I recently attended a relaxed and informal meeting of learned and critical-thinking folks whom congregate now and again to discuss random subjects of interest. These gatherings are noted for their free-flowing nature, along with the disposal of a good volume of fine Bourbon which is conducive to that nature. The last meeting led the group to the topic of the Global Warming movement and why it exists.
To really understand the subject one has to get into some history...and we were fortunate to have a dabbler in "Paleo-Climatology" to help us. In this discipline, scientists have focused on the last BILLION years of the earth's history...that's a whole bunch of years. Evidence leads us to believe that climate cycles during this period lasted some 200 MILLION years each. During these climate swings, the planet would go from being a virtual ice-ball to being a semi-tropical paradise in which plants and animals thrived, and indeed evolved into giants.
The last period of tropical climate began to ebb some 70 MILLION years back during the Cenozoic period. The cooling trend that followed advanced in 3 major steps about 36 MILLION, 15 MILLION, and 3 MILLION years ago. That brings us to the last 1 MILLION years.
The vast majority of that time period found the planet locked securely in a series of small ice-ages, all subject to the overall 200 MILLION year cycle. Interestingly, global temperatures varied somewhat radically during this period. They went up...they went down...they went all around. Ice sheets receded, then advanced, then receded and advanced some more. The last major leap was about 11,600 years ago...a tiny drop in the bucket in time...and ended the worst of the last small ice-age abruptly. Planetary temperature went up better than 20 degrees F in about 50 years. It's an attribute to our egos as humans that we refer to that ice-age as the "great" ice-age...when in reality it was a minor blip within the 200 MILLION year cycle....but hey...our ancestors had to live through it so we think it significant.
The causes of all this jumping up and down in temperature are numerous and mainly theoretical. Scientists are pretty certain that plate tectonics play a major role in global climate, and as the continents have drifted, bumped, broken apart again, etc, these land masses affected not only planetary winds but ocean currents and "metamorphic degassing." In essence, there are hundreds of live volcanoes active at this time...all due to the fact that the earth's crust is flimsy and floating on the 99.9% of the plant which is still liquid rock. That thin, flaky, crust could break apart at any moment and everything on the surface would be vaporized...leaving no trace of our passing whatsoever.
Now you see why these conversations require Bourbon.
Other inputs include such juicy items of conversation as: weathering of silicates, organic carbon weathering, burial of organic carbons, and of course the cycles of solar output. Astrophysicists tend to put more emphasis on solar cycles and the earth's orbit; affected by cycles of precession, eccentricity, and obliquity. Geologists tend to emphasize plate tectonics.
Since that point some 11,600 years ago, the planet has gone through literally hundreds of mini-climate cycles. There was an overall cooling trend from about 1500 AD into the 1850's known as the "little ice age." Prior to that was a short warming trend with a high about 1000 AD. That time actually shows similar characteristics to our current climate. As a whole, scientists believe we will be emerging (hopefully) from a long cycle of ice-ages to a tropical state over the next 100 MILLION years. Obviously you shouldn't run right out and buy a new swim suit...a bit premature perhaps.
That brings us to the modern day and "the movement." Since the 1880's scientists have pondered planetary climate changes, and every decade or so one group or another has announced that the planet is either warming or cooling. The vagaries of weather, and regional climate cycles, have made it impossible to actually nail down where we are in any one particular mini-cycle...even with the technology available today.
Since the early part of the 20th Century however, climate change has become a political tool. An ironic note is that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was the moving force behind the modern global warming movement. When she became PM one of her first moves was to create the Hadly Center for Climate Prediction in order to help create a "crisis" that would help her fight the National Union of Mineworkers as an opposing political powerhouse.
She had a number of related problems: the UK needed to have more nuclear plants in order to move forward with growing and modernizing nuclear forces. She also needed to break the union. Nuclear power was costing 4 times what coal power cost, so she needed something scary and emotional to support her push for nuclear power plants. She had the Hadly Center create a series of predictions showing climate warming, also claiming CO2 from human activity to be a major cause, and to issue a warning to start closing mines and building nuke plants.
Then the laws of unintended consequences stepped in. The potpourri of Marxist and Malthusian radicals throughout the world took note. If "global warming" could be used to fight unions and close coal mines, why couldn't it be used to bring down industry, business, and capitalism all together? No reason at all, of course.
Greenpeace jumped on board...commissioning a survey (1992) of 400 climatologists to prove that global warming was caused by industrial societies. Only 15 of the scientists even agreed there was global warming, so the study was swept aside. The movement seemed to be stuck in "park."
But governments began to make some calculations. If they could push for restrictions on US businesses, they could gain a competitive advantage in manufacturing and energy production. Thus was born an outburst of "protocols" and "treaties" meant publicly to control CO2 emissions while actually meant to handcuff the US and a handful of other industrial giants. A mass movement to fund academics who would "prove" global warming became a government tool to push the agenda. The movement took on a life of its own fueled by billions in grants. Universities made disagreement by academics punishable by firing. Government agencies sprang up to support the movement...and then to simply support their own funding.
