Let me leave aside for the moment all the leaked memos and stuff. I would describe myself as a non-expert on climate issues who has been gradually persuaded to the following positions:
- Agnostic on the question of warming and human impact on it;
- Getting less agnostic as I read the emails and leaked materials;
- Unpersuaded that the CBA supports radical “front end” attempts to deal with a diffuse threat of uncertain likelihood far down the road, because the discount for uncertainty is too high;
- Persuaded by the Lomborg position that we should address real damage as it manifests, in the most prudent way;
- Persuaded by Lomborg that resources proposed for dealing with climate change must be weighed against other uses, particularly more immediate health and welfare issues such as malaria and AIDS; and
- Persuaded by Lomborg that climate change across a very long time frame must be weighed up, in resource terms, against much more immediate, unquestionable environmental damage not defined as CO2, but regular old air pollution, water pollution, etc., especially as it exists in the developing world, the cities of Asia, Mexico City, other places — and not set aside on the assumption that the developed world’s long term climate change issues should take precedence.
I’m not arguing for this, just letting you know where I’m coming from. But let the rest of this post be on the assumption that all the climate change warming threats are real, if long term. If that is so, then, leaving aside climate science and turning just to international law and diplomacy and politics ...
Well, I do not understand how this Copenhagen conference manages to overcome the collective action failure problems that have been encountered in Kyoto and every other exercise in this area. Extremely diffuse damage from a multitude of players, now and into the future; diffuse set of actors who must act in a coordinated way; individual states being tasked to take sacrificial actions that in the short and medium term at least are bad for their individual economies and their voting citizens; consistent record of failures not just in the nature of the promises made, but in their non-fulfillment even as they stand ... on what grounds does anyone plausibly think that Copenhagen might produce a different outcome?
I’m not asking about climate science here, I’m asking about collective action problems in international law and policy. How is this exercise different from previous failures? Even if new states are persuaded to say yes on paper, on what grounds does anyone think that these commitments will be fulfilled this time, particularly given the record of Kyoto? The article linked here from the AP talks about “momentum building” and “legally binding agreements.” What does that mean and how? Legally binding to prevent defection down the road, how? This is not an attempt to get snarky, but complete puzzlement on my part. How is this different from earlier attempts?
The one thing that might be different, so far as I can tell, is that the meeting might make moves toward the global fund for the developing world. Which would suggest, however, that the world has largely accepted that it won’t really do anything about the problem on the front end, but might do things to address concrete damage in the developing world. Or perhaps will simply hand out the money as a sort of buy-off and global welfare transfer payment. That seems to me to be the most likely outcome of Copenhagen, at most, and maybe or maybe not an agreement that, on the basis of past experience, will be invoked in op-ed pages and law review articles and politely sidelined as discussions get underway for the next round of agreements. Copenhagen (apart from the speeches and expressions of concern and photo ops and opportunity for the Secretary General to re-cast himself as a little bit of a rock star) appears to me mostly about the fund. It might have similar collective action problems in collecting for it, but that is a lot easier as a tradeoff than actually doing any of the stuff that might be proposed or even agreed to on the issue of climate change itself.
But there are lots of very smart people working on this issue in international law who, obviously, have thought long and hard about these problems. How are the collective action problems believed to be overcome in this round?
(Update: I could be persuaded that the “real” common ground among governments is the desire for more government, and perhaps even the desire for global governance, as the best, or most likely, explanation for the pursuit of a process that, at least so far, I can’t see is supported by an account of how to overcome collective action failures. However, it is not clear how that would overcome collective action problems, either, if it were true that the common policy sought were best understood not as “addressing climate change as such” but instead “increasing the size and powers of government using climate change as an opportunity.” The interests of governments, to start with, are “parallel” rather than “common.” And even if common, it is unclear what would prevent defection; in order for governments to seize these powers, would they not have to act on them and actually do something regarding climate change?
However, here is one way it could work. One could see the desire to increase government size as a form of positive feedback loop, governments feeding and feeding off each other, toward the ends of larger governments. In that case, one might say that governments expand not because they necessarily actually act to address climate change, whatever that actually means, but instead because they simply seize the powers that might address those things, but at bottom simply seize powers, whatever they actually do with them.
