Helicopter money?

In response to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p039rd7g), perhaps we need a different way to jump start the economy--something other than unpaid-for tax cuts and giving away money.

Perhaps we need an economy based on evolution rather than expansion, e.g. adapting and evolving to avoid the obvious dire effects of climate change.

Think of change rather than unsustainable expansion (growth) as the economic driver. Think fewer people, a greener planet, and the economic activity needed to get there.

It has always been such massive collective efforts that have rescued us from past economic crises. Consider the US and the Great Depression. It was World War II that saved us (the New Deal merely kept us going until the war came along).

Buying fossil fuels in order to keep them in the ground

One of the biggest obstacles to cutting back sharply on carbon-based fuel consumption lies with the economic interests of the producing companies and countries. One approach to dealing with this and undercutting the opposition is to simply buy the fuel (principally coal and oil) and leave it underground.

    All, really, we need to do is negotiate the price. Something that should take into account the potential loss of jobs (perhaps these jobs too are bought out as part of the deal), and the fact that the fuel cannot be burned. Still, this is a problem that is far easier to solve than the imposition of a world-wide system of regulation of consumption.

    A supply-side solution. And one far more certain to work, if the current owners can be forced by the overwhelming majority of the rest of us to sell. (Here lies the controversy, in the principle of fair compensation and eminent domain. But if saving the planet cannot be considered a compelling reason to invoke this eminent domain, then what can? Wars have been fought over less, and might be fought again.)

    It is an approach that has been tried by organizations like the Nature Conservancy when it comes to the preservation of other natural resources. It is an approach that could also be used to preserve the rain forests (we could buy them too). It is an approach that conservatives could not object to (the ultimate free-market solution). And an approach that seems worthy of consideration, whatever else we might do.

See also: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-worlds-fossil-fuel-reserve-must-stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/665405?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 

Questions for the Candidates (on climate change)

So, here in Iowa, we have a unique opportunity to meet and question the presidential candidates, both Democratic and Republican. So what sort of questions should we be asking? Certainly it is best to begin by introducing yourself (briefly) with something personal and of local concern, and to try to connect (if you at all can) to the candidate, the candidate’s values, and the candidate’s message.

Beyond that though, I think the nature of the questions depend on the ideology of the candidate. For people with a real committment to the issue (only Democrats so far), I think the key thing is how they intend to approach the problem, practically and politically. So my questions would be:

1.       Given the current poisonous political environment is Washington DC, how do we do enough soon enough to make avert the worst effects of climate change?

2.       Are you open to small-government, market-based approaches such as the Citizen’s Climate Lobby’s  Fee & Dividend (a tax on carbon emissions that would be fully refunded to the public in the form of an individual tax cut)?

3.       How would you counter big-money corporate interests that want action on climate change to fail?

And my lingering concerns would be that a) we would do something but be satisfied with that, and fail to do enough, or b) that we would do something administratively that a later president would overturn, or c) that we would try to do something but fail because Congress refuses to act.

Small government, market-based approaches are of particular interest to me because they are the most libertarian in principle, because they emphasize the positive (jobs, innovation, and broad-based-action), and—once ingrained into the economy—are more difficult to reverse (far more difficult than executive actions or EPA rules).

For Republicans sympathetic (but not fully committed) to the cause,  try to lock-in the assumption that there is a serious problem (or at least a high risk), then ask what they would do about it from their own ideological perspective, e.g.

1.       Assuming we want to hedge our bets, in case the science is right, what would be the conservative/libertarian approach to dealing with climate change?

2.       Are you open to market-based approaches such as the Citizen’s Climate Lobby’s  Fee & Dividend (a tax on carbon emissions that would be fully refunded to the public in the form of an individual tax cut)?

Where the second question (from my perspective) serves as a test of whether they are serious enough to be specific.

