Lew, I think most of your criticism of the left and of environmentalists is apt, but "libertarians" have only to look in the mirror to see someone to blame for the lack of productive discourse on environmental and regulatory issues, and the reason why libertarians are being marginalized in the confused debate over the legitimate role of the state.

Libertarians in general continue to:

- ignore the opportunities created by widespread concerns about climate change risks to partner with both left and right to seek to undo counterproductive state/federal regulation:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/03/a-libertarian-immodestly-makes-a-few-modest-climate-policy-proposals.aspx

- refuse to follow-up on their own analyses to dig more deeply to see that the roots of the disastrous cycle of regulation (and snowballing fights over the wheel of government) lie in the grant of limited liability to corporate investors, and the resulting externalization of risk and undermining of common law property protections:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=limited+liability

- as Ed Dolan suggested, continue to act as the "conservatives" that Hayek despised by refusing to question the legitimacy of the favors provided to statist enterprises under the status quo, and turn a blind eye to the direct role that "libertarians" play in the gamesmanship such enterprises continue (such questions of motives being "ad homs" except when addressed to alarmists, in whch case it is "cui bono"):
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/13/edwin-dolan-applying-the-lockean-framework-to-climate-change.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/10/07/ad-homs-r-not-us-discussions-over-rent-seeking-necessitate-painful-wrestling-with-slippery-quot-cui-bono-quot-demons.aspx

- instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of concerns over man`s onslaught on nature and local communities (arising both from a lack of property rights problem and from the hand of kleptocratic governments) prefer a self-comforting irrelevancy, both on climate and on resource issues generally:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/10/30/the-road-not-taken-ii-austrians-strive-for-a-self-comforting-irrelevancy-on-climate-change-the-greatest-commons-problem-rent-seeking-game-of-our-age.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/04/for-climate-fever-take-two-open-air-atom-bombs-amp-call-me-in-the-morning-quot-serious-quot-suggestions-from-kinsella-amp-reisman.aspx

- rather than honest engagement, prefer a tribal hatred of misanthropic "watermelons" and a smug love of ad-homs:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/05/the-road-not-taken-v-libertarian-hatred-of-misanthropic-quot-watermelons-quot-and-the-productive-love-of-aloof-ad-homs.aspx

Time once again for some self-satisfied, but ultimately empty tribal holiday cheer?

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/16/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx

Sincerely,

Tom

I excerpt portions below (emphasis added):

For more than 100 years, coal has been the backbone of the Appalachian economy. Even today, the economies of more than 20 states depend to some degree on the mining of coal. About half of all the electricity generated in America and about one quarter of all the energy consumed globally is generated by coal.

Change is no stranger to the coal industry.  Think of the huge changes which came with the onset of the Machine Age in the late 1800’s.  Mechanization has increased coal production and revenues, but also has eliminated jobs, hurting the economies of coal communities. In 1979, there were 62,500 coal miners in the Mountain State. Today there are about 22,000. In recent years, West Virginia has seen record high coal production and record low coal employment.

increased use of mountaintop removal mining means that fewer miners are needed to meet company production goals. Meanwhile the Central Appalachian coal seams that remain to be mined are becoming thinner and more costly to mine. Mountaintop removal mining, a declining national demand for energy, rising mining costs and erratic spot market prices all add up to fewer jobs in the coal fields.

These are real problems. They affect real people. And West Virginia’s elected officials are rightly concerned about jobs and the economic impact on local communities.  I share those concerns.  But the time has come to have an open and honest dialogue about coal’s future in West Virginia.

Let’s speak the truth. The most important factor in maintaining coal-related jobs is demand for coal. Scapegoating and stoking fear among workers over the permitting process is counter-productive.

Coal companies want a large stockpile of permits in their back pockets because that implies stability to potential investors. But when coal industry representatives stir up public anger toward federal regulatory agencies, it can damage the state’s ability to work with those agencies to West Virginia’s benefit. This, in turn, may create the perception of ineffectiveness within the industry, which can drive potential investors away.

Let’s speak a little more truth here. No deliberate effort to do away with the coal industry could ever succeed in Washington because there is no available alternative energy supply that could immediately supplant the use of coal for base load power generation in America. That is a stubborn fact that vexes some in the environmental community, but it is reality.

It is also a reality that the practice of mountaintop removal mining has a diminishing constituency in Washington. It is not a widespread method of mining, with its use confined to only three states.  Most members of Congress, like most Americans, oppose the practice, and we may not yet fully understand the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the health of our citizens. West Virginians may demonstrate anger toward the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over mountaintop removal mining, but we risk the very probable consequence of shouting ourselves out of any productive dialogue with EPA and our adversaries in the Congress.

Some have even suggested that coal state representatives in Washington should block any advancement of national health care reform legislation until the coal industry’s demands are met by the EPA. I believe that the notion of holding the health care of over 300 million Americans hostage in exchange for a handful of coal permits is beyond foolish; it is morally indefensible.  It is a non-starter, and puts the entire state of West Virginia and the coal industry in a terrible light.

To be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say “deal me out.” West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table.

The 20 coal-producing states together hold some powerful political cards. We can have a part in shaping energy policy, but we must be honest brokers if we have any prayer of influencing coal policy on looming issues important to the future of coal like hazardous air pollutants, climate change, and federal dollars for investments in clean coal technology.

Most people understand that America cannot meet its current energy needs without coal, but there is strong bi-partisan opposition in Congress to the mountaintop removal method of mining it. We have our work cut out for us in finding a prudent and profitable middle ground – but we will not reach it by using fear mongering, grandstanding and outrage as a strategy. As your United States Senator, I must represent the opinions and the best interests of the entire Mountain State, not just those of coal operators and southern coalfield residents who may be strident supporters of mountaintop removal mining.