Human beings, the psychologist in the group reminded us, have a strong penchant for controlling their lives through controlling their environment. Since the beginnings of the species, people have fallen for shamans and charlatans who promised to help them do so. Everything from throwing virgins into volcanoes (which he reminded us was a terrible waste of virgins...the Bourbon was kicking in by now) to selling us "carbon credits" could be pawned off on folks afraid of change. You just had to package the change as a "crisis."
As a result of such packaging, by numerous special interests and radical groups, the US has suspended a great number of industries and manufacturers. We have ended, or curtailed, most energy exploration and production, and spent billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars on wasteful studies and academic exercises. This orgy of "environmentalism" is largely traceable to an ongoing effort to crush the evils of modernity, take us back to the Malthusian dream of a pre-industrial society, "bring down" capitalism, and more recently to make a profit thru fear-mongering. The special interest groups pushing "Cap and Trade" and carbon credits are set up to make billions of dollars without actually doing or providing anything except paperwork...a scam of absolute brilliance.
I recounted to the group a speech given at a climate change conference. The speaker, a radical environmentalist, told the audience the best solution would be to reduce the world's population to 2 million "care takers" who would monitor and care for the planet. He received a standing ovation from half the folks in the hall...mainly college students.
These enthusiastic "idiots" obviously assumed they, and their families, would magically be among the 2 million superior humans who would be chosen to live while euthanizing the other 6 billion of us. I hated to tell them the 2 million survivors would be the best-armed, most psychotic and anti-social SOB's on the planet...and that neither they nor the speaker qualified. They also, quite obviously, weren't thinking about who would supply them with ipods and tennis shoes when productive folks were gone. It was a display of total, abject, stupidity.
So we have two histories to observe in accounting for the phenomenon known as the global warming movement; the geophysical history of the planet, and the political history of the movement and the associated movements that use it. Combined they give us a bottom line from which we can determine whether climate change is an issue we should concern ourselves with.
Things we now know:
1) The planet is constantly changing...will always change..and there is no "normal" condition.
2) Humans have a tendency to panic over matters of which they are completely ignorant...and then do foolish things like wasting virgins.
3) The planet could possibly warm, or cool, by a degree or two over the next hundred years. The average temperature at the south pole will remain about 70 degrees F below zero. Our great-great-great-great grandchildren will figure out how to deal with this "change" the same way we have dealt with it over the last 11,600 years.
4) If you want to lose sleep over something...worry about your job...worry about being one of the 6 billion who get euthanized...worry about the crust breaking up and getting vaporized by lava.
5) Good Bourbon is proof that God exists and loves us.
6) The global warming movement is made up of opportunists, anti-social radicals, and absolute nut-cases, all of whom use it to advance their whacked agendas...and that is why it really exists.
That should clear it up...let's have another shot of that Bourbon.
The Joys of Redistribution
Why, some of my students have asked me, is the idea of "redistribution of wealth" looked down on by economists as a whole? Isn't "justice" and "fairness" important? What could be wrong with that?
To get them to start thinking, rather than to simply quote economic laws, I tell a story...set up a scenario so to speak...using the village model.
Imagine a village of 100 families. Years back they began to come together, perhaps around a water source, and created their community. Every family produces something of value which they can trade with their neighbors, allowing a degree of specialization and efficiency.
Some of them are farmers...one family makes shoes...some weave clothing, and some make tools and farm implements. The village is in balance as long as each family creates enough product to trade for the amount of product they need from others.
Now we come to an important concept: the wealth of the village is the total of accrued production. In other words; every family is making "stuff" and growing "stuff" and a year's worth of that "stuff" is the annual gross domestic product of the village. Some of that stuff is consumed over the year, such as food, but some of it lasts for years or even decades. As long as everyone is producing as much, or more, than they consume, the wealth of the village grows. This growth in wealth benefits everyone in the village...it keeps prices down, and creates surpluses which are likely to be distributed to those who fall on hard times.
Now suppose we have two families whose chosen work is to grow chickens and eggs. There is a demand for both. Eggs are more quickly and more cheaply produced, as they don't have to be fed, matured, and slaughtered to be eaten. But they don't provide as much food value as a chicken either. Therefore, both families must calculate the best balance for production...how many eggs do they allow to hatch and grow into fryers? What mix would give them optimum profit?
This is a very normal business decision made every day by business owners world wide. Let's suppose family "A" elects to buy extra chicken feed and to allow 1000 eggs each year to be hatched and grown into chickens. They are taking a risk, and spending additional funds, on the gamble that they will make profit on the chickens despite the additional costs and the loss of income from the eggs.
Now let's suppose family "B" decides to concentrate on eggs and raise only 100 chickens. As it turns out, at year's end, family "A" has made the optimum decision and they are able to trade their combination of chickens and eggs for three times what family "B" is able to make on their chickens and eggs. So family "A" is suddenly more wealthy than family "B" as they have contributed more protein and more value to the village.
