The Volokh Conspiracy

With individuals being short-term investors, where "short term" is defined as in their lifetimes, who today will be alive when/if the sea level rises high enough to flood Florida? And will weather patterns change such that beach front property in Florida is unlivable or uninsurable due to storm activity?

Changes like these happen on a different time scale. At some point the movement of the tectonic plates in California will split off coastal Southern California and make it a Northern California Island (perhaps). No one seems to be buying land on the Eastern side of the San Andreas in anticipation of their cheap day on the beach. Perhaps they're worried about the effects of skin cancer at the ripe age of 500,000 years old?

While there is broad scientific consensus that warming is occuring, it is very difficult to predict the exact consequences of increased tepmeratures. It's like standing at the top of a stairwell and tossing a superball - it doesn't take a very sophisticated analysis to predict that it's overall path will be down, but it just about impossible to predict the exact path. Betting that it will come to rest on the third stair would be ridiculous. So is betting that the new ocean front will stabilize at 300 yards from it's current location.

Professor Zywicki,

Its actually not that much trouble to convince yourself of global warming's ocurrence and impact. The technical details can be overwhelming, but you conspirators are a pretty sharp bunch.

from www.realclimate.org (with embedded links to the papers)


How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? part 1
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? part 2

Hurricanes and Global Warming - Is There a Connection?

Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and the so-called "Hockey Stick"
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

urban heat islands and surface temperature record

And if believers in global warming are so certain that it is going to occur that they are willing to impose taxes and other coercion in order to combat it, why aren't they buying up all the land 300 yards or so from the current beach, or wherever they expect the sea level to rise to in the future?

Beyond agreeing with Randy R., Shawn-non-anonymous, uh clem, and Guntram's comments above, let me add that while I do not doubt you understand economics, you make the mistake (made time and again by economists on both the left and the right) of assuming that all human activity and motivation is reducible to purely simple economic terms. Does it really not occur to you that someone who is highly concerned about global warming and feels it is close to an unmitigated evil might find it wrong to attempt to profit from it actually coming to pass? In fact, wouldn't buying up property as you describe in your post amount to a severe conflict of interest for someone who campaigns against global warming?

Hard as it might be for libertarians to believe,the answer to your question is that most people who are concerned about global warming, whether man-made or not, do not see it as a way to make a few extra bucks.

Yeah, I would put more money on the actuaries at the insurance companies vs those OJ futures traders. I spoke to an energy futures trader the other day, and it boggles the mind as to how they manipulate/make markets vs doing research on the different issues that have an impact on their commodities compared to the other types of brokers and traders out there in the industry.

If just the National Weather Service was worried about global warming, I'd be about as worried as if the Dept of Homeland Security issued a Plaid Alert. Which is to say not at all.

However, to Felix's comment about motivations. The point here being that Gore et al would NOT be buying the land if they were concerned with warming. They would spend the money to fight it. Using that simple motivation of yours, the Big Oil or Big Auto executives would be buying the land as they knew it was a done deal.

[I]t seems less likely than the possibility that GW proponents do not have nearly as much faith in the reliability of their predictions as they claim.

Why is it less likely? Because GW proponanets aren't out trying to capitalize on an environmental disaster that they are working toward *preventing*? You and Professor Zywicki are both begging the question here.

Todd,

I know that they don't teach that kind of stuff in Law School, but even if it were possible to predict exactly which properties would end up on the beach in 50 or 100 years, simple *discounting* of the expected value gain to today would make it your proposal unprofitable.

And good gobs, who would actually WANT to live in the middle of Canada right now? Your closest neighbor would likely be cows for a long as the eye can see.....

As for me, I'll stay in Washington, where at least I can hear a decent string quartet when I need to!

Hmmm, make that 'criterion' in the last post.

"I'm going to assume that Zywicki's tongue is planted firmly in his cheek, because if it isn't this has to be one of the most ill thought out post in the history of VC."

I tend to agree, Evan H. I have a lot of respect for the professors here, so I initially thought that this post wasn't even meant to be serious. I think Atlantic 06 put it well: "most people who are concerned about global warming, whether man-made or not, do not see it as a way to make a few extra bucks."

Good lord, every issue cannot be framed in dollars and cents. Although the cause is debatable, there is no question that the weather is getting nuttier and nuttier, to use a scientific term. We in NYC have just had a January with 70-degree temps, and just got hit with more rain in a single day EVER. Not to mention the easily observable disappearance of glaciers. Regardless of cause and solution, can't we agree that this is scary shit?