For candidate’s more hostile to the subject, denying that climate change is either real or man-made, I suggest confronting them more directly. If they claim to be  telling it like it is, then how can they be so willing to deny the truth on climate change? Or put up NASA satellites to collect data on the Earth’s climate? Or, if they are not a scientist (and uncertain of the truth), then why they are unwilling to listen to people who are scientists (and know what they claim not to know)? Would they be just as unwilling to listen to the expert advice of military generals in a time of war? Or to economists in a time of economic crisis?

The final word. These are my questions, of course, and this is my approach to dealing with the candidates. (So far I’ve talked to Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Lindsay Graham, and Bernie Sanders).  And I don’t suggest (you not being me) that you do the same thing. But (IMHO) it is by overwhelming the political process with our individual concerns and personal stories that we have the most clout, and not by preaching from the same prayer book.

Eminent Domain and the Keystone/Bakken pipelines

Libertarian principles favor the rights of the individual over those of the state, with exceptions made for matters such as national defense, in which our survival instincts as a society hold sway. (Matters in which the stakes are high and a ‘compelling interest’ is claimed).

Similarly, in a practice often opposed by libertarians, eminent domain has been used to assert the rights of the public (the public-good) over those of the individual. (Matters where a compelling interest is again claimed, though the stakes are far lower, e.g. the construction of a road or an airport, not the survival of the nation. And fair market value for the seized property must be paid—though this is often a matter of dispute).

However, now it seems eminent domain is being used to assert the corporate-good over the public-good, the individual be damned, and in a matter where the stakes are enormously high (if you believe in climate change and its consequences). A matter in which the ‘compelling interest’ of the public and the rights of the individual align, but are nevertheless being thwarted.

All I can say is: consider it a litmus test. And look at who is in favor of this and ask what their principles really are.

http://iowapublicradio.org/post/i-felt-threatened-iowa-landowners-sue-protect-against-eminent-domain#stream/0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_pipeline

https://www.lp.org/platform

Catastrophic, But Not Serious

Quoting a piece in the New Yorker:  "Most Americans are still untroubled by climate change. When the philosopher Slavoj Žižek tried to describe our current condition in a talk, in 2011, he offered an apocryphal battlefield anecdote. One soldier says to another, “Here, the situation is catastrophic, but not serious.” Žižek added, “Is this not more and more the way many of us, at least in the developed world, relate to our global predicament? We all know about the impending catastrophe—ecological, social—but we somehow cannot take it seriously." / Catastrophic but not serious: this is where we are ..." 

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/scenes-from-a-melting-planet-on-the-climate-change-novel

Flood Insurance: An End to Subsidies

The bad news is: According to the National Academy of Sciences, today, rates are subsidized for one-fifth of the National Flood Insurance Program's 5.5 million policies. However, the NFIP believes that most of these structures are below the base flood elevation.

The good news is: Subsidies must be phased out to comply with the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and subsequent legislation.

This, however, raises the larger question regarding how to fairly share the burden of adapting to climate change. Certainly, with higher premiums, those who knew the risk when they built are only (at long last) getting what they deserve. But what of those who built under a different set of assumptions, before climate change was a threat, or before we understood the full impact?  

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21720/tying-flood-insurance-to-flood-risk-for-low-lying-structures-in-the-floodplains

https://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/?cid=Search_GoogleAdwords_FEMABrand_c_g_e_nfip

"So talk," he says, "about climate change."

I am tied to a chair, my arms and legs bound. The gruff man holds a gun to my head. “Talk,” he says.

     I struggle instead, in an attempt to get free.

     He laughs, and gives the chair a kick. “You ain’t goin’ nowhere,” he says, amused. “There’s but one planet. And you’re on it.” He puts a hand on my chair, to steady it. “So, talk,” he repeats, “about climate change.”

     But I refuse.

     He presses the barrell of his weapon hard now against the side of my head. “Last chance,” he says, and grins.

     I clinch my teeth and wait. Aren’t they supposed to offer you a blindfold? Isn’t there a law about that?

     Click says the gun, followed by a moment of subdued silence.

     “Don’t worry,” says the man, five more chances.

     And I wake up from what I convince myself was only a dream.

iowa350.org KickOff Meeting

Talk the talk? Then dare to walk the walk.

