Objectivism and environmentalist

I'll write as a utilitarian and collectivist here, since those are the viewpoints discussions of global warming and global policy get framed in.

If global warming is real, say the common estimate of ~4F in the next century, then it would be a collectively GOOD thing. The scientists who do decry global warming focus on potential negative effects, and ignore potential positive ones. Let's look at the bright side of global warming.

Swamplands and floodplains may indeed be submerged, and less total land exposed on the earth. However, this would be at least countered by more presently useless land - tundra, permafrost, glacier - becoming habitable or arable. Florida and Bangladesh out, but a more livable Canada and Siberia in.

Energy consumption used for heating surpasses that for air conditioning and refrigeration. A climatic increase in temperature would result in a net reduction in energy needed for heating/cooling.

Most human population and industry exists in the northern hemisphere. Due to an inconvenient ice cover over the Arctic Ocean, it is unusable and limits some trade to two canals or the southern hemisphere. Global warming means the Northwest Passage would finally open up. Japan, Korea and China could easily trade via ship with Europe without requiring the Suez or Cape of Good Hope. The Orient could use Venezuelan oil without supertankers traversing Cape Horn. Transportation costs would decrease and trade increase.

Certainly there are overhead costs in human and capital migration, and they would mean a 4 degree increase suddenly starting tomorrow would be an upheaval. However, over 100 years moves to higher or more arable land could largely be factored into other normal human migration, and our grandchildren would be looking at a better, warmer world.

Post 21

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 9:00pm

And with Florida covered in water, social security becomes indefinitely fully funded.

Post 22

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 9:11pm

Aaron, you bring up an issue that I've thought a lot about. As much as it pains me to say this, I can see a hypothetical situation wherein government regulation of the environment would be justified. An issue like global warming is a prime example. Let's assume - just for the sake of argument - that human-influenced global warming is taking place, and that the long term effects of this warming would be detrimental to our lives on earth. Since the problem is a result of the cumulative carbon emissions on a global scale over an extended period of time, you can't apply an individual-rights-violation principle to the problem. The result simply isn't traceable to any individuals.

The likely response from a free market advocate is "just let the market take care of it". The assumption is that if the problem is bad enough, the market will automatically correct the problem because people act in their rational self interet. The problem is that people don't directly feel the impact of their decision to use fossil fuels - a tiny annual increase in overall temperature does not significantly motivate individuals acting in the marketplace. People will understandably use what's cheap and familiar.

Our entire society is structured around the oil and auto industry status quo. The entire infrastructure of refineries, gas & service stations, manufacturing facilities, engineers, technicians and mechanics is oriented to the oil burning internal combustion engine. The saying "if it aint broke don't fix it" comes to mind - and that's exactly how the oil/auto industry views the situation from a business and profitability standpoint. The cost to redo everything is staggering.

My overall point is that environmental regulation could be necessary to prevent catastrophic consequences of certain human activities which don't have a direct individual-rights-violation component, but are instead long term effects of the cumulative action on a national or international scale. Leaving aside the global warming debate for the moment, it's entirely possible that some other technological innovation may pose a similar problem that we can't even forsee at this time. Objectivist ethics may one day have to abridge its stance on the issue - in my view, the underlying premise of environmental regulation should be to uphold what's best for human life, not what's best for trees, rocks, squirrels etc.

(Edited by Pete on 7/23, 9:19pm)

(Edited by Pete on 7/24, 8:16pm)

Post 23

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 11:05pm