[bobbydroptables]

>No, it's an affirmative choice to not impose a public policy on everyone based on what we think we know right now.

You're either misunderstanding his point or misunderstanding reality.

Our public policy today endorses (and heavily subsidizes) the burning of carbon on a scale never before tested.

Why should the default position be to subsidize this as opposed to alternative means?

Or are you arguing that we should be agnostic about the science and thus stop burning all carbon immediately (i.e., returning to a scientifically validated state in the past where we didn't burn carbon)?

>You have this backwards. Claimed knowledge doesn't get to be assumed to be right until it's shown to be wrong.

I'm guessing you have it backwards but I'll let you explain. Which knowledge do you think we are claiming that we shouldn't assume to be right? Give a concrete example and we can discuss. If you think we can "assume its safe to burn obscene amounts of carbon" without any evidence of that safety, then you are the one who has it backwards.

You can't make a public policy that is agnostic to the science of burning of fossil fuels at current levels. It's clearly unsustainable, but let's set that aside. If you want to argue it's sustainable and should continue, you would still need to rely on (nonexistent) science to make your case. It's not an argument to say "this is how we done things for a long time so this way doesn't need to be supported by science." That's illogical.

[pdonis]

> Why should the default position be to subsidize this as opposed to alternative means?

I don't think the government should be subsidizing any energy sources or playing favorites with certain sources over others. That applies just as much to playing favorites in favor of "alternative" energy sources as to playing favorites in favor of oil, coal, and natural gas. (Actually the government subsidizes all of these.)

However, that has nothing to do with any beliefs about the relative risks of different energy sources. It has to do with a belief that government subsidizing anything or playing favorites in general is likely to do more harm than good. In other words, the government does not have reliable enough knowledge to justify favoring any energy source over any other, so it shouldn't.

> It's clearly unsustainable, but let's set that aside.

No, let's not. Let's ask, instead, why you apparently believe that the only way to fix anything that is "unsustainable" is government policy. Why not just let the market work? If governments would stop subsiziding fossil fuels, their prices would be higher, and there would be more market pressure to find alternatives. Just as we found alternatives to horses that saved us from the "unsustainable" practice in the late 19th century of using horses for transportation, which, if that had gone on the same way, would have us all by now, as the saying goes, knee deep in horsesxxt. (And people were predicting exactly that at the time.)

> It's not an argument to say "this is how we done things for a long time so this way doesn't need to be supported by science." That's illogical.

No, it's not, it's a fact of life. Most of the things we currently do are not "supported by science". We do not have well-supported scientific rationales for most of our current activities. That's because we don't have a good scientific understanding of the relevant domains for most of our current activities. But just stopping all of our current activities that aren't "supported by science" is not a viable alternative, never has been, and never will be. So it's you that is being illogical, not me.

[bobbydroptables]

>I don't think the government should be subsidizing any energy sources or playing favorites with certain sources over others. That applies just as much to playing favorites in favor of "alternative" energy sources as to playing favorites in favor of oil, coal, and natural gas. (Actually the government subsidizes all of these.)

This is not possible. You might be misunderstanding how subsidies work. Everything the government does is a subsidy of something or other. Building out roads nice new roads in every podunk town in America is an enormous subsidy to oil. Allowing people to pollute my air with carbon is an enormous subsidy to oil. Again, it is literally impossible to be agnostic.

>No, let's not. Let's ask, instead, why you apparently believe that the only way to fix anything that is "unsustainable" is government policy.

Where on earth do you get the idea that I think this?

>Why not just let the market work?

Externalities. Unless you start making all carbon users bear all costs associated with their carbon use, I have to bear that cost for them. The market can't sort that out unless I can forcibly stop other people's carbon use myself. In that case, we would have a violent solution, not a market solution. Governments is justifiable largely on the grounds that it replaces the need for these violent solutions.

>If governments would stop subsiziding fossil fuels, their prices would be higher, and there would be more market pressure to find alternatives.

Agree.

>Just as we found alternatives to horses that saved us from the "unsustainable" practice in the late 19th century of using horses for transportation, which, if that had gone on the same way, would have us all by now, as the saying goes, knee deep in horsesxxt.

This move had nothing to do with global sustainability. It had to do with scalability, user friendliness, etc.

>No, it's not, it's a fact of life. Most of the things we currently do are not "supported by science".