Think of yourself a true conservative? Prove it. Conserve something. Like the planet you and your children (and your children's children) live on.

"What is a conservative after all but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live… This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it." 

Ronald Reagan

Hope from the right?

We may disagree about the solution, but we should be able to at least agree on the problem.

Evidence of this comes from the right, in the form of an effort by North Carolina entrepreneur Jay Faison to get the GOP to address climate change (advocating for a market-based approach).

See http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/republican-climate-change-jay-faison-118755.html and http://www.clearpath.org/

An Open Letter to Libertarian Candidates ... (Part 7)

Part 7. Advice to the candidate.

So here (in short) is my unsolicited advice to the candidate.

Don’t:

1.       Be a denier (don’t duck the issue; climate change is at least a risk)

2.       Waffle (this is worse; people won’t trust you or believe you)

3.       Sell out to big money, big business interests (libertarians should always be for the individual in clashes between big and small)

Do:

1.       Remain consistent (it is OK to say the science isn’t certain, it never is)

2.       Play the insurance angle (in the face of uncertainty, we buy insurance)

3.       Play the Reagan angle (the George Shultz position)

4.       Embrace market-based approaches (such as CCL’s Carbon Fee and Dividend) as an alternative to big government solutions, regulation by the EPA

5.       Emphasize the way the Dividend works (100% rebated to the public) and how this offsets any price increase (most households come out ahead)

6.       Play up the ability of the free market to innovate, to respond flexibly and efficiently, and to respond quickly (important on an issue where time is [according to scientists] of the essence]

7.       Take notice of all the windmills you see on your visits to Iowa (wind farms atop real farms, home-grown energy)

8.       Argue for free speech, and fair speech, and for small vs. big

Big Money: A poem for our times

Big money. Small money. Mere change.

Big change. Small change. No change.

And all around us, climate change.

What leads, one to the other?

Think about it--just not too long.

There isn't time for that.
Gary Daugherty, 6-7-15-AM

An Open Letter to Libertarian Candidates ... (Part 6)

Part 6. Big money, small change. 

Big money. Big business. Big government.

      What is the difference between them if they are all telling us what to do?

      And what use is liberty when others have power over you?

      Big money talks. Big money shouts. Big money sets the political agenda.

      Big money steals your voice, shouts you down, repeatedly in those one-sided commercials we all hate (no matter which side you’re on). And, in the form of robocalls that invade your privacy, intrude upon your time, demand to be answered.

      Big money steals the candidate’s voice too. It tells the candidate (like all the rest of us) what to think, and do, and say. Or, if you dare disagree, to shut up.

      Big business supplies the big money, looks out first for itself. Invest a billion, get back a trillion (by controlling the levers of big government). A great rate of return. A smart move. A good investment.

      Big government, for sale to the highest bidder. Bills written by lobbyists and big money interests. Gerrymandering, to discount the value of the vote. To replace democracy with the rule of oligarchs.

      It’s the Russian way. It shouldn’t be the American way too.
      By contrast, small is beautiful. Small government (of course). Small business (a job creator, an innovator). Small money. The voice of the people. The small guy.
      It is time to recognize that free speech is not always fair speech (just as free markets are not always fair markets). It is time to recognize that people can be smart without being rich. And that the rich can be rich for the wrong reasons. That they are not God’s chosen. Just rich. That we should not be afraid, that we can outvote them, that collectively we are even richer than they are.

      Hold a real debate. Address the public’s agenda. And let ideas hold sway, not advertizing dollars.

      So what’s a candidate to do? How do you counter big (big money, big business, big government) if, theoretically, you wanted to?

1.       Emphasize retail politics (the kind practiced in Iowa and New Hampshire, where the candidates have face-to-face time with voters, and first hand impressions count for more than campaign ads)

2.       Emphasize the internet and social media. TV is expensive and, to some degree necessary, but the Internet is free (nearly), and by relying on personal contact (at the level of friends talking to friends), potentially more effective.