I have spent the past six months working with a group of coal state Democrats in the Senate, led by West Virginia native Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.), drafting provisions to assist the coal industry in more easily transitioning to a lower-carbon economy. These include increasing funding for clean coal projects and easing emission standards and timelines, setting aside billions of dollars for coal plants that install new technology and continue using coal. These are among the achievable ways coal can continue its major role in our national energy portfolio. It is the best way to step up to the challenge and help lead change.

The truth is that some form of climate legislation will likely become public policy because most American voters want a healthier environment.  Major coal-fired power plants and coal operators operating in West Virginia have wisely already embraced this reality, and are making significant investments to prepare.

The future of coal and indeed of our total energy picture lies in change and innovation. In fact, the future of American industrial power and our economic ability to compete globally depends on our ability to advance energy technology.

The greatest threats to the future of coal do not come from possible constraints on mountaintop removal mining or other environmental regulations, but rather from rigid mindsets, depleting coal reserves, and the declining demand for coal as more power plants begin shifting to biomass and natural gas as a way to reduce emissions.

Fortunately, West Virginia has a running head-start as an innovator. Low-carbon and renewable energy projects are already under development in West Virginia, including:  America’s first integrated carbon capture and sequestration project on a conventional coal-fired power plant in Mason County; the largest wind power facility in the eastern United States; a bio-fuel refinery in Nitro; three large wood pellet plants in Fayette, Randolph, and Gilmer Counties; and major dams capable of generating substantial electricity.

Change has been a constant throughout the history of our coal industry. West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it.  One thing is clear.  The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose.

(Opps; looks like I "excerpted" the whole thing.)

Byrd looks like he`s ready to sign a climate bill and to see an end to future mountaintop mining permits, as long as he gets federal pork for carbon capture and storage, and maybe some "green" project financing.

I think he`s also fairly accurately noted that it is the coal industry itself, and not politicos/regulators in Washington, that are the chief threat to coal jobs and to the health of W.Va citizens.

It`s too bad that states like W.Va. are so beholden to coal revenues that it essential requires political decisions - as opposed to simply upholding the rights of property owners to be free from nuisance, instrusions and damages by others - to put an end to destructive mining practices.

I saw a news item earlier today - "Copenhagen climate summit borrows Dylan's voice" - that indicates that the COP 15 organizers (the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which Pres. George H.W. Bush & Congress made US a party) are making informal use of Bob Dylan`s "A Hard Rain is Gonna Fall" as a conference theme ("UN to release 'Hard Rain' film with Bob Dylan tune on eve of climate talks | Spero News"). 

Well, a different Dylan song popped into my head; tweaked very slightly, it goes like this:

The Climes They Are A-Changin'

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the climes they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the climes they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the climes they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the climes they are a-changin'.

Dylan`s original, The Times They Are A-Changin` is here.

I intend no offense here to anyone; those with different predilections on climate and the problem of government and rent-seeking will see this and other Rorshach Blots differently.

But for readers that have made it this far, I note the following:

• Rex Tillerson, Exxon CEO and Margo Thorning of American Council for Capital Formation both support carbon taxes;
• In this they agree with prominent NASA climate scientist James Hansen, recently arrested for an anti-coal sit-in and author of a new book, "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity", who says the cap and trade approach being taken at Copenhagen is "fundamentally wrong", plans to boycott the meeting and hopes the talks fail;
• leading property insurers Allianz, Munich Re and Swiss Re advocate steps to forestall, reduce and prepare for climate change;
• While Exxon has made much of its decision to no longer fund climate "skeptic" PR shops like CEI and Rob Bradley`s Institute for Energy Research (and new "free market coal" MasterResource blog) - both places frequently feeding Bob Murphy - growing mountains of evidence document the efforts that fossil fuels firms make to maintain status quo and the sweet deals that they have under it;
• there is plenty of common ground, where libertarians and progressives should both be able to agree on regulatory changes that would promote market freedom, competition and clean energy:  A libertarian immodestly summarizes a few modest climate policy proposals - TT`s Lost in Tokyo.

The IER post rightly criticizes some of the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office has released, but the IER is playing games itself.

I left the following note at Bob`s (with links and bracketed comments added):

TokyoTom said...

IER? Isn`t that the "free-market" blog that bans libertarians who are not on their pro-coal, pro-pollution wagon? [Oops, I confused this with Rob Bradley`s MasterResource blog; IER is different, in that IER is - much more clearly than MR - an active rent-seeking front for fossil fuel interests, which Exxon made clear last year when it publicly announced that it would no longer fund IER`s "unproductive", climate-skeptic position.]

But while we`re on the subject, let`s not forget:

- Austrians` fundamental objections to cost-benefit analysis;

- that the combustion of coal, in addition to whatever climate "cost" it might have to various people whose preferences can`t be measured, has very real costs in terms of damage to persons and property;

- that federal law sanctions this, and grandfathers the very worst midwestern utilities, the oldest 10% of which (41 or so) are (according to the latest NAS report) estimated to be responsible for 43% of the damages;

- that our federal governments and states own most of the coal deposits and are otherwise addicted to the revenues;

- the "costs" that the IER analysis refers to are not discounted to present value;

- the costs of doing nothing are not considered;

- alternative policies - such as a rebated carbon tax, allowing immediate amortization of capital investment, eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies, ending Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities - are never advanced, much less their costs weighed [that is, no attempt is ever made to engage opponents in good faith or to seek mutual gains by working to resolve underlying problems];

- the risks of "do-nothing" policies are hardly considered, and when so are heavily discounted;

- the need for investment in infrastructure and change in laws to adapt (and foster adaptation) to very real ongoing climate changes are never discussed; and

- no one at IER ever seems to question the unstated presumption that utilities and our transportation industries have somehow homesteaded an ownership right over the global atmosphere, so that it`s perfectly okay to dismiss the preferences of those who have concerns at home [those "religious" nuts like Exxon, and our Academies of Science] and those abroad in the least developed countries that are most vulnerable to damages (much less to suggest how those injured should be aided).

