http://niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/The-Conservative-Case-for-a-Carbon-Tax1.pdf
V. Concluding Thoughts
Conservative hostility to proposals to address global warming
is often stated as a matter
of principle
—
a defense of free markets and private property against unwarranted
government regulation. But those principles would be better served by well
-
crafted
government action..
Many conservatives who labor in the environ
mental arena ground their thinking in
libertarian philosophy. Libertarians maintain that pollution is best thought of as a
trespass on private property or as a nuisance. Government, they say, has a
responsibility to either enjoin that trespass or, at the
very least, redress the injuries
associated with pollution in order to protect the person and property of others.
102
While
libertarians have a preference for resolving trespass or nuisance claims in courts of law
rather than in regulatory or political bodi
es, they do not, in principle, have any objection
to government action to restrain polluters from harming third parties. In fact, a respect
for private property
demands
it.
103
As noted by one of the founding fathers of modern
libertarianism, Murray Rothbar
d, conservatives too often “deny that the [air pollution]
problem exists, and attribute the entire agitation to leftists who want to destroy
capitalism and technology on behalf of a tribal form of socialism.†He continues:
While part of this charge may b
e correct, denial of the very existence of
the problem is to deny science itself and to give a vital hostage to the
leftist charge that defenders of capitalism “place property rights above
human rights.†Moreover, a defense of air pollution does not even
defend
property rights; on the contrary it puts these conservatives’ stamp of
approval on those industrialists who are trampling upon the property rights
of the mass of citizenry
.
104
F.A. Hayek makes the same point:
102
See,
for
instance,
Terry
Anderson
and
Donald
Leal,
Free
Market
Environmentalism
,
revised
edition
(
London:
Palgrave
Macmill
a
n,
2001).
103
The
academic
case
for
this
proposition
is
most
vigorously
forwarded
in
a
collection
of
essays
published
in
the
Cato
Journal
2:1,
Spring
1982.
104
Murray
Rothbard,
For
a
New
Liberty:
The
Libertarian
Manifesto
,
2nd
Edition
(
Auburn,
Ala.:
Ludwig
von
Mises
Institute,
2006),
pp.
324
-
325
.
28
|
Page
Personally, I find that the most objecti
onable feature of the conservative
attitude is its propensity to reject well
-
substantiated new knowledge
because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from
it
—
or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as
much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much
reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from
their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves
be rational and must be kept separate from
our regret that the new
theories upset our cherished beliefs....
By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own
position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws
from new scientific insights do not at all foll
ow from them. But only by
actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new
discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if
so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual
assumpti
ons shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend
them by refusing to acknowledge facts.
105
Rothbard’s and Hayek’s charge that some segments of the Right are prone to deny
science because they don’t like the messenger (environmentalists) or the
message
(producers must be constrained) rings true in the climate debate.
Conservatives should remember that a carbon tax doesn’t just hedge against the risks
associated with temperature change. It also hedges against panic
-
driven government
responses
to catastrophic global warming that could do tremendous harm to social and
economic liberty. Conservatives are risking a great deal by embracing a policy of
militant denial regarding climate risks. If conservatives are found to be wrong, the
political re
sponse would likely prove devastating.
Happily for conservatives, the costs associated with an effective hedge
—
a revenue
neutral carbon tax that displaces the existing command
-
and
-
control regulatory regime
—
would yield a reduction in the size of governmen
t, a gain in economic efficiency, and an
improvement in conservative political prospects by addressing a problem that worries
an overwhelming majority of the American public.
V. Concluding Thoughts
Conservative hostility to proposals to address global warming
is often stated as a matter
of principle
—
a defense of free markets and private property against unwarranted
government regulation. But those principles would be better served by well
-
crafted
government action..
Many conservatives who labor in the environ
mental arena ground their thinking in
libertarian philosophy. Libertarians maintain that pollution is best thought of as a
trespass on private property or as a nuisance. Government, they say, has a
responsibility to either enjoin that trespass or, at the
very least, redress the injuries
associated with pollution in order to protect the person and property of others.
102
While
libertarians have a preference for resolving trespass or nuisance claims in courts of law
rather than in regulatory or political bodi
es, they do not, in principle, have any objection
to government action to restrain polluters from harming third parties. In fact, a respect
for private property
demands
it.
103
As noted by one of the founding fathers of modern
libertarianism, Murray Rothbar
d, conservatives too often “deny that the [air pollution]
problem exists, and attribute the entire agitation to leftists who want to destroy
capitalism and technology on behalf of a tribal form of socialism.†He continues:
While part of this charge may b
e correct, denial of the very existence of
the problem is to deny science itself and to give a vital hostage to the
leftist charge that defenders of capitalism “place property rights above
human rights.†Moreover, a defense of air pollution does not even
defend
property rights; on the contrary it puts these conservatives’ stamp of
approval on those industrialists who are trampling upon the property rights
of the mass of citizenry
.
104
F.A. Hayek makes the same point:
102
See,
for
instance,
Terry
Anderson
and
Donald
Leal,
Free
Market
Environmentalism
,
revised
edition
(
London:
Palgrave
Macmill
a
n,
2001).
103
The
academic
case
for
this
proposition
is
most
vigorously
forwarded
in
a
collection
of
essays
published
in
the
Cato
Journal
2:1,
Spring
1982.
104
Murray
Rothbard,
For
a
New
Liberty:
The
Libertarian
Manifesto
,
2nd
Edition
(
Auburn,
Ala.:
Ludwig
von
Mises
Institute,
2006),
pp.
324
-
325
.
28
|
Page
Personally, I find that the most objecti
onable feature of the conservative
attitude is its propensity to reject well
-
substantiated new knowledge
because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from
it
—
or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as
much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much
reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from
their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves
be rational and must be kept separate from
our regret that the new
theories upset our cherished beliefs....
By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own
position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws
from new scientific insights do not at all foll
ow from them. But only by
actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new
discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if
so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual
assumpti
ons shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend
them by refusing to acknowledge facts.
105
Rothbard’s and Hayek’s charge that some segments of the Right are prone to deny
science because they don’t like the messenger (environmentalists) or the
message
(producers must be constrained) rings true in the climate debate.
Conservatives should remember that a carbon tax doesn’t just hedge against the risks
associated with temperature change. It also hedges against panic
-
driven government
responses
to catastrophic global warming that could do tremendous harm to social and
economic liberty. Conservatives are risking a great deal by embracing a policy of
militant denial regarding climate risks. If conservatives are found to be wrong, the
political re
sponse would likely prove devastating.
Happily for conservatives, the costs associated with an effective hedge
—
a revenue
neutral carbon tax that displaces the existing command
-
and
-
control regulatory regime
—
would yield a reduction in the size of governmen
t, a gain in economic efficiency, and an
improvement in conservative political prospects by addressing a problem that worries
an overwhelming majority of the American public.
Comment