PeteP says:
The more I read, the more I become convinced COP15 / Copenhagen is nothing but one big scam, and effort by ‘poor countries’ to hold The West ( mainly the USA ) for a trillion dollars worth of blackmail.
For instance, I just read an article about the Sahel — I had to look it up to find out it’s an area of just slightly sub-Saharan near-desert defined by minimal rainfall. It has a history of severe drought going back many thousands of years. These droughts are characterized as ‘often much longer and much more severe than anyting in recent history’. The article ( by a local government spokesman in Mali ) then proceeds to blame this on ‘Western Culture’, and claim a right to ‘Restitution from The West’ in billions of dollars — for things that have been going on for 3,000 years !!!!!!
Damn that George Bush, that’s all I can say !!!
Quote
November 29, 2009, 8:10 pmef says:
The question is largely moot, except as a purely intellectual exercise, since the proponents of getting a Copenhagen deal done are on record stating that it is not about climate change, but establishing tighter global governance.
In terms of this exercise, the only way to ensure that signatories stick to their agreed to obligations is some sort of enforcement clause in the treaty, overseen by some form of .... global government.
Quote
November 29, 2009, 8:39 pmPensans says:
Your argument suggests that the Copenhagen “deal” is not a deal at all . . . since there is no way to overcome the collective action problems.
If a deal purports to emerge, it has another purpose towards which the collective action problems can be solved.
For example, perhaps, providing domestic political advantages for governments involved.
Quote
November 29, 2009, 8:49 pmfsfsfsfsfsfsfs says:
This is I think absolutely the crux of the matter, and the most interesting and fruitful area for a bunch of lawyers to explore.
I am far from expert on the nuances of Copenhagen, but nevertheless I can propound a couple of hypotheses that may ameliorate the collective action problem as compared to previous attempts at international agreement.
First and foremost, the most important feature distinguishing Copenhagen from previous international collective action scenarios like Kyoto is the existence of a trading infrastructure for actors to make huge amounts of money from emissions controls — namely the cap-and-trade plans. This gives them a strong incentive to make these cap-and-trade plans work, and that requires (or suggests) close monitoring of international behavior. There is so much money here, in fact, that recalcitrant countries can likely be bribed into compliance.
A second difference is the far greater global acceptance of large government bureacracies in the West than heretofore. The bureaucracies are incentivized to expand, and without the Cold War fueling suspicion of global bureaucracies, I don’t think there is any check on their growth.
A third difference is the internet and the much greater precision, speed, and volume with which information can be and is routinely shared. This serves to bind countries together, homogenizing their legal systems and incentives. The internet and computer systems also allow for much cheaper monitoring and collaboration.
A fourth difference is the powerful influence that advocates of global warming science exercise over education, grants, research funding, and the media. I mean, the science is now taught in elementary schools on up, it’s part of the mainstream physics curriculum. Even if skeptics have a sort of beachhead now on blogs and right-wing talk radio, with time that will erode, and there will be almost universal acceptance of its scientific premises (whether they are right or wrong — there isn’t anyone to fund the argument that they are wrong, and if so, there isn’t anyone to listen).
Fifth, and finally, the executive and legislative branches of the United States support this; the judiciary is amenable; — this is a perfect time politically.
Now, it’s true that, as Anderson suggests, there may be some cheating going on at first. But the bureaucracy, once created, will be so huge that over time that cheating will dissipate.
Once again, I emphasize the speculative nature of these hypotheses. I might be utterly misinformed here, or misunderstanding the question, but these are my thoughts on this or related issues.
Quote
November 29, 2009, 9:16 pmHouston Lawyer says:
Every “solution” to the proposed problem involves increasing the power of the government over the lives of individuals. For the vast majority of the believers, this is a feature, not a bug. In the end, it wouldn’t matter to the proponents that the treaty is not enforceable everywhere, it would be enforced in the places they care about.
Quote
November 29, 2009, 10:12 pmtamerlane says:
Any funding for less-developed nations always winds up going to the kleptocracies in charge. So a large part of this money is instantly siphoned off to the rich and politically connected thugs who run these countries. These thugs, in turn, provide support to the European and American elites who keep the money rolling in. AGW is just another tactic to keep the scam going.