In other words, those defending the status quo seem to have abandoned any Austrian training (or to have no familiarity with its concern for problem-solving and awareness that [as Block points out] common law protection of private property rights was hijacked a century ago, with massive pollution and rent-seeking problems being the result).

Someone ought to post a few of these thoughts over at IER; Rob Bradley somehow finds comments of this type over fundamental principles to be "ad hominem" arguments [of the kind that very quickly tested his patience and got me banned, without any word to his co-bloggers, who found my comments worthy of considered response].

Sure, we should fight over policy, but let`s not ignore principles or put our heads in the sand.

October 28, 2009 10:10 AM

*  From the NAS report:

Coal accounts for about half the electricity produced in the U.S.  In 2005 the total annual external damages from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter created by burning coal at 406 coal-fired power plants, which produce 95 percent of the nation's coal-generated electricity, were about $62 billion; these nonclimate damages average about 3.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour (kwh) of energy produced.  A relatively small number of plants -- 10 percent of the total number -- accounted for 43 percent of the damages.  By 2030, nonclimate damages are estimated to fall to 1.7 cents per kwh.

The framework of the bi-partisan package was spelled out on Sunday, October11, in a joint NYT op-ed, "Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)",  by liberal Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and conservative Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

While details are sketchy (and details sure to still be fought over), it looks like Pres. Obama has won a cap-and-trade bill in time for the negotiations that will start in a few weeks in Copenhagen over the shape of a global climate treaty to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol.

Excerpts from the Kerry-Graham op-ed are here (emphasis added; with a few comments in brackets):

Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil [Republicans are so easily jerked around over "energy security"].

However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. [but do China, India and others want to follow?] We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution. ...

First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major emitters through a market-based system that will provide both flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas. [cap-and-trade]

Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.

Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology.

In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration — work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and interests of our coastal states.

Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas. China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs. There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough environmental protections.[probably just a signal to China & India; any bill would have to leave flexibility to the Administration.]

Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses — and ultimately consumers — from increases in energy prices. The central element is the establishment of a floor and a ceiling for the cost of emission allowances. This will also safeguard important industries while they make the investments necessary to join the clean-energy era. We recognize there will be short-term transition costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can be eased. But we also believe strongly that the long-term gain will be enormous. ...

If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing. 

The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action.

Joe Romm on the left applauds the proposed deal (though there is sure to be disagreement about support for coal, nuclear power and offshore oil & gas exploration); on the right, Michelle Malkin reports that she was right to warn about Republican turn-coats, the National Review `s Gore-haters are dispirited, and the coal-funded "free market" energy blog, Rob Bradley`s MasterResource, has nothing to say.

Political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. notes the lack of precision and suggests that Republicans now have the upper hand in negotiating the bill.

More background that readers may find useful is here:

1.  The Chamber`s opaque policy-making mechanism on climate, and the trigger for the wave of departures from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce;

see long article at NYT:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce staff decides the trade group's climate and energy policy positions without approval from the board of directors, Nike Inc. charged as it formulated a plan to call for greater chamber openness.

Nike, which last week left the chamber's board of directors but decided to remain a chamber member, described a lack of transparency at the group that conflicts with how the chamber describes its operations. ...

"We just weren't clear in how decisions on climate and energy were being made," said Brad Figel, Nike's director of government relations. "They're not being made at the board-of-director level, because we're a member of the board of directors. We were not consulted. We're convinced that's not really where the action on climate change is being made."

The chamber reaches its positions through a "democratic process" that is "driven by members," chamber spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel said yesterday. ...

"Policy is developed and recommendations are made to the whole board," spokesman Wohlschlegel said yesterday. "It's an open and voluntary process, and it's formulated by a majority of our members that represents the broader business community's perspective and not just the interests of one sector, one energy sector ... or one sector of the economy."

He would not address Nike's statement, however, that while it had representation on the board of directors, the board did not vote on climate policy positions. Wohlschlegel would not say when the board last took a vote on its position on climate legislation. ...

"They told us these decisions were made by staff [and not pursuant to the Board`s committee system]," Figel said. He said that Nike was told that "this is a longstanding chamber policy," and that "once the policy is established, a lot of these decisions can be made at the staff level."

Last spring, Figel said, Nike told the chamber that it wanted to be consulted on climate issues. After that, he said, "there were several decisions that were made by the chamber that we weren't consulted on."

In particular, Figel said, Nike recoiled at a chamber official's call for an EPA trial similar to the Scopes Monkey Trial on evolutionary theory [regarding EPA`s steps to employ regulatory authority affirmed by a Supreme Court decision during the Bush administration].

"That's not helpful in any way," Figel said. "That put a lot of companies on edge, how they phrased that."

The statement this summer by William Kovacs, a chamber senior vice president, that the science of global warming should face a public trial similar to the Scopes Monkey Trial thrust the trade group into a new realm, [Kenneth] Green [resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute] said.

"That was beyond the pale in terms of aggressiveness that I've seen in a trade association," Green said. "At that point, they were really inserting themselves into the political process in an extremely visible way, not just a matter of lobbying for their companies but really engaging in the bigger cultural argument. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't what scared some people away."