Agreed. So the question is why do you think some policies (like burning carbon) are justifiable without science. While others (like not burning carbon) need more science? You haven't justified this asymmetry.

>We do not have well-supported scientific rationales for most of our current activities.

Exactly. So why do you think we need well-supported scientific rationales for new activities?

>That's because we don't have a good scientific understanding of the relevant domains for most of our current activities.

Absolutely agree. You're talking common sense here.

>But just stopping all of our current activities that aren't "supported by science" is not a viable alternative,

And no one is arguing we should. But pretending that we can continue burning carbon at current rates (without any scientific support for this) is not in any way more justifiable than saying "we need to start burning less carbon".

>So it's you that is being illogical, not me.

Nope. It's you. We can't keep burning carbon the way we are and there's no reason to think we can. There are better reasons to think we can't.

[pdonis]

> Everything the government does is a subsidy of something or other.

No, a "subsidy" is not the same as a purchase. Purchasing something at whatever the current market price is is just a purchase. Fixing prices at lower than the current market price, and making up the difference in various hidden ways, which is what the government does with fossil fuels, is a subsidy.

> Building out roads nice new roads in every podunk town in America is an enormous subsidy to oil.

No, it's an enormous investment in transportation infrastructure for the benefit of everyone. Which benefits all transportation technologies. Unless you think that hybrid or electric or fuel cell or solar powered vehicles are somehow unable to use the same roads?

> Where on earth do you get the idea that I think this?

What else do you expect me to think when the only thing you propose to fix whatever you claim is wrong is government policy?

> Externalities

Which is a non-answer unless you know, with sufficient confidence based on scientific knowledge (not somebody's beliefs or speculations or hypotheses), the amount of the externality and who can address it at the lowest cost. Which nobody knows for the case of CO2 emissions.

> Governments is justifiable largely on the grounds that it replaces the need for these violent solutions.

First, government solutions are violent: the government can dictate what everybody does only because it can back up what it says with violence if necessary.

Second, you ignore the obvious third alternative: give people a better option in the market. If the government did not subsidize fossil fuels, gasoline would be more expensive and more people would be buying cars that used less, or no, gasoline. No need to use force on anyone. And if there were more entrepreneurs figuring out how to build cars that used less, or no, gasoline, they would get cheaper. That is true even for the SUVs that you apparently abhor: a hybrid SUV can easily get double the gas mileage of a conventional one. But with gas as cheap as it is now due to government subsidies, the added cost of the hybrid simply doesn't pay for itself over the life of the vehicle.

(It's worth noting, btw, that this is even more true because the average "life of the vehicle" in the US is so short due to the availability of cheap financing and leases, which is due to government manipulation of the financial system. If people had to pay higher interest rates on car loans, they would have more incentive to keep cars longer and not buy a new one every year or two just because some shiny new thing came out. Which in turn would mean an initial investment in something like a hybrid would be more likely to pay for itself over the life of the vehicle. Another example of government meddling skewing incentives in a way that does more harm than good. And before you ask, my wife kept her last car for 19 years, and I kept my last car for 14; mine had more than 260,000 miles on it when it finally gave up the ghost. We both plan to keep our current cars as long as possible.)

> So why do you think we need well-supported scientific rationales for new activities?

I have made no such claim. I have never said individuals need well-supported scientific rationales for every new thing they decide to do.

What I have said is that dictating a public policy to everyone requires a well-supported scientific rationale, or at least a much higher standard for one than has been used.

> We can't keep burning carbon the way we are and there's no reason to think we can. There are better reasons to think we can't.

Then we simply disagree. You think this claim has a well-supported scientific rationale. I don't. I think it's a combination of ideological beliefs, speculations, and hypotheses, with no predictive track record to back it up. So I don't think dictating public policy on this basis is justified. If you want to base your own choices on it, go ahead.

Now, if you had said "we can't keep importing fossil fuels from countries like Saudi Arabia the way we are", then I would agree. But the basis for that has nothing to do with CO2 emissions, and everything to do with national security and geopolitical realities.

Or, if you had said "we can't keep burning coal the way we are", I would agree, because burning coal has a huge impact on air quality and respiratory diseases, and mining coal has a huge impact on the environment in the area where it is mined. But again, that has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.

Or we could talk about how it's stupid to burn oil when it has so many important other applications in the chemical industry, or the risk of oil spills.