I suspect projectionism is at play here. Those who are inclined to see everything in monetary terms, are quick to suspect their "opponents" of the same tactic. But surprise surprise, this issue transcends politics and baseless swipes at those who righfully fear the consequences of climate change just stifle debate.

Professor Zywicki may well have been pulling our legs on that one...but if he was, he was certainly drier than the Sahara in going about it. Which is just bad form in a discussion revolving around inundation. ;-)

In the 1976 novel Last Days of the Late, Great State of California after most of California slides into the sea, the author suggests that Howard Hughes had deseted Southern California and purchased vast amounts of land in Nevada (and moved the Spruce Goose out) because he knew it would become beachfront property.

There are two reasons this does not hold.

First of all, as has been pointed out, the predictions would have to be extremely accurate. This is simply not possible - no one knows what, and when, we will do in response, and even if we did it might not be doable. The point is that there will be climate change which will result in the sea levels rising - not the specifics of how much.

Second, it assumes that nothing will be done. I happen to think that we will begin geo-engineering in the near future, which will avert the problem. Al Gore might think that emissions control will actually work.

Good lord, every issue cannot be framed in dollars and cents.

Beliefs like this is why people, mostly non-libertarian, keep getting slapped upside the head by economic reality. Over and over again.

The market will continue to function, no matter how much you ignore it, no matter how much you perturb it with rules, regulations, or laws. Ban something? Create a black market. Institute welfare? Incentivize poverty-causing behavior. Destroy drug crops? Increase illegal drug profits.

Anytime you choose "not to turn a quick buck", you are in fact spending opportunity costs. You are spending the dollars you would have otherwise gained by increasing your own perception of self-worth. This has an exact cost in dollars, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

re: insurance companies.

What about that linked article leads you to believe that the insurance companies are doing anything other than jumping on the bandwagon for marketing purposes? Suddenly, insurance companies are being held up as examples of responsible corporate citizens with only our best interests at heart?

Clayton:

This is before most of the CO2 was put into the atmosphere by man.

Not precisely true. In point of fact, the industrialized nations had been pouring CO2 and other emissions into the atmosphere for many years at that point (1904-1905) and with no control or oversight, at a faster rate by orders of magnitude than at any other point in human history, and using much dirtier and more destructive processes than have been subsequently used. How "much" of the CO2 was in the atmosphere then as opposed to now (particularly as the industrialized world expanded) is not well understood for fairly obvious reasons, but it is not a stretch at all to assert that observable problems existed even back then.

However, in the presence of this much uncertainty, the risk/reward ratio is far too high to speculate on the scale of house purchases.

Actually, if we assume hurricane activity as constant, and take the most pessimistic prediction of sea level rise, it's almost certain that by the time your house becomes beachfront it will have been damaged by at least one hurricane.

Another point: People who live in these houses tend to be global warming optimists. Therefore, the supply price for these houses is going to be quite high still. And many other people are global warming optimists, so the presence of some with a lower demand curve is going to be irrelevant--the market will keep these houses very expensive for a long time.

That won't make them as expensive as beachfront, but it will put them entirely out of reach of many, and reduce the reward if the buyer guesses right, further depressing the risk/reward ratio.

By way of elaboration on some of the points raised by previous posts, the big question about rising sea levels is what happens to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. If those ice sheets melt, there will be a significant rise in sea levels. (The recent IPCC report did not opine on this question and was therefore misinterpreted by some as providing reassurance that there was no real problem with sea levels.) It is impossible to say with any precision what will happen to the ice sheets and when, which makes investing based on that risk an unworkable strategy.

Furthermore, very few serious scientists are claiming that global warming will happen to a scientific certainty, although the vast majority of scientists think the probability is substantial enough to warrant changes in what we do.

Thirty years ago, they were just as confident that we were entering another ice age. Even the overheated rhetoric is the same.

I'm not sure that "the vast majority of scientists" think this; there are scientists who have specifically requested their names be taken off the IPCC's list of contributors because they disapprove of its politicization and overcertainty--and they won't do it.

This is really more about economic warfare against the U.S. than about a real hazard.

Why would it make any sense whatsoever for global warming activists to take a financial stake in the failure of their own movement? I don't understand this post at all.

Clayton: Oh, you saw right through to my little black heart. This is all about Al Gore's and my own attempt to destroy modern civilization.

It's actually about Al Gore's cynical attempt to become President.