Note (from Marc Gunther at Salon in April):  " Nike—along with Starbucks (SBUX), Levi Strauss, and Timberland (TBL)—helped form a green-business coalition to lobby for strong federal actions on climate. The coalition is called BICEP: Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy."

From blog of Marc Gunther:

To be sure, the chamber, which calls itself “the voice of business” and spent about $62 million lobbying Congress last year, also has lots of members from the oil, coal and energy-intensive industries who oppose federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Its 122-member board includes executives from Consol Energy, Massey Energy, Peabody Energy, and the Southern Co.

The smart thing for the chamber to do would be to stay neutral—to admit that business is divided on the issue and to leave lobbying up to individual companies. Instead, some chamber officials offered up reasonable arguments against the bills pending in Congress and others went off the deep end. In a remark that was ill-advised at best and downright dumb at worst, William Kovacs, the chamber’s senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs, called for a public trial about climate science that he said would be “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century.”

2.  Who dissents from the Chamber`s long-standing opposition to climate change legislation? (with links to statements)

Quit the Chamber: Exelon, PNM Resources, PG&E, Apple.

Quit the Chamber`s Board: Nike.

Says Chamber doesn't represent their views on climate:

- seven Board members from companies that are part of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a wide business coalition pushing for passage of climate legislation: Alcoa, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, Siemens and Xerox

- General Electric, General Motors, Ford, Shell, DuPont, American Electric Power, and John Deere also support mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions.

- ExxonMobil favors a carbon tax (as I have noted several times).

- Entergy, a New Orleans-based utility also on the board

- General Electric,

- Johnson & Johnson,

- San Jose Chamber of Commerce.

Note: Those expressly in favor of the Chamber`s go slow approach on climate appear to be limited to coal firms Peabody Energy, Massey Energy Corp., and CONSOL Energy, and freight shipper Con-Way Inc.  As noted previously, Chamber CEO Tom Donohue is closely tied to coal shipper Union Pacific.

3.  In a move that shows how little the Chamber cares about the opinion and positions of its dissenting members, CEO Tom Donohue took at jab at Apple in this October 6 letter that he addressed to Apple CEO Steve Jobs in response to Apple`s announced resignation from the Chamber (with editorial comments):

Dear Mr. Jobs:

"I am sorry to learn of Apple's resignation from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is unfortunate that your company didn't take the time to understand the Chamber's position on climate and forfeited the opportunity to advance a 21st century approach to climate change. [Needless, to say, Apple quit because it fully understood and was fed up with the Chamber`s actual position - unrelenting intransigence; PG&E said in its letter to the Chamber announcing its withdrawal: "Extreme rhetoric and obstructionist tactics seem to increasingly mark the Chamber's public stance on this issue."]

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues to support strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change. [The Chamber has no consistent expressed approach; it has opposed all federal legislation, and opposes provisions that would penalize foreign countries not adopting similar legislation. It is simply trying to put lipstick on a pig.] Furthermore, we believe that Congress should set climate change policy through legislation, rather than having the EPA apply existing environmental statutes that were not created to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This is also the stated position of the President and Congressional leaders. [The regulatory threat exists only because the Bush administration and Republican Congress refused to act, and because the Chamber has exercised no leadership in outlining constructive legislation.]

"Your letter states that "Apple is committed to the environment and the communities in which we operate around the world." So is the Chamber but we are also committed to preserving the competitiveness and prosperity of the communities and businesses in our nation. [Particularly the competitiveness and prosperity of the Chamber members that mine, transport and burn coal.]

"While we do support legislation to address climate change [the Chamber continues to take the position that even an average 3 degrees C increase over the next century would bring net benefits], we oppose legislation such as the Waxman-Markey bill that numerous studies show will cause Americans to lose their jobs and shift greenhouse gas emissions overseas, negating potential climate benefits. An effective climate change response must include all major CO2 emitting economies, promote new technologies, emphasize efficiency, ensure affordable energy for families and businesses, and defend American jobs while returning our economy to prosperity.

"The American business community that we proudly represent is the single largest investor and innovator in clean energy solutions and remains committed to a strong economy and clean environment. ... The Chamber believes that the business community will continue to be the catalyst for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and we support efforts to tackle climate change in a way that will strengthen our economy, protect American jobs, and benefit our environment.

"Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. The Chamber supports an international agreement that will set realistic and achievable goals, ensure global participation, protect intellectual property rights and remove trade barriers to environmental goods and services.

"I would have hoped that Apple would have supported our efforts to improve environmental stewardship and keep Americans at work and our economy competitive. As the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, the Chamber is leading the way to support the innovation needed to transition to a lower carbon future, including the elimination of barriers to the deployment of clean energy technologies. Supporting innovation and technology is at the very heart of our efforts to combat climate change, and we will continue to fight for an approach that embraces their merits.
 
"It is a shame that Apple will not be part of our efforts." [Yes; the Chamber will just have to "lead" with fewer followers, fewer resources, and less prestige. And it appears that Tom Donohue is trying to "lead" the way to even fewer Chamber members; Dale Carnegie`s "How to Win Friends and Influence People," anyone? ]

4.  More ongoing insightful (if skewed) commentary on the Chamber of Commerce here by Peter Altman, "Climate Campaign Director" of the mainstream enviro group NRDC (which largely "depend on the kindness of rich people to stay afloat." Its board and major donors "come from Wall Street, corporate law firms and big companies."

5.  It`s clear that we are looking not merely at a clash of preferences, but a clash of preferences over how government is used - and in whose favor. This would look like classic "rent-seeking", but for the fact that it relates to the management of an un-owned, open-access commons that affects all of us - the atmosphere and climate system - and the fact that Coasean bargaining on an international scale cannot, in any practical sense, be conducted without involving states.