Quote
November 29, 2009, 10:24 pmKilo says:
I don’t expect China, India, Russia, or any third world country to actually to ANYTHING that will impede their economic development. Although they will be happy to take as much money as we want to give them.
The most sophisticated ones (China is doing well at this lately) will have an aggressive PR campaign that allows them to claim lots of credit for implementing industrial modernization that they would have done anyway, plus a few alternative energy Potemkin village show projects (preferably developed with American and European funds).
The US and European positions are so economically irresponsible that it invites speculation that their motives could not be those that they publicly claim.
Quote
November 29, 2009, 10:34 pmsteve says:
How do you approach any tragedy of the commons? How do you approach one that has the potential to effect everyone? Taking your premise that this issue really is a problem, there is no current solution. We have no means of enforcing appropriate behavior on any other country.
Steve
Quote
November 29, 2009, 11:29 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » How Are the Copenhagen Talks Supposed to Overcome Collective Action Problems? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Brian Galvin, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: How Are the Copenhagen Talks Supposed to Overcome Collective Action Problems?: Let me leave aside for the momen.. http://bit.ly/7HfOIT [...]
Randy says:
Kilo: “I don’t expect China, India, Russia, or any third world country to actually to ANYTHING that will impede their economic development.”
Having been to China many times in the past few years, I would disagree. China understands that it has a lot to lose because of environmental degredation. Of course, they are polluting a lot, and pumping out CO2 emissions like no tomorrow. But they have also invested several hundred billion dollars into green tech and clean tech, so much so that they are now considered No.2 in the world for this type of R&D. (Germany is No. 1 in the world. The US is down around 12 or so).
Additionally, they are increasingly seeing that green tech actually advances their economic development, and so the two are not mutually exclusive. For instance, on most new major highways, the street lights are powered by solar panels. A small step, of course, but much more of a step than we are willing to take. And I don’t see how doing this harms their economic development in any way, but actually advances it.
Quote
November 29, 2009, 11:49 pmBill says:
CO2 emissions are not the source of China’s air quality problems. It’s the other stuff from the coal they’re burning that’s killing them.
The current monomaniacal focus on carbon to the exclusion of directly harmful pollutants strikes me as incredibly wrongheaded.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:09 amJohn Moore says:
On the topic, the collective action problem is that the total cost to humanity of a solution of the Copenhagen variety (assuming it really means to significantly alter the CO2 concentration trajectory) is so huge that no system other than a global dictatorship would being it about. No matter how the money is shifted around, the ultimate result is to greatly increase the cost of carbon-based energy, which means, at least in the near to middle term, greatly increasing the cost of energy. That means greatly damaging the economies of the world, reducing lifestyles of the non-poor, and killing off the poor in large numbers.
Ain’t gonna happen. There may be deals cut, and changes in relative position based on relative advantage gained from those deals, but no significant reduction in CO2 emissions.
On the other hand, if Copenhagen is not about reaching the levels of CO2 emissions that the warmists say are necessary, then it is simply a power game. In that case, it isn’t an issue of collection action, but of zero sum gamesmanship.
—-
A previous commenter mentions China. Two problems with the comments:
1) the conflation of air pollution (which China suffers from) and CO2 emissions, which China gains a lot from
and
2) China’s moves are not part of some collective action; they are self interested and motiviated by:
...PR
...reduction in dependence on *foreign* hydrocarbon supplies
...preparing to sell “green” technology to the fools customers in other countries.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:44 amMonty says:
What about the island nation of Tuvalu, regardless of its source, and regardless of humanities ability to influence it, global climate change is effecting them. They are going to be some of the first indisputable climate change refuges as thier island nation sinks into the rising pacific. Yet are any of the nations promising to combat anthrogenic global warming willing to commit to accept the 12 thousand residents of the island when the island can no longer support human habitation? Surely they are the least of the problems climate change will bring, yet the international community cannot overcome such a minor collective action problem as to who will help them?