Let's be serious. My statement was limited to noting that we do not fully understand the comparative rates of emission and atmospheric composition of CO2 over a hundred years ago as compared to the present moment. We do have plenty of other data, and furthermore, much more and accurate data, since then. If you disagree with interpretations of the data, fair enough. I will note just that the consensus in the scientific community is that human activity is having a measurable and dangerous inpact on the climate now.

Is it not amazing how many scientists, such as Professor Lindzen at MIT, disagree with this? Your "consensus" isn't.

I agree that further study needs to be done. I even agree that it's a bad idea to (given the state of our full understanding of global climate change) socialize all industry, ban the use of electricity and fossil fuels, and generally revert to stone age modes of existence. In short, no one is advocating destroying the village to save it, and it's just intellectually dishonest of you to assert that I was.

You obviously don't know many environmental activists. Where do you think the "Visualize Industrial Collapse" bumper stickers are coming from?

If global warming is a fact, why are we rebuilding New Orleans? and why do I have the sneaking suspicion that those that are the most adamant about spending billions on a city that is already below sea level are likely to also be GW true believers?

Freddy: Because they believe that humans will lower emissions and not melt the ice sheets.

GG: a. The market does not believe sea levels will rise appreciably in the next 30-50 years.

b. The market does believe sea levels may rise in that period, but believes the probability of the rise or the amount of the rise are low, so that waterfront property values continue to increase although maybe not as much as they would in the absence of such an expectation.
______

Or how about c) Companies have an absolutely pathetic track record when it comes to long-term risk. The best example is that is with pension funds. Companies created their funds with no understanding of the ticking time bombs they were. They didn't have to expense accrued obligations, so they didn't show up on the 10-K's or 10-Q's. Now look at the state of older companies with large pension obligations, such as airlines and car companies. GM did great in 1967 for meeting profit expectations for the 1st quarter of 1967, but they had their heads in the sand about what would happen in the first quarter of 2007.

And these were pretty easily definable obligations. The consequences of global warming is much harder to predict. That means companies will be even less likely to prepare for global warming.

Any time an insurance company can raise prices based on a supposed risk that will in fact never cause it to pay a claim, it's going to do so. Insurance companies factoring in supposed global warming risks isn't positive, and may even be a net dispositive, to global warming being a real risk.

That might make sense if insurance companies were unconstrained by competition with each other.

Well, if you really want to make some $$$ on climate change you might rather consider the stock market. If you go for a roofing company (Aduddell Industries comes to mind) you can choose whether to go for a short term gain (hurricane play) or whether you want to (partially) bet your pension plan on climate change ...

Clayton, have you considered seeing a therapist to help you work through your issues with California?

Clayton: Damn, you've dished us all! If I, in my capacity as the spokesperson for the worldwide environmental cabal, told those very environmentalists at that trendy restaurant at the end of the Russian River (irrelevant aside: Oh! How we all miss the Soviet Union!) once, I told them a thousand times, NEVER discuss our true environmental agenda in public! Especially where a sharp tack like yourself might hear it and use it to devastating effect on the Volokh Conspiracy!

Setting aside the anti-profiteering point, made by several people, above, there's another logical flaw.
If you think think the situation is hopeless (in the sense that global warming is inevitable) why would you be among the activists seeking to stave it off? I imagine Al Gore believes and hopes that his efforts will have some effect, or why bother? The buyers of inland future oceanfront property would likely be the straight cynics who then would have an interest in fighting for, not against, global warming.

Orange juice futures are a much more (pardon the pun) liquid asset with far lower transaction costs than physical real estate. Maybe you could see an effect if you created a futures market with contracts based on the average price of real estate above and below 20ft of sea level. Or maybe not. You still have the problem that speculators are going to be way less interested in trading a contract that expires in say 2100 (the kind of time frame for the sea level issue) than something that expires in say 3 months (a typical time frame for OJ futures and the weather).

I continue to be amazed by the assumption that global warming, should it occur, would it result in rising sea levels. It would certainly seem to me that the opposite would be true.

I continue to be amazed by the assumption that global warming, should it occur, would it result in rising sea levels. It would certainly seem to me that the opposite would be true.

As the oceans warm, they expand.

Clayton's claim that there is a subset of "environmentalists" who openly wish for mass human death is perfectly true.

Unless someone expresses agreement with such wingnuts, it seems to me safe to assume that everyone here disagrees with that subset of "environmentalists," and that for this reason, and also because they are wingnuts who are unlikely to ever persuade others of their views, there's really no reason to waste electrons discussing them.