3.       Make ‘Big’ itself the issue—in a limited TV campaign that contrasts itself with that of the better funded opponent, in interviews (where you have more time to talk), in debates (where the most people are watching), and everywhere else.

4.       Unite with other also-rans (money-wise) to gang up on the anointed one (the billionaire’s choice—call him that). Like small birds (more numerous and more determined) chase away a hawk.

5.       Be mocking, use humor, and be sharp and satirical, in contrast to the typically stodgy, heavy-handed, big-money approach. The way you get the news from the Daily Show. The way the Coen brothers lampoon Clean Coal in their series of mock ads (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJVbdiMgfM). Make it cool to be an outsider. Make your supporters feel smart and superior to the opposition. Make the opposition want to be you.

6.       Push for simple, market-based approaches (the CCL Carbon Fee and Dividend immediately comes to mind) as an alternative to thousand-page bills that nobody reads, and EPA regulation (the big government approach)

7.       Convert the enemy. Bribe the oil and coal interests if necessary. Treat them like victims (as surely as are island nations, and people with oceanfront property, all their eggs in the wrong basket). It is not their fault that they invested so heavily in carbon fuels. It is our fault that they did, a response to demand. We help them (become energy companies in the broadest sense of the word), they help us (by accepting a carbon fee, etc.)

8.       Get your own billionaire. Someone who already agrees with you on the key issues, including (most importantly) the need for long terms measures to limit the influence of big money in politics and restore the democratic process (amending the constitution, leveraging the donations of small donors, offering free TV time to candidates while, at the same time, moving to campaign media [the internet] that are not bandwidth limited). More about this in a future post.

9.       Turn out the vote (in the end, this is all that counts—not the money spent, but the number of votes you get)

So take the money, run the commercials—if you have to, and if you can. Do it, but run a different kind of campaign, a campaign that emphasizes small. Do it, but demand a long term end to it. And mean it too. (Like Mayday, the PAC to end all PACS, embrace the irony).

An Open Letter to Libertarian Candidates … (Part 5)

Part 5. Playing fair. Or, “ … with liberty and justice for all.”  So suppose we are a small island nation that has contributed almost nothing to the world’s carbon emissions, but stands to lose everything to rising sea levels. If the science is right, and if climate change is to blame. Say with a 65 to 95% certainty (hypothetically, where the real range would be based on an assessment by the insurance industry).

      But suppose this is the case. A case in case law. The proposal, so far, would do almost nothing to offer compensation. If the country itself were to impose a carbon fee, almost nothing would be collected, so almost nothing would be paid out, and residents (the ones most likely to lose everything) would get nothing.

      What do we do about that?

      One thing we might do, as an incentive for such countries to join the settlement, is apply the proposed solution across national borders. There would be just one pool of money collected from carbon fees. And the citizens of every country that agreed to the carbon-fee-and-dividend approach (joined the settlement) would be paid dividends from the fees collected world-wide.

      So I can just imagine the horror with which you might be taking this in. A world-wide fund? Everyone shares equally? Sounds pretty socialist (should I say communist?) to me.

      But, the truth is, in this case, the proposal precisely matches the problem. If we were not dealing with a world-wide resource (the air), we would not have a world-wide pool of money, that’s all. And would not have the need to compensate someone in America for emissions put into the air by some factory in China. But we do. And this neatly handles the problem going forward.

      As for compensation (if any) for past emissions (old carbon is just as dangerous as new carbon when it comes to climate risk, until it is pulled from the atmosphere), this is something that could be negotiated as each nation joined the settlement. In the case of our island nation, the cost of resettlement (at a minimum) would be at stake.

      All such special cases (cases where a people is disproportionately at risk through no fault of their own), however, would be dealt with once, and up front.

      Going forward, it would be every man and woman for him/herself.

      May the smartest (and wisest) adapt, survive, and thrive.

      Given, of course, a fair shake and an equal opportunity.

An Open Letter to Libertarian Candidates … (Part 4)

Part 4. Scaling Up. So, no matter what we do, will it matter, on a world-wide level? Or will our efforts simply be drowned out by all the noise (the actions and lack of action by other countries)?

