moral melt down of hard core libertarian ideology, such as Boudreaux advocates. I have a personal interest here as from around 1965 to 1975 or a bit later I also called myself a libertarian – and I still agree with them on some important issues. But as I encountered more of the world outside books I began moderating my views.
For Boudreaux scientists apparently have the same status the Dixie Chicks have for other kinds of right wingers – they should do their work and shut up. Leave the heavy thinking to “experts.” Bill Kristol demonstrated the same deep appreciation for others’ views regarding Bush’s escalation of the war in Iraq. It seems a constant theme among all too many on the political right.
Of course that same logic applies equally well to any citizen who is not a self-proclaimed expert. They should all just shut up. There is something deeply authoritarian about the right, even in its libertarian guise. The reason, I think, is that they have no conception of citizenship.
But most economists would also disagree with Boudreaux. So from his perspective apparently only radical free market economists can speak legitimately on public policy, even with respect to addressing issues they long denied existed while most other people took them seriously. Once they have been shown to be wrong, their judgment is still superior to that of those who events have shown to be right because they are “experts.” This is the logic of a Bush Republican masquerading as a lover of freedom and competence.
But Bourdreaux demonstrates that he still does not understand even the slightest bit about the issue – or ironically, even how global warming applies to markets. He tries to argue an empirical issue (is it bad and if so, how bad) with a theoretical claim that rejects empirical evidence in advance (scientists are incompetent to make public policy judgments and all we need to do is adapt because we cannot do anything else that is effective). Bad as this approach is, in his few sentences Boudreaux manages to make even more errors.
First, no scientist argues the earth reached its average temperature about 100 years ago. The statement is utterly meaningless – and quite irrelevant to the issue of global warming and its effects.
Second, and most appalling for an economist, let alone a free market one, CO2 production can be easily analyzed as a property rights issue. Negative externalities are produced and the producer makes money by not paying attention to them. Others pay the price. Some externalities that once were relatively harmless because their impact was small can, if production increases, become serious problems requiring new definitions of property rights. Smog in Los Angeles and winter smoke from wood fires in Missoula, Montana, are simple examples. There is nothing anti-market here. Nothing at all.
In some cases simply redefining property rights so that those externalities are internalized within the market solves the problem. CO2 is resistant to this solution because each producer contributes such an insignificant amount to the total. Enforcement costs by individuals suing thousands of other indiviuduals for damages are overwhelming. Government can address the issue in various ways, among them through a carbon tax. This tax can be made revenue neutral. I have blogged here on that issue.
Further, and even more hopefully, as Peter Barnes argues in Who Owns the Sky? And more recently, in his fabulous Capitalism 3.0, there are essentially nongovernmental solutions to these kinds of problems, by means of trusts. Barnes’ approach is even harmonious with radical libertarian principles, though it does require government to assign property rights. I think Capitalism 3.0 may be one of the most important books of my lifetime, and I will blog on it soon.
Finally, as the current healing of the damage to the ozone layer is demonstrating, sometimes government can solve a serious environmental problem, one created by capitalism. The treaty that led to fixing this problem was signed by that notorious socialist, Ronald Reagan. No mention of that by Boudreaux, either.
We are seeing yet another example of the growing intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of a once powerful intellectual tradition.
UPDATE: In response to comments by a libertarian friend. This is a growing bankruptcy. I am not saying all libertarians are intellectually or morally bankrupt. I am saying that as they freeze their ideology in such a way as to avoid confronting critical issues they become irrelevant, and therefore intellectually bankrupt. There is no longer value there. Peter Barnes Capitalism 3.0 continues much that is of value in libertarian thought – but Barnes does not call himself a libertarian, and for good reasons.
Moral bankruptcy is trickier. But when intellectual openness and honesty is sacrificed to ideological rigidity, fear of change undermines not only intellectual life, it undermines personal integrity. Immorality follows. The Christian Right is a perfect example. “Libertarians” such as Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit are as well. One piece of evidence is the increasing use of personal attacks instead of rational arguments to win points. So and so is a bad person or has bad motives, therefore their views should be rejected. Another is a willingness to resort to violence, or approving others’ use of violence. Here is where Reynolds’ “libertarianism” turns to ashes.
But to be fair – when I checked Reynolds’ post to make sure the link would work, he had an interesting piece on global warming linked to MIT’s Technology Review, referring to a proposal by science fiction author Gregory Benford. Not a solution, but a time-buyer. Glenn Reynolds on this issue at least takes sceince seriously.
UPDATE II. I have made some small edits to clarify ambiguities in this post.