5 ms·

Maybe libertarians are right when they say individual actors act rationally for their own self interest. But what they didn't understand was the actors were nat

by codyb 11y ago

Maybe libertarians are right when they say individual actors act rationally for their own self interest. But what they didn't understand was the actors were nations composed of millions of irrational actors and there own self interests generally include moving far too slowly to make a difference before something catastrophic happens when it comes to climate change. It seems to me, no one I even know, really even cares. I make a point of at least separating my recyclables and being annoying and bringing it to the attention of those who don't, but from there I'm at a bit of a loss on what to do. I request no utensils when I order from seamless, but they give them to me anyway. Half the time I open my cans recyclables can here in NYC someone has shoved cardboard in there (I wish I could figure out who, it's really annoying). There just seems to be a general level of apathy regarding the whole thing. And then I see people on facebook who complain about their or my generation but all they're doing is complaining. I guess I'll get back on my representative writing game and start at least trying to feel like I'm doing something.

sliverstorm 11y ago
individual actors act rationally for their own self interest. But what they didn't understand... I always liked the line from MiB: A person is smart; people are dumb
jestar_jokin 11y ago
Recycling should be a last resort; "reduce -> reuse -> recycle" is a hierarchy. Plastics aren't really worth recycling due to poor yields. While climate change is definitely a problem, there are more problems associated with rampant consumption; I'm actually more concerned by plastic pollution. Most plastics break down into tiny particles that get eaten by small and micro-organisms, which inevitably contaminates our food chain. The workaround is to rely even more on industrial farming, making sure to isolate arable farmlands from any organic contamination. Industrial farming, of course, introduces massive nitrogen run-off, which gets into the oceans, which disrupts those ecosystems and food-chains... Both climate change and plastic pollution could have been avoided by reducing consumption, but there are too many perceived benefits to the individual and society for people to just stop. And no-one wants to be called a Luddite. On the plus side, we're in historically one of the longest periods of peace (it might not seem like it, but that's partly because we just got better at distributing information).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ridicter 11y ago
There is little federal movement on climate legislation, but there are a decent number of state-level campaigns to price carbon. The goal of many of these organizations is to establish a model that can then be replicated nationwide. (As the saying goes, "states are the laboratories of democracy.") Economists [1] and climate scientists [2] agree that internalizing the "social cost" of climate change--in terms of ocean acidification, depleted crop yields, stronger storms and wildfires-- is the single most effective way to mitigate its worst effects. I personally skipped out on the startup world to volunteer for one of these state campaigns, Oregon Climate [3]. We advocate a specific policy, the carbon fee and dividend, where a scientifically-set price is levied per ton of CO2 at point of source, and all resulting revenue is distributed as a yearly check to individuals. Naturally, a price on carbon means carbon-intensive goods cost more, which is the point: to alter consumer behavior at the point of purchase disfavoring carbon-intensive goods. These campaigns, like Oregon Climate and Carbon WA, operate on shoestring budgets, so if anyone can throw coin our way, it would be greatly appreciated. We only have two poorly paid staffers and the rest of us volunteer in our free time. 1. https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/809307552415176?fref=nf https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/809307552415176?fref=... Robert Reich, Economist at Berkeley 2. http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/07/26/dr-james-hansen-gives-his-idea-to-curb-climate-change-on-fareed-zakaria-gps/ http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/07/26/dr-james-hansen... - James Hansen, former director of NASA Goddard Institute 3. http://oregonclimate.org http://oregonclimate.org
- twoodfin 11y ago
  Practically, how do you get China on board with this approach? Do you think it matters?
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    China seems to be moving in the right direction through self-interest, although a billion people is a lot of momentum to fight. They still open coal plants, but they've brought more wind generation capacity online then any other country. They continue to deploy solar energy and thermal water heating across the country. To push them harder, you'd need to engage the entire population.
boona 11y ago
When economists state that actors are rational, all they are is saying is that people act purposefully. Whether you water your plants, or pray to the magic unicorn in your closet for rain, both actions are purposeful, though both may not have the same result. You are correct when you say that individuals are "moving far too slowly" with regards to anthropomorphic climate change, but that's rational since it makes virtually no difference if you, as an individual, change your habits and produce less pollution. Nothing you do will change the outcome. This is similar to voting, where most people don't vote because in the US national election, you have a much greater chance of dying on the way to the voting booth, than affecting the outcome of the election. It's irrational for an individual to vote (unless they're doing so to demonstrate to those around them what their values are). Now, a libertarian might say that economic freedom is not utopic, there are plenty of market failures. However, if one looks at a situation of economic freedom, and decides that the incentives in place are sub-optimal and don't produce favorable results, it's usually suggested that government should step in and regulate somehow. Individuals in government are however, made up of the same rational actors as those in the free market. So while more mainstream economists may end their analysts there, public choice theorists on the other hand demand a more consistent application of economic principles. Namely, they want to know what incentives are in place for individuals in government, and if those incentives will provide better or worse outcomes than a situation of economic freedom. If you're interested, here is a short 10 minute video by Mark Pennington where he introduces this form of analysis i.e. Public Choice Theory. Edit: I might be useful to include the link. :/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbDrP7whqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbDrP7whqw
patrickaljord 11y ago
Non-free market regimes have had worse effects on the environment than free ones, for example the USSR.
dredmorbius 11y ago
"individual actors act rationally for their own self interest" But they don't even do that. Aggregate group behavior is even worse. See Mancur Olson, well-known economic fallacies such as savings, fallacies of composition, emergent phenomena, and more. Libertarianism is utterly bankrupt as a model. It's an appealing mythology, quite possibly a cover for highly monied interests.