[They aren’t refuges yet, but it looks to be inevitable they will be sometime this century, and as far as I know, no nation will commit to allowing a relocation]
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:06 amGreg F says:
Monty,
No it is not. The key here is Tuvalu is sinking.
Human Induced Erosion
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:52 amtom swift says:
The international aspects are the excuse. The actual benefits will be domestic. Those domestic benefits will be real, even when the international benefits turn out to be illusory.
By “benefits” I mean expansion of national governments and their revenues — benefits to governments themselves, not to real people. Businesses hoping for immense profits pandering to “green” mania would also be beneficiaries.
So if, say, the EPA can declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant and so extend its regulatory and bureaucratic hand over everything in the US that breathes, it will be unimportant if the EPA can’t extend this hand internationally. Domestic control will be established, which will be “mission accomplished.” When critics note that EPA hegemony doesn’t extend past the US borders, that will just be an excuse for another conference. Whether or not that conference accomplishes anything won’t matter. Consider the actual failure of international control a feature, not a bug.
Those countries too primitive to have an equivalent to something like the EPA can still get in on the fun. Such countries will naturally vote for anything increasing control by government — any government — so long as it’s accompanied by money. Lots and lots of money. There is no need to assume that these countries are overly concerned about the problems of controlling an international climate. So long as the money flows in, they will doubtless be very cooperative.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:01 amlarry says:
Solar-powered street lights. Now I really have heard everything.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:25 amMartyA says:
The real issue today and always is not global warming but, rather, population growth. World population will go from 6 billion today to 9 billion in 2050.
The growth won’t be in the wealthy countries but those in which dwell blacks and browns. How could anyone even verbalize the problem or a possible solution in today’s politically correct world. Whether it’s CO2, SO2 or some other chemical(s) associated with mankind, this population growth has to have an effect on the environment. Resources will be depleted; fish will disappear, trees will become charcoal and tasty species will go extinct. The poor will get poorer but will have to be clothed, housed and fed but NEVER told or helped to decrease breeding.
Look at the opportunities. The academic Marxists see the ability to distribute wealth; the academic thieves see the ability to make billions, all the while using fake data to prove a nonexistent fact, and never, never suggesting that anyone but the evil wealthy have the solution.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:28 amRobert Willis says:
I am happy to announce that I can lay this entire controversy to rest by open-sourcing my heretofore top-secret climate model. I developed this at my evil lair on the well-known Commodore VIC-20 supercomputer. Please feel free to download the source and run it yourself to verify my results:
10 INPUT “What is the name of your planet”, WHATEVER$
20 INPUT “How much money do you have”, RANSOM
30 INPUT “What is the name of a UN climate bureaucrat”, MARXIST$
40 FOR T = 1 to 100000 : NEXT T
50 PRINT “The only way to save planet “; WHATEVER$
60 PRINT “is to send “; RANSOM; ” dollars to “; MARXIST$
70 PRINT “and do whatever he says.”
80 END : REM of Western Civ, Scientific Method, etc.
I hope this helps clear things up.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:42 amMark Field says:
This post strikes me as a perfect example of GIGO. If you weren’t skeptical of AGW to begin with, you would see solutions to this problem.
The material emissions of CO2 are from First World countries plus China and India. Agreements among First World countries are generally both honored and enforced without need for sanctions.
To the extent there is a need for sanctions, the solution is fairly simple: tax imports from those nations which “defect”. Both China and India are particularly vulnerable to this sanction as well.
In practice, this is a short term problem. There are gigantic economic benefits to be gained from the move away from carbon fuels. Once those benefits begin to be realized, the process will move as if propelled by an invisible hand. Agreement (and sanctions) are needed now only because the current system is subsidized by governments all over the world (ours not least). Eliminate those subsidies (or counteract them) and the now-repressed market efficienies will have their inevitable effect.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:03 amplutosdad says:
Air quality and pollution have nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. Just like the U.S. and Europe cleaned up massively without really lowering greenhouse gasses, China will likely go the same route. As they become wealthier they will want a cleaner country, but that is cheap compared to lowering CO2.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:05 amzuch says:
Oh, the horror. Oh, the enormity. Ohhhh, the humanity....