      China comes to mind. But Russia too, a primary oil exporter, and no friend (under Putin) of the United States. For that matter, are our friends even our friends when it comes to climate change? Sure, the Europeans are on board (though not with respect to fee-and-dividend). But Saudia Arabia? Australia (which just repealed a carbon tax)? Who can you rely on? Who can you trust?

      Some countries may come along. Some will not. Some will come along but adopt their own (perhaps less market driven) approaches. (How can we complain, from a libertarian perspective? It is only individualism at a national level.)

      However, as the Citizens’ Climate Lobby notes, the World Trade Organization does allow a tax on goods at the border that levels the playing field (http://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/border-tax-adjustment/). So if country X does not impose an equivalent fee on oil at the point it is pumped from the ground, the fee can be imposed at the point where it is imported into the United States. And if the manufacture of some product (a pair of athletic shoes, a ton of wheat, a car) results in carbon emissions on which the fee was not paid, then the fee (on these emissions) again could be collected at the border.

      This solution is not perfect.

      It can be complicated to compute the emissions spent to manufacture a particular product. But it can be done (and precision to the Nth digit is not really necessary).

      Countries can refuse to trade with us to avoid the border tax. But few would.

      The United States is simply too big a market. And the combined US/European market (assuming the Europeans support us, a likely possibility) would be bigger still. Bring a few more like-minded countries on board and you bring the rest of world would have to follow. Make one of those countries China or India, and all resistance would crumble.

      Indeed, it would be to advantage of most of the developing world to join the settlement. What is the alternative? Suing a company in the United States to recover damages due to sea level rise in the Maldives is a lengthy and complicated business. It is much quicker and better to negotiate at a national level and join an international settlement, at least if the settlement is reasonable (more later, on countries that produce little in the way of emissions, but bear the brunt of the consequences).

      And it would be to the advantage of most companies to see things settled out of court. Companies like certainty. And having an enormous potential liability hanging over their heads world-wide (more even than their insurance companies would likely be able to pay) would do little good for the world’s business environment. Or for the world’s military security situation, if the courts (weak at an international level) proved incapable of dealing with things. Incapable of keeping up with ‘events on the ground.’

      No, if we want to avoid the risk of such consequences, it makes sense to settle now. And to do something (sooner rather than later) that reduces the risk of large-scale consequences (and damages, and worse—that, at least small chance, that the science is right).

Defending the First Amendment - It Applies to All

Related to the previous CCL post, some advice to conservatives concerned with defending constitutional rights:

When it comes to defending the first amendment, defend the right of government employees (such as James Hansen, former NASA scientist) to speak (especially on their own time and their own dime).

There is nothing so impressive as defending a principle when it applies to an opponent (in this case, an opponent of Bush administration climate policy).

More about Citizens Climate Lobby

  

For more about Citizens Climate Lobby, see:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

And their 'Laser Talks Home Page:'
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/

Of particular interest economically is the REMI study:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-general-findings/

And (for my next post), their proposal for dealing with other countries:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/border-tax-adjustment/

A first step toward adopting a world-wide solution to climate issues that is market-based.

An Open Letter to Libertarian Candidates … (Part 3)

Part 3. A market-based approach. The insurance model is certainly simpler than 7 billion lawsuits (reduced perhaps by class action) seeking damages from some indeterminate number of CO₂ producers (including, to some degree, ourselves). However, the settlement of a large number of claims for individual damages (both present and future) is equally daunting. Think of the settlement with BP over the Gulf Oil spill, on steroids.

    Market-based approaches are potentially much simpler. And, since the process is less litigious, the overhead is low. A number of conservatives have proposed a carbon tax with a corresponding reduction in other tax rates or elimination of other taxes to make the approach revenue neutral (a so-called tax swap). A long list of taxes that could be reduced or eliminated then follows--many of which (such as the elimination of the capital-gains tax) would favor one group (the rich) over another. And an obstacle to scaling things up world-wide (simpler is better since every country's tax system is different, and every country's politics is different too).