Apple`s departure, announced  on October 5 and effective immediately, came on the heels of departures in the past two weeks by the utility companies Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon. In addition, Nike has quit the Chamber's Board, and other members such as Johnson & Johnson have voiced strong opposition to the climate stance of the Chamber and asked that it not take public positions on this issue.

It`s not clear how closely the Chamber has polled all of its wide membership on climate issue, but it`s apparent that the Chamber`s rather hard-line stance is out of step with its Board members.  According to research by the NRDC (a mainline environmentalist group) in May:

the staff of the U.S. Chamber appears to be projecting the views held by a tiny sliver of its board of directors - just four out of 122 members on the board.

The Chamber's oft-stated views, which question the scientific consensus on climate change and reject the need for federal regulation to reduce global warming pollution, stand in sharp contrast to the views expressed by 19 members of the Chamber's board that support federal regulations with goals to reduce total US global warming pollution.  

You read that right: only 23 members of the U.S. Chamber's board have a publicly stated position on climate change and more than 80 percent are not on board with the U.S. Chamber's "Dr. No" position on climate policy action.

So who is in the minority that has shanghaied the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on climate policy? Be prepared to be shocked!  Three of the four climate are coal companies:  Peabody Energy, Massey Energy Corp., and CONSOL Energy.  (The fourth - Con-Way Inc. - is "a freight company and logistical services company.")

As the WaPo noted, in response to prior defections,

Last week, the group's president, Thomas J. Donohue, said in a statement that his group supports "strong federal legislation" to protect the climate. But he said legislation passed by the House of Representatives -- which would use a "cap and trade" system to lower the cost of reducing emissions -- was flawed because it does not require other polluting countries to act and does too little to spur U.S. investment in green technologies.

In response to Apple`s departure, a spokesman for the Chamber dissed the motives of the firms quitting the Chamber:

"While we'll continue to represent the broad majority of our membership on this goal, we recognize that there are some companies who stand to gain more than others with the current options on the table."

While this may be true for the utility companies, which are members of the USCAP organization and stand to gain free allocations of carbon allowances under the cap and trade bills under consideration, it is hardly so for Apple, Nike or Johnson & Johnson. And of course it distracts from the fact that the coal firms and their shippers - including Union Pacific, which richly compensates Union Pacific board member Tom Donohue, the President of the Chamber - benefit greatly from the status quo, to an extent and in a manner quite different from other Chamber members.

It will be interesting to see what will happen next at the Chamber of Commerce, and who will be next to leave.

"Do you believe that averting climate catastrophe is, by itself, justification for establishing a government?"

No, Taylor, I don`t see that a looming climate catastrophe (or other apparent catastrophe) by itself would justify the formation of a state. Absent governments, other voluntary responses would no doubt arise, and more quickly than when hampered by governments and rent-seeking.

"I am curious if you seek to use the government to solve this problem because it already exists and thus you see it as expedient and practical to do so"

My view is quite a bit more subtle. First, the fact of the matter is that we HAVE a government; even if we didn`t, we`d have to deal with the governments of other peoples on an issue such as this. Theoretically, in negotiations with others around the world regarding the atmosphere and climate, we might very well end up creating forms of government. Be that as it may, we cannot ignore that states exist; the question is in part whether we can put them to any good use, and in part how do we avoid making them worse.

Then again, our government has already helped screw up the issue in any number of ways. In my view, the focus should be as much on UNDOING what has been counterproductive and what libertarians have never supported. Those who don`t want to see MORE government should not be closing their minds to the fact of the status quo, and ought to see in concerns about climate change and resources issues (irrespective if the concerns are justified or not) an OPPORTUNITY to undo existing and damaging state actions.

See my point?

But in all this, libertarians rarely strive to be positive change agents, but instead have been almost wholly co-opted by rent-seekers who benefit from rights to pollute for free and barriers to entry under the status quo.

[A few lists of my many posts related to this subject can be found here, here and here.]

Chip Knappenberger explains the significance (and remaining holes to be plugged) in the recent Lindzen-Choi paper that's got talk radio in such a tizzy. The opening sentence: "MIT climate scientists Richard Lindzen and collaborator Yong-Sang Choi soon-to-be published paper (Geophysical Research Letters, American Geophysical Union) pegs the earth’s “climate sensitivity”—the degree the earth’s temperature responds to various forces of change—at a value that is about six times less than the “best estimate” put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

Well, well, if talk radio is covering a new article that purportedly downplays climate risks, then others who have invested time in casting doubt

I`ve blogged previously about my various conversations with Chip Knappenberger, who is employed by the self-described "advocacy" group of Pat Michaels, New Hope Environmental Services.

I went to pay a visit to his post at Rob Bradley`s pro-coal, "free market" MasterResource blog, which I have discussed on any number of occasions here - especially after Mr. Bradley unceremoniously withdrew the welcome mat for libertarian critics (yours truly) while in mid-conversation with (and without notice to) several of his guest bloggers.

I reviewed Chip`s precis of the Lindzen-Choi paper and attempted to leave comments at MasterResource, but they were "disappeared" as soon as they were posted, so I forwarded a copy of my comments by email directly to Chip, which I copy below (with minor edits):

Chip, I couldn`t resist trying to comment on your post at MR, and
checking to see if Rob still has his blog set up to automatically
exclude all of my comments. Unfortunately, he still seems to be
convinced that a principled and libertarian approach (or his clients`
needs) requires maintaining his echo chamber by excluding me.