> pretending that we can continue burning carbon at current rates (without any scientific support for this) is not in any way more justifiable than saying "we need to start burning less carbon".

You're misstating the alternatives. The alternatives for public policy are not "keep burning carbon at current rates" vs. "burn less carbon". The alternatives for public policy are "allow people to make their own decisions about burning carbon" vs. "dictate everyone's carbon burning activities by force". The former does not need a well-supported scientific rationale. The latter does.

[jbay808]

> Which is a non-answer unless you know, with sufficient confidence based on scientific knowledge (not somebody's beliefs or speculations or hypotheses), the amount of the externality and who can address it at the lowest cost. Which nobody knows for the case of CO2 emissions.

So the best course of action is to treat any uncertain number as zero?

[bobbydroptables]

>No, a "subsidy" is not the same as a purchase.

Did I a say "subsidy" was the same as a purchase? Not sure what you're getting at.

>Purchasing something at whatever the current market price is is just a purchase.

Um. It's a purchase. It can also be a subsidy and generally is when the government does it. If the government purchases a bunch of oranges to give away (or throw in the gutter) it is subsidizing the orange market. Are you not familiar with how government subsidies work in general?

>Fixing prices at lower than the current market price, and making up the difference in various hidden ways, which is what the government does with fossil fuels, is a subsidy.

There are lots of ways to subsidize things. Almost everything (or maybe absolutely everything) the government does creates a subsidy of some kind.

>No, it's an enormous investment in transportation infrastructure for the benefit of everyone.

It's not for the benefit of everyone though. Car-centric life obviously is not very healthy, so it's not healthy for the general public to subsidize this. More importantly, it creates dangerous externalities for people that walk, bike, etc.

It heavily subsidizes unsustainable suburban modes of living, etc. Can you imagine the shitfit people in Kentucky would have if they had to fund their own roads?

>Which benefits all transportation technologies.

Wat? How does building a 20 lane highway in Houston benefit bikers? It doesn't. It actively harms them.

How does building a road to Dingleberry Alabama benefit people that ride the subway in DC (or want to ride a subway in Alabama)? It doesn't.

>Unless you think that hybrid or electric or fuel cell or solar powered vehicles are somehow unable to use the same roads?

Again, this is taking kind of an autistic view. In theory, yes my fart-powered car can use the roads. In practice, since 99% of cars are powered by carbon, we know that a road subsidy benefits carbon users 99% of the time.

>Which is a non-answer unless you know, with sufficient confidence based on scientific knowledge (not somebody's beliefs or speculations or hypotheses), the amount of the externality and who can address it at the lowest cost.

Huh? Why would we need to know this? If my neighbor is pumping carbon dioxide into my living room, I don't need to do any calculus or science to know that (a) he's wrong and (b) he needs to stop. That is a problem that markets can't solve.

Why would we need to know the person that can do it at the lowest cost? The person doing the bad behavior should bear the cost regardless of who the lowest cost avoider is.

>Which nobody knows for the case of CO2 emissions.

We know a lot about the costs of C02 emissions. It's ridiculous to say we need to have perfect solutions before we can push back on our current failed "solution".

>First, government solutions are violent: the government can dictate what everybody does only because it can back up what it says with violence if necessary.

Absolutely. That's a huge role of the government. If some asshole is pumping carbon dioxide into my living room, the government needs to correct his behavior. If a strongly worded letter doesn't do it, violent action must (ethically) be taken to correct the situation.

>Second, you ignore the obvious third alternative: give people a better option in the market.

I'm not sure why you think I ignored this. I have literally written books on market solutions. But they can't solve everything.

>If the government did not subsidize fossil fuels, gasoline would be more expensive and more people would be buying cars that used less, or no, gasoline.

But you would still have too many people buying. You need to read up on externalities.

>No need to use force on anyone.

Yes need to use force. This is econ 101. When you have an activity that forces negative externalities onto third parties without compensation, you get sub-optimal levels of that activity. When you don't bear the full cost for polluting the air I breath (this is very well documented stuff here) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155438/, then you'll tend to create sub-optimal levels of pollution that wouldn't exist if you had to bear those costs.

>And if there were more entrepreneurs figuring out how to build cars that used less, or no, gasoline, they would get cheaper.

This helps but doesn't fix the problem.

