Freeman Dyson on Global Warming and the New Secular Religion
Nick Gillespie | May 27, 2008, 9:31am
As the Copenhagen Consensus Center 2008 conference ponders how to prioritize and address planet-wide issues, including global warming, there's this piece in The New York Review of Books by Freeman Dyson to consider:
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
Dyson reviews two books, one by economist William Nordhaus and a collection of approaches to global warming edited by former Mexican President Ernest Zedillo. The whole piece is worth reading and is online here.
I'm more than a little unsettled by Dyson's casual equation of socialism and environmentalism, and the relatively uncomplicated assertion that greens hold the moral high ground (just as, one supposes, the socialists did?). However, I think Dyson is surely correct in a purely descriptive sense and there's this odd twist that might just make policy discussions more wide-ranging and meaningful. When an ideology becomes the background assumption, it's often easier to start discussing the limits of that system, or at least to start talking about meaningful differences again. Which helps explain the boomlet of skeptical environmentalist books that Dyson is commenting on (for another example, go here).
Hat tip: Blogger and movie critic extraordinaire Alan Vanneman (whose new essay in Bright Lights on Renoir's The Rules of the Game is compulsively worth reading. Or perhaps worth reading compulsively?).
Francisco Torres | May 27, 2008, 8:50pm | #
Are you confusing "fair trade organizations" with "The Fair Trade Federation?"
No, and I know the difference.
How so?
Could you elaborate on what you see as "poor economics" in the activities of The Fair Trade Federation?
I cannot say about the Fair Trade Federation per se, but the overall concept is illiterate in economics. It is quite simple: Fair Trade
means placing a price bottom on certain products, in order to subsidize a particular product and their producers - the intentions behind Fair Trade notwithstanding. What this does is that it distorts the profit-loss test for those activities, by not allowing producers to determine if their production rate is in sync with the market, if they are using their resources efficiently (except following some proposed guideline), or if they place their resources to better use - since there is a guaranteed price, producers are not encouraged to search for alternative products.
As for environmental solutions, agencies that provide accurate consumer information regarding environmental impact are needed if solutions are to remain voluntary rather than mandatory.
The problem here is that this argument begs the question - you already assume that the primary information is the environmental impact. It is not, it is PRICE - and it will always be, even in a controlled market.
You see, if you have a distortion of the profit-loss test (because of the subsidy), then producers will not be encouraged to seek more efficient means of production, better quality manufacturing processes, and whatever can help in making the operation more profitable. Even considering that Fair Trade will impose some sort of stringent manufacturing and production conditions (for example, "sustainable" or organic processes for growing coffee, better working conditions and the like), this does not mean that the process is efficient, without knowing true market prices.
It is the billions of choices made by individuals that will have a real impact.
Indeed, but you make a false assumption - that the primary source of information in the market will be environmental impact. This is false - the primary source of information is price, always.
The approach taken by the fair trade movement is going to be an important element in any effective solution to environmental challenges.
I do not think so - their approach is still command and control, creating distortions in the profit-loss test. What will happen is that people will eventually stop noticing a difference in coffee or products created by Fair Trade and those obtained in the normal free market, and choose whichever is more economical. This is why the different Fair Trade organizations are lobbying governments and trying to solicit the help of patronizing (and gullible) celebrities.