Unless the point is to tar others by association. In which case, carry on.

Here's the link to RealClimate that Zarkov mentions re CO2 v. temperature at the end of the ice ages. The point is that temperature starts to go up first which would seem to rule out CO2 as kicking off the temperature increases. Instead, it is believed to have only amplified the temperature increase (C02 started to go up around 1/6 of the way into the temperature increase). This doesn't necessarily apply to our current situation though with a much larger increase of CO2 than at the end of the ice ages.

Zarhras:

“Don't you think it odd that you summarily dismiss the work of the large number of climatologists at realclimate.org who are trained in this field and do this for a living …”

I don’t dismiss “the work,” if you mean all their work. I thought I was quite specific. I don’t care who they are; I care about what they say and their scientific reasoning.

“ …yet you take the word of a single person who is not a climatologist?”

The cosmic-ray-climate connection is clearly within the subject matter of astrophysics. Moreover on the modeling question, it’s not a question of taking a single person word. I can give you many others. How about Freeman Dyson?

“.... Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.”

“… examples of fudge factors occur in the treatment of clouds. Each cell of the atmosphere in the model is characterized by a set of numbers which specify the temperature, pressure, density, humidity, wind-velocity, cloudiness, etc. in that cell. Since the cell is much larger than a typical cloud, the "cloudiness" number is only a rough measure of the fraction of the cell that is occupied by clouds. An empirical formula then gives the rate of precipitation in the form of rain or snow for a cell with a given humidity and given cloudiness. The empirical formula contains several coefficients which are fitted to the observations to make the model agree with the existing climate. These coefficients are what I call "fudge-factors". They are not based on a detailed understanding of clouds and rainfall but only on fitting a formula to observations. If now the model is run with enhanced CO2, there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors will still give the right answers. There are many other fudge factors concerned with processes such as snow-melting and vegetation-growth that cannot be modelled in detail. …”

Science is not an exercise in consensus. Einstein was asked if it worried him that hundreds of German scientists disagreed with him. Einstein responded: “All it takes is one to prove me wrong.”

Everyone who points out that exactly where the coastline will end up is a guessing game is correct. Nevertheless, we can look elsewhere for indications that the market believes (or disbelieves) global warming predictions.

If you have enough money for a summer home, you can buy either at the shore or in the mountains. If global warming is likely, we would expect to see the value of mountain real estate appreciating faster than shore real estate. I have no idea if that's happening, but it would be a better indicator than comparing the values of property 100 feet from the coast and 500 feet from the coast.

I believe the better market check for global warming would be found in insurance markets, which are definitely incorporating warming projections in their pricing and coverage.

The insurance argument is a good one, but it's not invincible. The flood insurance market is an oligopoly, and we should always examine the behaviors of firms in such markets to determine if they're fixing prices.

If Allsate puts out a press release that says "Global Warming is a serious threat, and we must raise rates," State Farm might see that as a signal that they should also raise rates. As cover, they can use the argument that there's consensus on global warming, and only a moron would disbelieve so many scientists. They can always tell the FTC that they're all raising rates because of the threat of global warming, and I can't imagine that the FTC would be able to prove otherwise. I'm not saying that this is necessarily happening, but firms are sophisticated enough to know how to seize price-fixing opportunities and cloak their behavior.

Zarkov, you are mistaken. The executive summary was based on the second-to-last draft of the report. It was not "written first," and the reason for the variation between the two has a lot to do with the political objections of China and the US to AGW.

Of the 11 private insurers, 6 specifically attributed the higher frequency and intensity of hurricanes to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which — according to NOAA — is a 20- to 40-year climatic cycle of fluctuating temperatures in the north Atlantic Ocean.

Do you understand the word Oscillation?

I quote here from the NOAA's own website:

...studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium.

In simpler terms: There is a millennia-long phenomonem which may increase hurricane damage in the near term and insurance companies use that to raise rates, and they say it's because of global warming, and that's evidence that AGW is real, urgent, and we need to live a hermit's lifestyle (unless we're a high-profile celebrity). Certainly, we must put all our eggs into the CO2 reduction basket, assuming that there will never be another way, such as a new technological breakthrough, to counteract the AGW, if it actually becomes a problem, which we can only predict now, we can't observe it, because it's not a problem yet.

Sign me up! I'm convinced.

Clayton, have you considered seeing a therapist to help you work through your issues with California?