Cheers,
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:16 amzuch says:
My laptop, as well as the reading lamps I use at night on the boat, are in part solar powered. On a good day, 400-500W during daytime. That’s 5KWh or so that doesn’t need to be generated by carbon.
Cheers,
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:21 ambobby b says:
“Copenhagen . . . appears to me mostly about the fund.”
Of course it is. Nothing that comes out of Copenhagen — in terms of agreements — will control any country’s actions for more than a month or two. It will be whatever amount of money the richer countries put into some fund, or transfer directly to the less-rich, that will define the entire impact of Copenhagen.
And the moderators are going to push for this transfer with every ounce of their power, while paying little attention to long-term behavioral changes beyond some standard announced agreements needed to give it all plausibility. They have to, because their time is running out.
(Obviously, I do not buy into the AGW fraud.)
Soon, one of two things will happen: either the current scandal is finally going to convince people to look hard at the science (at which point Gore skulks away to count his money), or it fizzles and the worldwide confusion continues until it becomes so obvious that warming has somehow turned into cooling that it cannot be ignored any longer.
In the first situation, well, the Copenhagen scammers will already have their up-front money from us. In the second, if they get some movement and agreement going quickly out of Copenhagen, they can announce that their initial efforts are already starting to make a difference — they can take credit for the disappearance of global warming! — and lord knows what riches they’ll then be able to harvest from the world.
So, they need to move on this quickly. And they will.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:39 ambobby b says:
“There are gigantic economic benefits to be gained from the move away from carbon fuels.”
Then make that move yourself, quickly, and become rich as Croesus by beating us all to the market.
” . . . ”
No, son, sorry, “increased taxation revenues flowing to government spenders” is not an economic benefit, unless you’re a government spender.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:48 amFen says:
“Agreements among First World countries are generally both honored and enforced without need for sanctions.”
Disagree. Kyoto is a good example of nations making promises, then granting each other all kinds of exceptions, and STILL not meeting the target goals they agreed too.
“To the extent there is a need for sanctions, the solution is fairly simple: tax imports from those nations which “defect”. Both China and India are particularly vulnerable to this sanction as well.”
Pls see: Oil for Food scandal. Sanctions are useless, esp against China. Euro states undermined the sanctions on Iraq without consequence.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:53 amDan Weber says:
Okay, so we will need European states to agree to sanctions on China. Isn’t it possible that they would agree to such sanctions? This isn’t an issue where we need to drag them to the table, like Iraqi sanctions. They are at the table waiting for us to show up.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:16 pmM. Report says:
Who gains, indeed. :)
The psychology of power is well documented;
Add in the assumption that the world is in
for economic hard times, severe enough to
threaten even TPTB, and their move to add
to that power is understandable. See also:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6599281/Societe-Generale-tells-clients-how-to-prepare-for-global-collapse.html
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:03 pmRPT says:
“Mark Field:
In practice, this is a short term problem. There are gigantic economic benefits to be gained from the move away from carbon fuels. Once those benefits begin to be realized, the process will move as if propelled by an invisible hand.”
Mark, is the implicit conservative/anti-AGW argument that current carbon fuel based technology is the end of the line, that is, it is the most cost-effective, efficient technology which could ever be achieved, notwithstanding the massive requisite government subsidies necessary to keep it going?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:26 pmRobert Smith says:
Reminds me of this joke, remembered from from my childhood:
I wish I had enough money to buy an elephant.
Why do you want an elephant?
I don’t. I just want that much money...