To check the sophistication of his method, I have for the first time
just tried commenting anonymously (I have until stayed away and simply
hoped Rob would change his mind), and to my surprise the comment went
through - though it is "awaiting moderation". [update: this post has now received immoderate , "echo chamber" moderation]

I thought I would give you a head`s up on my pending comment, which I
do not expect to see published - but who knows?  Strange things
sometimes happen, such as Rob quoting with approval a link to a
comment that I have made:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/08/26/fun-with-partisanship-and-self-deception-the-climate-follies-and-rob-bradley.aspx.

My comment is below; I will wait until tomorrow before cross-posting
at my own blog.

Sincerely,

Tom


"It is too early to tell whether Lindzen and Choi’s findings will
prove to be the end-all be-all in this debate."

But it`s not too early for you, for others who act as paid mouthpieces
for fossil fuel and others who wish to avoid policy action, to trumpet
this as yet unpublished paper all over the intertubes, is it Chip?

By the way, continuing studies on the "sensitivity" of temperatures to
GHG increases should not lead us to ignore either the problem of ocean
acidification from our accelerating CO2 build-up or the very exquisite
sensitivity of the Earth`s climate and ecosystems to the 0.6 C average
temp increase that we have experience over the past 50 years
(remaining stuck at a peak for the past 10).  The Arctic and temperate
zone glaciers continue to rapidly thaw, and other changes affecting
ecosystems and human livelihoods are still underway.

I note I have seen very preliminary remarks by James
Annan here, and by

I note that Bob Murphy is no climate expert, but simply posting blindly about something that he thinks cuts in the direct he wants; in a similar vein, Knappenberger also evidently is puffing the importance of a scientific article that is hot off the presses, but can`t be troubled to link to any articles providing additional context. I also note, as I have previously, that not only Chip but Bob as well - when he has on his "economist for IER" (which is a coal and public utility front group that was de-funded last year by Exxon) - are, at least in part, being compensated to undercut climate change policy.

We all are prone to note evidence that fits into our existing world view, while discounting contrary information, such "confirmation bias" is readily apparent in the internet and radio coverage of this piece.  While climate change and climate policy are certainly hot topics, it doesn`t seem to me that the so-called "skeptics" are at all taking this new study skeptically, but are instead eagerly lapping it up, assume it is good news, are are loudly trumpeting it.  Now who`s fooling whom?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has now stirred up a bit of a kerfluffle about the EPA`s looming final  "endangerment" decision, by requesting the EPA to adopt an unusual, time-consuming trial-like procedure in reaching its decision. What`s really going here?

While no doubt the Bush Administration would have been delighted to consider such a device of postponing any endangerment decision, the Obama Administration`s lack of interest in further delay (having already extended the hearing process by several months) has earned for them from some conservative corners (Chris Horner of the NRO`s "Planet Gore") the judgment that it is the Obama administration that is being "cowardly".  Surely there are excellent arguments to be made that the Clean Air Act should not be used to regulate U.S. industry on climate matters, but it is Congress that passes laws and the President who signs them  into law, not the administrative agencies.  The Bush administration and Republican Congress could have forestalled the present situation by amending the CAA to exclude CO2; their lack of interest in doing so has forced this matter into the hands of the Obama EPA. On the other hand, the Obama administration`s hands have been tied by the Bush administration`s inaction, though it is not doubt happy to use the dangling endangerment finding as a Damoclean sword to get Congress moving on climate change legislation (and perhaps as a backup in case Congress cannot be persuaded).

It`s useful in looking at this situation to ponder just how much wriggle room the EPA actually has.  The answer?  Very little.  On this, allow me to quote from respected libertarian resource law professor Jonathan Adler (Case Western, and commenter at The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog and at NRO):

1.  In an April 22 post at the NRO`s Corner, Adler answers the question "D[oes] the EPA Have a Choice?" (emphasis added)

"Many folks on the right, including Jonah, have criticized the EPA's decision to issue an endangerment finding as some sort of power grab.  Implicit in this argument is the idea that the EPA had a meaningful choice whether to conclude that the emission of greenhouse gases causes or contributes to air pollution that can be reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare (the relevant legal standard under Section 202).  I reject this premise, and I don't believe one has to accept apocalyptic climate change scenarios to reach this conclusion.  For one thing, the standard is somewhat precautionary — the language empowers the EPA to regulate despite the existence of uncertainty.  For another, it would be very difficult for the EPA to justify a contrary conclusion under current law.

"The Supreme Court's decision in Massachsuetts v. EPA held that greenhouse gases were air pollutants under the Clean Air Act subject to EPA regulation.  This means that the only question for the EPA is whether such GHG emissions meet the standard above.  Whether or not one believes greenhouse gases pose a serious threat, the EPA does not get to make this decision on clean slate.  For years the EPA has been stating that climate change is a serious problem.  Indeed, the Bush Adminsitration, at the very same time it declined to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, asserted the Agency's belief that climate change is a serious problem.  Therefore, for the EPA to not make an endangerment finding, not only would it have to argue that the relevant evidence does not support the conclusion that greenhouse gases could be "reasonably anticipated" to threaten public health and welfare, but also that the EPA's many prior pronouncements about the threat of climate change over multiple adminsitrations were wrong.  Even though courts are quite deferential to agency interpretations of scientific evidence, this would be a difficult case to make.  Courts are more demanding when an agency reverses course, and the EPA would have an awful lot of contrary claims to explain away.  Thus, even if the Obama EPA had been disinclined to make an endangerment finding, I think such a finding could have been compelled in court.