by codyb 11y ago

sliverstorm 11y ago

individual actors act rationally for their own self interest. But what they didn't understand... I always liked the line from MiB: A person is smart; people are dumb

jestar_jokin 11y ago

Recycling should be a last resort; "reduce -> reuse -> recycle" is a hierarchy. Plastics aren't really worth recycling due to poor yields. While climate change is definitely a problem, there are more problems associated with rampant consumption; I'm actually more concerned by plastic pollution. Most plastics break down into tiny particles that get eaten by small and micro-organisms, which inevitably contaminates our food chain. The workaround is to rely even more on industrial farming, making sure to isolate arable farmlands from any organic contamination. Industrial farming, of course, introduces massive nitrogen run-off, which gets into the oceans, which disrupts those ecosystems and food-chains... Both climate change and plastic pollution could have been avoided by reducing consumption, but there are too many perceived benefits to the individual and society for people to just stop. And no-one wants to be called a Luddite. On the plus side, we're in historically one of the longest periods of peace (it might not seem like it, but that's partly because we just got better at distributing information).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ridicter 11y ago

There is little federal movement on climate legislation, but there are a decent number of state-level campaigns to price carbon. The goal of many of these organizations is to establish a model that can then be replicated nationwide. (As the saying goes, "states are the laboratories of democracy.") Economists [1] and climate scientists [2] agree that internalizing the "social cost" of climate change--in terms of ocean acidification, depleted crop yields, stronger storms and wildfires-- is the single most effective way to mitigate its worst effects. I personally skipped out on the startup world to volunteer for one of these state campaigns, Oregon Climate [3]. We advocate a specific policy, the carbon fee and dividend, where a scientifically-set price is levied per ton of CO2 at point of source, and all resulting revenue is distributed as a yearly check to individuals. Naturally, a price on carbon means carbon-intensive goods cost more, which is the point: to alter consumer behavior at the point of purchase disfavoring carbon-intensive goods. These campaigns, like Oregon Climate and Carbon WA, operate on shoestring budgets, so if anyone can throw coin our way, it would be greatly appreciated. We only have two poorly paid staffers and the rest of us volunteer in our free time. 1. https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/809307552415176?fref=nf https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/809307552415176?fref=... Robert Reich, Economist at Berkeley 2. http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/07/26/dr-james-hansen-gives-his-idea-to-curb-climate-change-on-fareed-zakaria-gps/ http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/07/26/dr-james-hansen... - James Hansen, former director of NASA Goddard Institute 3. http://oregonclimate.org http://oregonclimate.org

twoodfin 11y ago
Practically, how do you get China on board with this approach? Do you think it matters?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  China seems to be moving in the right direction through self-interest, although a billion people is a lot of momentum to fight. They still open coal plants, but they've brought more wind generation capacity online then any other country. They continue to deploy solar energy and thermal water heating across the country. To push them harder, you'd need to engage the entire population.

boona 11y ago

When economists state that actors are rational, all they are is saying is that people act purposefully. Whether you water your plants, or pray to the magic unicorn in your closet for rain, both actions are purposeful, though both may not have the same result. You are correct when you say that individuals are "moving far too slowly" with regards to anthropomorphic climate change, but that's rational since it makes virtually no difference if you, as an individual, change your habits and produce less pollution. Nothing you do will change the outcome. This is similar to voting, where most people don't vote because in the US national election, you have a much greater chance of dying on the way to the voting booth, than affecting the outcome of the election. It's irrational for an individual to vote (unless they're doing so to demonstrate to those around them what their values are). Now, a libertarian might say that economic freedom is not utopic, there are plenty of market failures. However, if one looks at a situation of economic freedom, and decides that the incentives in place are sub-optimal and don't produce favorable results, it's usually suggested that government should step in and regulate somehow. Individuals in government are however, made up of the same rational actors as those in the free market. So while more mainstream economists may end their analysts there, public choice theorists on the other hand demand a more consistent application of economic principles. Namely, they want to know what incentives are in place for individuals in government, and if those incentives will provide better or worse outcomes than a situation of economic freedom. If you're interested, here is a short 10 minute video by Mark Pennington where he introduces this form of analysis i.e. Public Choice Theory. Edit: I might be useful to include the link. :/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbDrP7whqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbDrP7whqw

patrickaljord 11y ago

Non-free market regimes have had worse effects on the environment than free ones, for example the USSR.

dredmorbius 11y ago

"individual actors act rationally for their own self interest" But they don't even do that. Aggregate group behavior is even worse. See Mancur Olson, well-known economic fallacies such as savings, fallacies of composition, emergent phenomena, and more. Libertarianism is utterly bankrupt as a model. It's an appealing mythology, quite possibly a cover for highly monied interests.