    Revenue neutral is fine, but the air belongs to all of us who breathe it, in equal measure. In terms of property rights (fundamental to libertarian principles of fairness), we each own a share. So an approach in which we license the right to dump carbon into the atmosphere is a matter of setting a fee (not a tax technically, though you can call it that if you wish) and distributing the revenues to the shareholders equally. In much the way, the Citizens Climate Lobby would propose (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/).

    Compared to the insurance-based approach, the fee substitutes for the premium, and would be a like amount. Unlike the insurance-based approach, however, the market-based approach hikes the fee each year so that we begin low and only gradually reach a fair price, giving both producers and consumers time to adapt and innovate. There is also no payout of individual claims based on damages. (Think of the whole deal as a settlement, one that--if agreed to--eliminates the need for legal action.)

    Instead we assume that (given the time to adapt), people will adapt and innovate going forward, based on what they know of the problem (and subsequently learn from future research). Potentially drawing money from the pool (rather than adding to it) by developing approaches that remove carbon from the air.

    Or—if they truly think human-induced climate change is a hoax—buying up that (now) less desirable beach front property, investing heavily in almond groves in California, and taking advantage of the fears of others (who are too dumb to see that today’s warming trend is just a part of a climate cycle that will soon revert to normal). Come on everybody, put your money down, bet on what you truly believe (if you truly believe it). But with no public subsidies for crop insurance or flood insurance or insurance against the ravages of storms like Sandy. Pay the market rate.

    Don’t want to pay the fee? Opt out. Challenge it in court. Claim that climate change is not real, or at least not man-made, and that you are not responsible. But do so at your own risk. Be prepared to pay damages if you go to court and lose. Not only for now, but for past actions. You are not party to the settlement, and have no contract for dumping carbon into the atmosphere. So don’t expect any protection for your actions. Maybe get a little liability insurance in case you lose and have to pay out big. Except “liability policies typically cover only the negligence of the insured, and will not apply to results of willful or intentional acts by the insured.” Oh well, you expect to win after all. All the suits against you (however many that may be).

    So there you have it. The full range of options are open to you: you can join the settlement and pay the fee, you can take out private insurance to protect your interests (as either a producer of carbon in the atmosphere or a victim of its effects), or you can take your case to court and take your chances.

    Again the solution is not perfect. Ideally a settlement should account for damages due to past actions, not just impose a fee going forward. And be scalable worldwide. But more this next time.

    The good news is the proposed approach is low overhead, market-based, stimulates economic growth, provides certainty to business, settles past sins, and encourages individual action and innovation. And avoids the heavy regulation and big government intervention of other proposals. It is almost something a candidate could run on.

2008 Flooding in Downtown Cedar Rapids, IA

According to the Iowa Climate Statement 2015, "there is clear evidence that the frequency of intense rain has increased in Iowa over the past 50 years"

https://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/Iowa-Climate-Statement-2015References.pdf

An Open Letter to Libertarian Candidates ... (Part 2)

Part 2. The Insurance angle. So picking up where we left off: Don’t be a denier. And don’t waffle. Instead stick to your line, the science is uncertain. (At some level the science is always uncertain, if not about the fact that the climate is changing, if not about the fact that humans are primarily responsible for the recent rapid changes, if not about the almost certainly bad consequences—then about precisely what will happen, and how bad ‘bad’ will be.)

And play the insurance angle. The science is uncertain. Bad things might happen, (if 97% of the scientists are right), if not to you then to your grandchildren. (So no need to panic, but we all care about our grandchildren, right? Play, sincerely, to family values.)

So what do we do in real life when bad things might happen? Unpredictable things. With catastrophic consequences.  (Like floods. People in Cedar Rapids and Iowa City will never forget the 2008 flood, in case you happen to be speaking there.) We buy insurance. (Pause) In the face of uncertainty, even when the likelihood of disaster is small or far in the future (like our own deaths, we hope)—if we have enough at stake and we are smart, we buy insurance.