I think it would be useful for therapists to help the wingnuts that dominate California politics to help them through their desire for mass death by bubonic plague.

A. Zarkov writes:

Science is not an exercise in consensus. Einstein was asked if it worried him that hundreds of German scientists disagreed with him. Einstein responded: “All it takes is one to prove me wrong.”

It's important to remember why one hundred prominent German scientists had signed that letter that disapproved of "Jewish physics." I guess we can't be surprised that some environmentalists have called for "Nuremberg-style trials" for those who question the government-promoted orthodoxy of AGW. You gotta terrify scientists, so that they reconsider their support of wrong ideas.

It's important to remember why one hundred prominent German scientists had signed that letter that disapproved of "Jewish physics."

Ladies and gentlemen, I officially invoke Godwin's Law.

Getting back somewhat to Todd's question, if it is possible to game the GW situation, it will be done. The problem right now, IMHO, is, as one poster above suggested, that the discounted cost/benefits of GW are near zero given the time frame we are talking about.

So, let us assume that in 100 years, we know to a 90% probability that the seas are going to rise by 20 feet, and we have good intelligence as to what land would be good to own at that point. Even if you were going to be able to double your money, it still would be a very bad business decision to invest in that land. Why? Because the at that point, the IRR or whatever your metric of choice is, is significantly lower than you can get by leaving your money in a savings account.

Clayton:
Let's be more precise in our word choice: wingnuts is what liberals call extreme conservatives. Conservatives call liberals moonbats.

Todd: If you believe in AGW, I'd place my bets on property on Lake Superior. A slight temperature rise could make that lake tolerable for swimming, and it's not likely to dry up in our lifetime.

Felix Sulla:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I officially invoke Godwin's Law.”

Tell that to Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC who compared Bjorn Lomborg to Adolf Hitler in an interview reported in the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten.

Now Lomborg actually works from the IPCC reports, more or less accepting their results, but making some criticisms. He doesn’t even deny AGW. Doesn’t this strike you as unseemly behavior? If the science is so good, then why does he fear this pretty mild fellow Lomborg? This raises serious questions in my mind about the integrity of the IPCC.

Goodness, these threads deteriorate. There are some very nutty environmentalists, who make excellent fodder for conservatives to address. Much as there are some very nutty folks on the right, whom liberals love to address.

However, both are unrepresentative. When you respond to them, you mistakenly take them seriously and, more telling to me, suggest that you want to fight straw men and not the sober policy positions that are on the table. Now, my thesis is that people are so psychologicaly invested in their ideology that they seek out the most extreme opposite, to confirm the wrongness and perhaps evilness of the other side, thus confirming their own prejudices.

But I don't think that's a very wise approach and it certainly isn't helpful in an Internet policy discussion.

When you respond to them, you mistakenly take them seriously and, more telling to me, suggest that you want to fight straw men and not the sober policy positions that are on the table.

When the data is as uncertain as man's contribution to global warming, the only "sober policy positions" are to make sure that we know what we are doing before taking action.

One of the theories to explain the stock market crash that led to the Great Depression is that the Fed, by failing to understand the role that improved productivity was having, unintentionally inflated the money supply until early 1928, causing a dramatic easing of credit, encouragement of interest rate sensitive industries, overproduction of goods, and overproduction of machine tools. When they realized their mistake, they stepped on the brakes too hard. Instead of letting the air out of the balloon slowly, they popped it.

It is not at all clear that we fully understand what role (if any man) is playing. Even many AGW scientists will admit that there is some solar cycle factor to the warming, although most insist that it is mostly man's doing. The astrophysicists arguing for solar cycle/cosmic ray flux/cloud cover as the major factor have been refining these theories and gathering data for several years, in spite of substantial financial incentives provided to the AGW scientists. There's way too much overcertainty and hysterical predictions being expressed by the AGW True Believers--a point that even some of the AGW scientists are now making.

Felix Sulla:

“I was merely being a bit humorous.”

I know you were. But I think people should be aware that the IPCC is really a political, not a scientific organization. A lot of people think AGW is really a settled issue except for oil company stooges and few right-wing wackos who know nothing about science. This has actually created a climate of fear in academia and government. Many people feel it’s a career-destroying move to be skeptical of AGW. I know this from working at a large government contractor lab. I know one atmospheric physicist who couldn’t get his papers signed off by management because they were critical of GW. The place was run by whores who will do anything to keep their budget. I watched GCM modelers discuss fudging their code. And all this was more than 15 years ago in the good old days before AGW became a modern dogma. It would not surprise me to see the EU actually outlaw criticism of AGW.