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:34 pmMark Field says:
If their position were entirely rational, then that’s a plausible suggestion. I think, though, that this is a situation in which they’ve just reacted without much thought to people they dislike: they can’t stand Al Gore, so if Gore says “X”, conservatives decide “not X” must be true regardless of the merits. And let’s remember that there’s a lot of money at stake here. It’s funny how that can affect one’s view of the facts.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:15 pmspostrel says:
Peter Huber made the key point here: There is available an extremely valuable pool of fossil fuel resources that can be used to make things, grow food, produce electricity, etc. There are a lot of poor and hungry people all over the world. How likely is it that that pool of resources will NOT be consumed, no matter what “policy” regime is agreed at international meetings? The answer is that it is all going to be combusted so long as it remains by far the cheapest and most practical energy source around–expecting otherwise is like expecting people to leave gold nuggets lying on the ground without picking them up.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 4:22 pmDave M says:
Hey Mark,you say that climate/AGW skeptics are irrational and are only skeptical because they like disagreeing with liberals. Uh huh, but you, the “rational” one, seem to believe:
*a trace gas that makes up .037 of the atmosphere can drive catastrophic warming
*the peer review process for non-AGW points of view has been fair and open
*computer models used by warmenist scientists are infallible
*there have never been warming periods with high CO2 in the past
*the earth has continued to warm for the past dozen years
*management of global temperatures and CO2 levels is more important to billions of poverty stricken people than clean water or malaria abatement
I could go on, but you get the idea. All of these assertions are ridiculous to anyone with the smallest amount of common sense. I say, own up to your own irrational beliefs. If you were as open minded as you think, you would cheer any evidence (such as is now pouring in) proving that the world does not, in fact, “have a fever.”
Quote
November 30, 2009, 4:28 pmwws says:
Dan Weber wrote: “Okay, so we will need European states to agree to sanctions on China. Isn’t it possible that they would agree to such sanctions?”
Good grief, don’t you remember that the last time we started a world wide trade war the global economy collapsed and we all ended up in WW2?
For just one specific example of what could go wrong: the Chinese, annoyed, cease all purchases of US debt while simultaneously dumping all the US debt they currently hold. (maybe they put their money in gold, or oil, or whatever, doesn’t matter as long as they dump dollars)
Consequence: US interest rates soar, the dollar collapses (I mean COLLAPSES) and the US economy is crushed virtually overnight. That’s the kind of fire you’re playing with here.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 7:17 pmmisterbee says:
I’m not very smart but I have done some farming. Couple of points;
1) CO2 is necessary for plant life. When CO2 levels go up, plants absorb it and increase the production of oxygen.
2) Warm is better than cold. (Remember back in the 1970’s when we were warned about the impending “ice-age”?) I say warm is better than cold for those of you who have never attempted to grow crops. (see # 3 below)
3) For you city folks, “iceberg lettuce” isn’t REALLY grown on ice bergs. You can’t even grow lettuce in a snow bank. Warm weather is pretty much necessary to grow FOOD.
4) “Global Warming” isn’t science, it’s religion.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 8:31 pmDon says:
The current conservative argument is that AGW is a load of crap cooked up by crooks, and that the market should be allowed to determine the best energy technology.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:01 pmDon says:
The problem with AGW is that it has never been proven. Even the GW part has fallen off the tracks for the last decade, and now we are learning about the fraud AGW scientists have committed.
We need something better than a hypothesis before we destroy our nation’s economy. Given what we now know about the fraud, we need a strong review of the data and science before we even consider that AGW has any merit. Any.
Disliking Gore has nothing to do with it. I suspect you are simply projecting from your BDS.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:07 pmUriel says:
How is this question or this article relevant to anything. Global Warming is a PROVEN FRAUD.
This article, and others like it, only make it easier for the media and leftist establishment to whitewash the truth to their liking.
Knock it off!
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:26 pmUriel says:
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
There NEVER WAS.
There NEVER WAS.
There NEVER WAS.
This is the mantra the author and other commenters ought to repeat 10X before bed ... until you actually GET IT.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:30 pmMatt Osborn says:
Copenhagen is about politicl power; AGW is only an excuse.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:59 pmJohn Dunshee says:
“Legally binding agreements”?
As legally binding as the UN resolutions regarding Iran’s nuclear program? That doesn’t sound promising.
Enforced by who? The UN?
Does the term Oil-For-Food mean anything to you?
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
You? Me? Charles Rangal?
Quote
December 1, 2009, 5:41 amGlobal Warming Is About The Socialism « Tai-Chi Policy says:
[...] it gets pushed so hard by dubious groups who take it on faith that, just as the earth is warming, collectivist actions will solve our problems better than simple deregulation and prudent technological [...]
The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Prospects for a Climate Treaty says:
[...] Anderson’s post a while back expressed pessimism for classic collective-action reasons: Well, I do not understand [...]