2.  Adler also commented earlier at The Volokh Conspiracy on the likelihood of the EPA prevailing in the case of any industry legal challenge to an endangerment finding, and the next regulatory steps after the endangerment finding (emphasis added):

The proposed findings will now go through a 60-day public comment period. Shortly thereafter, the findings will be finalized. Industry and anti-regulatory groups will almost certainly challenge the findings in court, and their legal challenges will almost certainly fail. Even if one doubts the accumulated scientific evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and that climate change is a serious environmental concern, the standard of review is such that the EPA will have no difficulty defending its rule. Federal courts are extremely deferential to agency assessments of the relevant scientific evidence when reviewing such determinations. Moreover, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA Administrator need only "reasonably . . . anticipate" in her own "judgment" that GHG emissions threaten public health and welfare in order to make the findings, and there is ample evidence upon which the EPA Administrator could conclude that climate change is a serious threat. This is a long way of saying that even if climate skeptics are correct, the EPA has ample legal authority to make the endangerment findings.

Once the findings are finalized, the EPA will then be required to develop regulatory standards for new motor vehicles under Section 202 of the Act. As a practical matter, the EPA will also have to prepare to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under other portions of the act, as the relevant endangerment findings necessary to trigger such regulation are effectively identical to that which triggers motor vehicle emission regulation under Section 202. Even if the EPA sought to resist such regulation, it would be relatively easy to force the EPA's hand through additional citizen suits, much like the suits that set the EPA on this course in the first place....

Regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act will not be a particularly cost-effective way to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA and White House understand this, but they also recognize that, under Massachusetts v. EPA, the agency does not have much choice. Moreover, the threat of Clean Air Act regulations on greenhouse gases will create significant pressure upon Congress to replace such regulation with some alternative, such as the cap-and-trade program.

She`s also the author of widely-quoted studies of the costs of climate change legislation, and has been busy explaining the study jointly released earlier this month by ACCF and the National Association of Manufacturers that assesses the potential impact of the Waxman-Markey Bill on manufacturing, jobs, energy prices and our overall economy (the rollout of the study, executive summary, etc. are here).

All of which makes her remarks on August 25 at a "Cap and Trade Town Hall meeting" sponsored by the West Virginia Conservative Foundation (and reportedly the West Virginia Manufacturers Association as well) - to the effect that we DO need federal and global policies to reduce GHG emissions and to prepare to adapt to changes that we will be unable to forestall - even the more remarkable. 

I quote below from an August 27 report of Thorning`s remarks in the online version of The State Journal (emphasis added):

Thorning believes that climate change is happening, that it is at least in part caused by human activity and that some type of policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is warranted.

But while climate scientists recommend keeping atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases below 450 parts per million to avoid the very worst effects of climate change, Thorning said it's too late for that.

"We're probably, because of China and India and developing countries, going to have to adapt to a higher level of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere," Thorning said in an interview before the event. "We might be able to keep it to 550, but I think we better focus on adapting to a changing environment."

There is no rush in Thorning's mind.

"CO2 stays in the atmosphere 100 years," she said. "I think we can afford to take a thoughtful approach."

Congress currently is considering a cap-and-trade program that would place a cap on carbon emissions, issue permits that companies could trade in an emissions market and then ratchet the cap down over time to ensure emissions reductions.

Rather than a cap-and-trade program, Thorning advocates a carbon tax that would put a price directly on greenhouse gas emissions and would rise over time.

Now this might have startled her audience and readers here, but close observers might have noted that Thorning made a similar statement two years ago when, as I previously reported, she said in an interview that "Senator Lieberman and Warner are to be commended for their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because I think we're all united that that's a goal we need to put a lot of resources into."

Thorning spoke further in West Virginia about why a carbon tax is preferable to cap and trade:

In general, economists say, a cap on greenhouse gas emissions gives certainty about emissions but uncertainty about the price of emissions, while a tax on the emissions gives certainty about the price but not about the quantity.

Companies need that price certainty, Thorning said, so they can make investment decisions.

A study sponsored in part by the ACCF and released earlier this month found that the program Congress is considering could reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product between 1.8 and 2.4 percent from a baseline projection in 2030.

It did not compare the effects of a carbon tax.

Thorning also spoke of the need for revenue.

President Barack Obama initially planned to auction the cap-and-trade emissions permits and to direct some of the proceeds to the development of renewable energy sources and carbon capture and storage technology.

However, as the program has come to be structured, the permits would be given for free to emitters in at least the first decade of the program.

A tax, Thorning said, would bring in those revenues and enable the government to support the development and deployment of important technologies.

From a broader perspective, Thorning underlined the growth of emissions in China, India and other emerging economies. She champions the exchange in both directions of the most effective technologies to reduce greenhouse gas intensiveness.

She pointed to the Major Economies Initiative housed in the U.S. Department of State to foster cooperation among 17 countries that represent 85 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

The initiative can help promote business-to-business transactions like one in which Caterpillar Inc. is turning methane captured at 60 Chinese coal mines into electricity, she said.

"So Caterpillar is making money on that, and we're suppressing a gas that's even more harmful than CO2 -- and the Chinese are getting electricity," she said. "There are about eight key areas like that that have been identified in this Major Economies Initiative."

Thorning believes that a gradually increasing U.S. carbon tax combined with international cooperation on best practices is the least economically disruptive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions over time.

"Remember that economic growth and stronger economies allow people to adapt to a changing environment," she said. "We have to keep our eye on the bigger picture."

