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.