Even assuming that Earth First! is a "serious" part of the environmental movement (whatever you mean by "serious"), how on Earth can your personal observations in the Bay Area be: (1) anything more than anecdotal and therefore highly suspect; or (2) anything more than an observation applicable only to the Bay Area? I live in Alabama (I can assure you, hardly a bastion of left-wing eco-terrorism!) and yet there are a significant number of persons here who both care about the environment and would abhor the proposal of the lunatic fringe.

You cannot have it both ways.

One choice is you argue the science of global warming -- which to my mind means demonstrating the predictive ability of climate models -- and drop any references to "consensus" and "serious scientists" and "percentage of peer reviewed papers".

The other is to argue the belief in global warming. Then you can use the essential popularity of belief in AGW. You can talk about consensus; you can attack the motives of the other side. But you have to bear the burden of Earth First and Al Gore's political ambitions and his house and everything else.

My personal preference is for the first, but the downside is we would need decade of reliably successful climate predictions before we did so much as change a light-bulb. The situation today is that have models that claim to predict the temperature 100 years in the future to a half a degree Centigrade, but cannot tell me whether there will be three hurricanes next year or 20. I think it would be excessively cynical of us to be suspicious of the fact that the climate models produce solely untestable predictions.

"When the data is as uncertain as man's contribution to global warming, the only "sober policy positions" are to make sure that we know what we are doing before taking action."

I'm not sure exactly what this position is, but making sure we know what we are doing is not really accurate, I don't think. One would take an assessment of the costs of various changes and their probable effect in reducing the risks associated with climate change (including both the effectiveness of those changes and the probability that the hypotheses about future climate change are correct).

Such a sober analysis would definitely counsel against radical action ending industrial civilization. However, I suspect it would call for taking actions that are not inordinately costly to ward off even a material risk of warming, if they could do so.

Todd:

"If no one is willing to put their money behind the theory—unlike the orange juice market—how confident are they really in their predictions?"

- James Annan and others are well known for their willingness to make bets on climate change.

- Do the host of investments/efforts by private companies to lower their carbon footprints count? The oil and gas cos are actually doing alot.

- Do the large private investments in basic research relating to climate change count?

- Do the efforts to adapt in the melting Actic count?

- Do the many investments in agriculture that reflect widespread changes in seasons count?

- Do alternative investments by suffering ski resorts and snowmobile businesses count?

- Do global investments by many affected and concerned nations to create global mechanisms to moderate climate change count?

I`m disappointed that you cannot see that there is a wealth of investment ongoing relating to climate change - both to adapt and to create appropriate infrastructure.

I imagine you will acknowledge the commons aspects of the atmosphere and how that complicates our efforts to directly address climate change. In this context, I`m curious if you`ve read Bruce Yandle`s nice little article on the genius of mankind in creating institutions to deal with unfettered exploitation of commons, in which he concludes that:

"at very low levels of income, what might be called stage one, human beings cannot afford to do much about property-rights enforcement and the commons. They live in a world where custom and tradition sustain them. As incomes rise and losses from the commons expand, stage two is entered. Fences go up, and rules are set for protecting the commons. Finally, in stage three, markets evolve along with rules of law that define spheres of private and public action. Private rights replace public control, and the triumph replaces the tragedy of the commons. Life for mankind began on a commons where tragedies were commonplace and the incentive to improve was powerful.

Out of the struggle to survive and accumulate wealth evolved markets, property rights, and the rule of law—a triumph on the commons."

Where are we now in that process with respect to climate, and where do you suppose we will find that we need to be, in order to "triumph [over] the tragedy of the commons"? Or is the triumph to be found in delaying as llong as possible facing the commons problem square on?

David: But are they responding to science, or to government?

Good question. Since the Bush Administration has been pushing out misinformation about climate change, that has clouded the debate. If they were most honest about the scientific findings, we wouldn't be having these silly debates about whether the climate is changing due to CO2 emissions, and whether we can stop or slow it it down.

I think all this points to the reality that libertarians are ideological incapable of conceding that global warming is a reality (or, for those who see the evidence of warming, that it is man-made), the reason being that if global warming is real, the measures that must be taken to counter even a portion of its effects will require significant government action at both the national and international levels.

Of course, delaying doing anything means that when the times come that something must be done, we can expect the by-product to be larger and more invasive governments and an increased reliance on international agencies such as the United Nations.