What else does Thorning want to see done on climate policy?  In a presentation in June to the Midwest Energy and Climate Policy Conference in St. Louis, Thorning argued that practical strategies for reducing global greenhouse growth would include the following steps:

• Use cost / benefit analysis before adopting policies
• If U.S. puts a price on carbon emissions, a carbon tax is preferable to cap and trade
• Reduce cost of U.S. energy investment through tax code improvement and incentives for non profits
• Remove barriers to developing world’s access to more energy and cleaner technology by promoting economic freedom and market reforms
• Increase R&D  for new technologies to reduce energy intensity, capture and store carbon, and develop new energy sources 
• Promote nuclear power for electricity
• Promote truly global solutions and consider expanding the Asia Pacific Partnership on Development with its focus on economic growth and technology transfer to other major emitters

These prescriptions expand on her November 2007 interview:

Q:So, if you were given the opportunity to sort of write your own proposal of how the U.S. should reduce emissions and not hurt itself economically, you'd go with the carbon tax?

Margo Thorning: I would go with the carbon tax and more incentives for new technology development. And I would change the U.S. tax code, because we have the slowest depreciation allowances for new energy investment of 12 countries that we compared recently. We have very high capital costs for new investment because depreciation is so slow and our effective tax rate is very high, because our corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrial world. So our companies are disadvantaged vis-à-vis our trading partners because of our tax system.

This would seem to align Thorning`s views fairly closely with those of the still-villified Exxon, which has been a generous supporter of ACCF, and whose CEO Rex Tillerson is an express advocate of carbon taxes.  The nail-biting question is whether these voices are too little and too late in the game to steer the cap and trade pork train on to a more productive track.

Bob`s balance and relatively rare introspection are on display in his recent blog post, I'm Starting With the Man in the Mirror, in which he directly addresses the way that people with differing views on health care and climate change policy tend to see their own views and actions as virtuous, while seeing "the other side" as having evil motives and acting unfairly.  Bob had started a blog post in such a vein, but then checked himself and realized that questioning the motives of all of the other side was probably unfair. 

My own thoughts are that Bob`s post is as fine as far as it goes, but that it remains partisan and fails to discuss the way that rent-seekers deliberately seek to exploit our partisan predilections. This failure is not particularly surprising, given not only Bob`s evident self-identification as a partisan, but the fact that he works for the Institute for Energy Research, a Rob Bradley-founded think tank that, along with its partner, the American Energy Alliance is a front for a particular set of rent-seekers - the fossil fuel interests.

The entire piece is worth reading, but here is the introduction:

"OK I must confess that this Wonk Room hit piece on my compatriots really ticked me off. I had originally wanted to blog it with the title, "Definition" and the comment, "If you want to know what 'ad hominem' means, just check out this Wonk Room piece on the AEA bus tour."

"But then I calmed down a bit, realizing that the Wonk Room piece is really just the mirror image of what Glenn Beck did with Goldman Sachs, which I praised."

The piece concludes in a similar vein:

"I'm just saying that, as ridiculous as Krugman's paranoia over old people is, that's how ridiculous some of our side's rants against Obama fans must seem to people who know that they are really just trying to stem abuses they perceive in the health care system and so forth. They know they're not socialists, just like we know "our guys" aren't Nazis."

Bob adds a brief meta-insight that I wish he had explored further:

"Don't get me wrong, it is still perfectly consistent to think the elites in Washington are power-hungry liars. "

I left my own observations in a comment on Bob`s post, which I copy below:

Bob, on Goldman Sachs, you might enjoy this piece by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone.

Bob, I appreciate your attempt at even-handedness, and your implicit acknowledgment of how we are all plagued by problems of self-deception and confirmation bias, particularly with the context of battle with ideological enemies.

I hope you will continue the effort, even though it may come at a cost to effectiveness - sometimes there`s nothing like a broader understanding of the truth to get in the way of a good rant about the Truth.

The problems of self-deception, tribal division/conflict and their roles in rent-seeking are deep indeed, and you`ve barely scratched the surface.

I note, for example, that even though you try to be even-handed, you ironically identify those listed in the Wonk Room piece as your "compatriots"; if by implication the Wonk Room writers and others who support climate change action are NOT your compatriots, what country then are they citizens of?

I also note that those you call compatriots are officers of the Rob Bradley-founded American Energy Alliance, which is clearly an energy industry pressure group (and Republican-linked). You work at the free-market IER that Rob also founded, but apparently self-identify yourself with a group of fairly naked rent-seekers.

While it`s in our human nature to fall into partisanship, what`s more disturbing is the ways that rent-seekers deliberately try to take advantage of this penchant by fanning the flames of partisanship as a means of masking their own agendas while attacking others with competing preferences. This has been very clearly at work in battles over energy and environmental issues, where influence over government is the battleground.

I have made the point a number of times previously that such rent-seeking deserves much more attentions, but you have always professed puzzlement: what, ME, Bob Murphy, involved in a rent-seekers game?

To refresh your recollection, here are links to our previous discussions:

Bob Murphy, the Heritage Foundation and "green jobs" - ignore coal! We only pay attention to rent-seeking from greens/the left; and

In which I try to help Bob Murphy figure out just what the heck I`m talking about (when I say he`s entangled in a partisan, rent-seeking game).

I'm just saying that, as ridiculous as Krugman's paranoia over old people is, that's how ridiculous some of our side's rants against Obama fans must seem to people who know that they are really just trying to stem abuses they perceive in the health care system and so forth. They know they're not socialists, just like we know "our guys" aren't Nazis.

Well said. Now how about acknowledging how the rent-seekers are busy at work trying to manipulate our partisan impulses to take everyone for a ride?

I of course am aware that rent-seeking is ubiquitous in our current political debates, and on climate and energy issues, there are many rent-seekers in addition to fossil fuel interests. My point is that it behooves us to pay attention to the manipulations of rent-seekers generally.