>That is true even for the SUVs that you apparently abhor: a hybrid SUV can easily get double the gas mileage of a conventional one. But with gas as cheap as it is now due to government subsidies, the added cost of the hybrid simply doesn't pay for itself over the life of the vehicle.

Even without government subsidies, gas is extremely cheap.

>What I have said is that dictating a public policy to everyone requires a well-supported scientific rationale, or at least a much higher standard for one than has been used.

This is the part you still aren't addressing: We are already dictating a public policy to everyone without any scientific support whatsoever.

>Then we simply disagree. You think this claim has a well-supported scientific rationale. I don't. I think it's a combination of ideological beliefs, speculations, and hypotheses, with no predictive track record to back it up. So I don't think dictating public policy on this basis is justified. If you want to base your own choices on it, go ahead.

You're misunderstanding. You are saying that the public policy you like (lets keep it simple and say "Ford Excursions") doesn't need any scientific backing whatsoever. But the public policy I like (lets say "bikes") somehow requires a "well-supported scientific rational". You need to explain this difference. Under your system, our current policies are also not justifiable (nor are the policies you are advocating for).

>You're misstating the alternatives. The alternatives for public policy are not "keep burning carbon at current rates" vs. "burn less carbon". The alternatives for public policy are "allow people to make their own decisions about burning carbon" vs. "dictate everyone's carbon burning activities by force".

You are ignoring externalities. This line of thinking is fine for activities that don't harm others. It doesn't work if there are externalities. Unless you think I should be able to forcibly go stop my neighbor from polluting, you still haven't solved the problem.

>The former does not need a well-supported scientific rationale. The latter does.

You can't just say this without justification. Or you can, and I can too:

The former needs a well-supported scientific rationale. The latter does not.

How about that?

[infogulch]

"Negative externalities" seems to be the operating pivot of this conversation. It seems to me that many laws are a system to identify entities producing negative externalities, and make them bear the cost of that externality. The purpose of the lawmaking process, then, is to be a system that discovers new externalities, or more precisely, defines what is a negative externality and what is not, as it relates to chosen policy.

At what point in the progression of scientific consensus does evidence for the consideration of a new externality require a response by passing laws that define the externality and how it can be bourne?

One argument is that there is not enough scientific basis to ground policy regarding CO2, specifically. And, separately, there is enough evidence that some forms carbon energy should be restricted, but due to other factors like pollution from coal. This argument is coming from a strong negative-rights model of government (like the US), where axiomatically people are allowed to do anything not currently restricted by law. The advantage of this system is that it allows people to act in the face of ever-changing circumstances of the world without needing to get approval from the government every time a new thing is discovered. The disadvantage is that now you have to hold externalities to higher bar of proof.

I think that we, individually and as a society, still have to act in the world, imperfect information and all. We cannot demand perfect data to base our decisions on, because always waiting for perfect data means that every decision will be too late. But, just like in science, we need to be able to change our beliefs/laws as evidence mounts that the basis for our previous belief is wrong. The problem is that politicial discourse is so deadlocked on pure narratives (all negative or all positive, no room for nuance or complexity) that we'll never be able to agree.

[bobbydroptables]

Yeah you're pretty much right. But this can be solved pretty simply with a pigovian tax.

It's not inconsistent with any definition of rights that I'm aware of to say that you can't pollute our air without consequences. By contrast, the current state of affairs does not mesh with any philosophical system that I've found. Under what theory can some stranger pollute my air? That's no more justifiable than me pouring perchlorate in my neighbor's well. The stronger someone believes in individual rights, the stronger they support my argument.

I think it's a misreading of philosophy (not saying you're doing this) to say that we need to justify restrictions on obvious negative externalities like air pollution. The polluter needs to justify his actions, not the neighbor whose air is being poisoned.

(The science on the deleterious effects of air pollution is of course settled regardless of what anyone thinks about global warming.)

[pdonis]

> We know a lot about the costs of C02 emissions.

No, we don't. We have a lot of ideological beliefs, hypotheses, and speculations about the costs of CO2 emissions, with no predictive track record to back them up. So we don't have the kind of knowledge that we would need to have to justify dictating public policy to everyone in this area.

[bobbydroptables]

So why are you supporting a system that has assumptions of zero cost of CO2 emissions?

There is no reason whatsoever to think there is zero cost. Why would we implement public policy assuming this?