Members of family "B" are not happy...they are in the same business as family "A" but have made one-third the income. Grumblers in the village begin to promote the idea of "redistribution"...it's unfair, they say, that family "B" has worked in the same business as "A" but made so little comparative income. Eventually the grumblers convince the majority of people in the village to call for a new rule...and they force family "A" to give up some of their income to family "B" in a gesture of "redistributive justice."
So why is that wrong? It's not an ethical question...it's an economic one. Family "A" now has the same choice to make as they made the prior year. Do they spend extra money on feed...spend extra time for chickens to hatch and mature...slaughter the chickens...and take on all of that risk and expense if their profits are going to be taken from them?
Here's where Marxist style theories always fall apart...at the point where human nature steps in. People do not adhere to theories written in books...they act in their own self interest. Family "A" decides the risk isn't worth it...so they elect to grow only 100 chickens the next year. The result...they will make less income, but it won't be taken away from them so they'll break even. The village will not have the 900 chickens as a food source. They will have more eggs instead, but the market proved that the chickens provided more value and protein than eggs alone.
So the village is poorer...it loses wealth. An economist, or any experienced business owner, would not be surprised...but many neophytes are shocked by the news. "But why?" they ask. "The only thing that happened was some wealth was transferred from one family to another. How could that possibly result in everyone being worse off?"
The simple village model explains the "why" clearly and simply. The real world is more complex of course, but human nature, and the willingness to balance risk with possible reward, will always win out...in any culture...any time...any place. That's why the rules of economics are in place. And not just models, but history, proves them to be true.
To get them to start thinking, rather than to simply quote economic laws, I tell a story...set up a scenario so to speak...using the village model.
Imagine a village of 100 families. Years back they began to come together, perhaps around a water source, and created their community. Every family produces something of value which they can trade with their neighbors, allowing a degree of specialization and efficiency.
Some of them are farmers...one family makes shoes...some weave clothing, and some make tools and farm implements. The village is in balance as long as each family creates enough product to trade for the amount of product they need from others.
Now we come to an important concept: the wealth of the village is the total of accrued production. In other words; every family is making "stuff" and growing "stuff" and a year's worth of that "stuff" is the annual gross domestic product of the village. Some of that stuff is consumed over the year, such as food, but some of it lasts for years or even decades. As long as everyone is producing as much, or more, than they consume, the wealth of the village grows. This growth in wealth benefits everyone in the village...it keeps prices down, and creates surpluses which are likely to be distributed to those who fall on hard times.
Now suppose we have two families whose chosen work is to grow chickens and eggs. There is a demand for both. Eggs are more quickly and more cheaply produced, as they don't have to be fed, matured, and slaughtered to be eaten. But they don't provide as much food value as a chicken either. Therefore, both families must calculate the best balance for production...how many eggs do they allow to hatch and grow into fryers? What mix would give them optimum profit?
This is a very normal business decision made every day by business owners world wide. Let's suppose family "A" elects to buy extra chicken feed and to allow 1000 eggs each year to be hatched and grown into chickens. They are taking a risk, and spending additional funds, on the gamble that they will make profit on the chickens despite the additional costs and the loss of income from the eggs.
Now let's suppose family "B" decides to concentrate on eggs and raise only 100 chickens. As it turns out, at year's end, family "A" has made the optimum decision and they are able to trade their combination of chickens and eggs for three times what family "B" is able to make on their chickens and eggs. So family "A" is suddenly more wealthy than family "B" as they have contributed more protein and more value to the village.
Members of family "B" are not happy...they are in the same business as family "A" but have made one-third the income. Grumblers in the village begin to promote the idea of "redistribution"...it's unfair, they say, that family "B" has worked in the same business as "A" but made so little comparative income. Eventually the grumblers convince the majority of people in the village to call for a new rule...and they force family "A" to give up some of their income to family "B" in a gesture of "redistributive justice."
So why is that wrong? It's not an ethical question...it's an economic one. Family "A" now has the same choice to make as they made the prior year. Do they spend extra money on feed...spend extra time for chickens to hatch and mature...slaughter the chickens...and take on all of that risk and expense if their profits are going to be taken from them?
Here's where Marxist style theories always fall apart...at the point where human nature steps in. People do not adhere to theories written in books...they act in their own self interest. Family "A" decides the risk isn't worth it...so they elect to grow only 100 chickens the next year. The result...they will make less income, but it won't be taken away from them so they'll break even. The village will not have the 900 chickens as a food source. They will have more eggs instead, but the market proved that the chickens provided more value and protein than eggs alone.
So the village is poorer...it loses wealth. An economist, or any experienced business owner, would not be surprised...but many neophytes are shocked by the news. "But why?" they ask. "The only thing that happened was some wealth was transferred from one family to another. How could that possibly result in everyone being worse off?"
The simple village model explains the "why" clearly and simply. The real world is more complex of course, but human nature, and the willingness to balance risk with possible reward, will always win out...in any culture...any time...any place. That's why the rules of economics are in place. And not just models, but history, proves them to be true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