Life insurance. Health insurance. Insurance against fire and flood. Liability insurance. Crop insurance. Even terrorism insurance. To protect yourself against things you can’t (in large measure) control. Or against suits by others for harm you may have contributed to or caused (initially unwittingly, but increasingly with culpability).

So why should climate change be any different? We have a risk (big or small, we can differ on that, though someone impartial, someone expert, must estimate it). We have potential consequences too large for the risk takers to deal with individually (again, we need to bound this, e.g. at least x, at most y), and no knowledge of precisely who will be affected and how. So everyone contributes premiums according to the coverage they need and collects from the pool when (and if) bad things (made more probable by climate change) actually occur.

The trick is to evaluate the risk, to bound the potential costs, and set to the premiums right. Those who contribute most to the risk (put the most carbon in the atmosphere) should pay the highest premiums. And everyone (with a carbon footprint greater than zero) should pay a little. Conversely, if there are people or companies who take actions that remove carbon from the atmosphere, they should be paid for the corresponding risk reduction.

This, at least, is how it should work in principle.

To eliminate the overhead and technical complexity of monitoring emissions, we can impose the premium at the point where fuels (such as oil and gas) are extracted. And, to avoid double taxation, we can count on the fact that these costs are being passed on to consumers (so consumers have no premium to pay except what is passed on, in the price).

Okay, there are some issues still to consider. Like who would administer all this? The private insurance industry? (Can they deal with it, worldwide?)  Governments? (They have to deal with the consequences of climate change that private industry cannot—but really, why should they? They didn’t create the problem). Shudder, some big international organization, with UN backing?

And what if not everyone wants to buy climate insurance (if whole countries want to opt out)? Echoes of the Obamacare mandate? More government meddling in the insurance industry? No, no, no.

And how about prevention? Prevention is certainly preferable to a pay out, especially when it comes to life insurance or terrorism. Or irreversible climate change.

So tune in next time—same bat time, same bat channel.

And be assured, there is a (libertarian) way out.

An Open Letter to Libertarian Candidates on Climate

Part 1. The Lay of the Land. So you’re a libertarian and you’ve come to Iowa because you want to be president. Good idea. And your timing is perfect. There are lots of Republicans in the field, almost all of them right-wing conservative. People who would like to run our lives as they see fit (Christians insisting everyone be Christian), or for the financial benefit of their donors. And no race on the Democratic side, great for drawing in cross-over voters.
        So your message is what? Be a grown up (no nanny state), be responsible for yourself, and don’t tread on me. And small government. And free markets. And freedom to innovate, without burdensome regulation. To think and act for themselves, and not be told what to do.
        People should be allowed to shape their own lives, as they choose, so long as they don’t bring harm to one another. And to marry whomever they choose. (Maybe stay away from that one in the Republican caucuses—there are some Iowa Supreme court justices who went there, and are no longer in office.)
        Still  your message has a definite appeal, to activists of all stripes (both liberal and conservative). Taking action, being individually responsible, playing fair. Who could object? Everyone will read into that what they want.
        But be careful. Things get a bit sticky in practice. Take an issue like climate change.

So many proposals for big government solutions (you can run against that), international agreements (Paris upcoming—the venue is perfect, who doesn’t hate the French?), regulation (make the initials EPA synonymous with IRS and NSA, you can hardly wait).

But it is hard to be honest and still be a denier. And hard to ignore the harm (if there is harm, it is a foul) that scientists predict will result (those alarmist scientists, don’t you just hate it when they come to you with all that evidence that they’re right, or even wrong in the wrong way—things really are worse than we thought).

So what’s a candidate to do? If you say climate change isn’t real, some people (most often the independents and independent-minded democrats, the very people you want to cross-over for you) don’t respect your ability to read the science with comprehension. And joke that you failed 5^th grade science. While, if you waffle and hem and haw, the same people say you’re just another politician. Playing to the base, the same base all the other candidates are playing to (so you’re just like them, no longer the libertarian alternative).

But there is a way out.

More about that tomorrow.

Liberal Libertarians

Just a reminder (perhaps of the obvious): Liberals can be libertarian too.