Blogs > Liberty and Power > Rushing to War, Part Two

Apr 24, 2008 1:35 pm


Rushing to War, Part Two



Thanks to the generosity of the Koch Foundation, we have inaugurated a Visiting Speaker Series in Political Economy here at St. Lawrence.  Our kickoff speaker in March was Chris Coyne, who did a fantastic job with a talk on After War. Last night was our second speaker for the semester, Pierre Desrochers of the Geography Department of the University of Toronto at Mississauga. Many of you are probably familiar with Pierre's work.

As I did with Chris, I gave a brief introduction that both said something about the speaker but also talked about the issues each was addressing. I tried to pick themes that illustrated the ways in which libertarianism shares the values of the left. In Chris's case, I talked about the anti-imperialist tradition of classical liberalism. For Pierre last night, I talked about the parallels between the War in Iraq and the calls, especially in the current issue of Time, for a"war on global warming." I share a slightly revised version of my thoughts on those parallels below.

The willingness of people such as Pierre to challenge the commonly held beliefs about capitalism and the environment is a model of critical thinking and courageous scholarship.  It is especially so when one considers the current issue of Time magazine, with its cover image of the Iwo Jima Marines planting not the US flag but a tree and its title of “How to Win the War on Global Warming.”  That is a powerful image that suggests both that the debate over the facts is over and that we all should be in this war together, much as was the case in World War II… and it also recalls the atmosphere created in 2003 by supporters of going to war in Iraq.  The text of the articles support this interpretation of the image.

The use of the war metaphor is troubling on several grounds.  Any time war is invoked as a common cause, both critical thought and our freedoms can easily be lost in the name of militarizing society in pursuit of a moral cause.  As Hayek recognized, the invocation of war is implicitly an attempt to turn a free society into a consciously organized one, with all of the attendant problems such an attempt will bring with it.

It is particularly ironic that a good number of folks who were rightly critical of the rush to war in Iraq because they questioned the apparent consensus about the existence of weapons of mass destruction there, as well as the ability of the US to “nation build,” appear to be so willing to undertake a “war on global warming.”  I would hope that those who fit this category are as willing to entertain “dissent” on environmental issues as they are with dissent on the War in Iraq.  Principled and courageous dissent can look like something different, and tolerating it can be a lot harder, when you’re on the “pro” side of a war.

More generally I would ask several questions of people critical of the War in Iraq but gung-ho about a War on Global Warming.  Should we not be asking the same deep, critical questions about what we do and do not know about climate change and environmental issues more broadly, and how we acquired that information, as we should have asked about Iraqi WMDs before we go rushing to “war” on global warming?  Though the earth has been warming, it is not at all clear that the consensus on the causes and consequences of said warming is as widely shared among scientists as Al Gore and others would like us to believe.  Should we not also be asking the same questions about the effects that such a war will have on innocents in the third world as dissenters did with respect to Iraq?  After all, the environmentalism-driven rush to biofuels appears to be a significant contributing factor to the run-up in world food prices, which is causing great harm to the poorest folks on the planet.  And shouldn’t we be asking what the consequences of this “war” will be on our own freedoms and our own standard of living, just as critics of the War in Iraq have rightly drawn attention to those same issues in the context of that war?  Finally, is it really all that much more imperialistic to try to create democracy at the point of a gun in Iraq than it is to tell the Third World that they must abide by high Western standards of environmental regulation in the name of a war on global warming and environmental destruction, when the consequences of doing so are sure to prolong their poverty?

The scholarship of those who are challenging the conventional wisdom of environmentalism, but who also do not have feature films to promote their views, are a crucial part of the critical thinking and provision of historical context that we need in order to make sure that we don’t go rushing into another mistaken war – one that will once again harm us and perhaps millions of innocents in the name of a moral cause whose factual assumptions may not be as certain as its proponents believe. 

And those who have argued the hardest for the toleration, if not the encouragement, of dissent on the War in Iraq have an equal obligation to do so for the War on Global Warming.  Whether they will do so is very much an open question.  So far, when dissenters are relabeled as “deniers,” with the parallels to Holocaust deniers made explicit by some critics, the outlook for the toleration of dissent during this war remains unclear.

It is worth noting that the same argument can be made in reverse - conservatives who agree with my cautions about global warming should do some soul-searching about their support for the war. I'm not optimistic about that possibility either, especially when Rich Lowry of National Review says of the Time cover: "Regarding that Time global warming cover, just imagine if the mainstream media were as exercised about the war on terror and as devoted to crusading to win it. How different would the political environment look?" Sigh. The right-wing worship of war continues unabated.

Of course none of this is to say that we shouldn’t be attempting to tackle real environmental problems.  Nor is to deny that such problems exist.  But invoking the war metaphor to do so is not helpful to say the least, and a severe threat to liberty and prosperity at the most.

Cross-posted at The Austrian Economists.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Gus diZerega - 4/24/2008

Steve-
Time magazine is using a very bad metaphor, one I think it is intrinsically misleading. Here are a few reasons why.

1. The global warming issue has been discussed by scientists in many fields for many years. Most of them did not have a strong political agenda, other than what fell out from their evaluation of the data. Many of the war hawks are on record as wanting war in advance and seizing in any convenient excuse to have one. I doubt you can find a significant group of scientists with a similar perspective.

2. “Consensus” about a single factual claim – there were WMDs – and that we needed war to do something about it - was far less than the degree of agreement among scientists studying the issue that there is global warming and that there is a significant anthropogenic contribution to it. There is NO significant disagreement as to the first, declining disagreement as to the second.

We are discussing one of the most complex things science has ever studied – the atmosphere and its many feedback systems, positive and negative alike. Perfect consensus is probably impossible given the complexity of the data. Even so, there seems far more consensus there than there is or ever was regarding Iraq. That those in government who oppose the apparently growing consensus also oppose spending more research on the subject says about all I need to know about the issue. If they were sincere they would encourage more research. They are not.

3. A mistaken and evil war on Iraq has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and maimed many more. Let us assume for the moment that we take global warming seriously and later find ourselves to have been in error. Let us also suppose an intelligent approach to dealing with the issue (such as carbon taxes) is initially adopted. Then the following will have happened:

A. We will use far less petroleum and coal that we otherwise would have. The fortunes of many hideous dictatorships will have therefore shrunken substantially, forcing them to attend to the well-being of their subjects because they can no longer buy them off with oil profits. Among the candidates: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Nigeria, Libya, Venezuela – and others.

B. The excuses for militarizing our own nation will be vastly weaker and many people who would have been killed by those dictators and our wars will be alive.

THESE TWO FACTORS ALONE justify from a genuinely freedom loving perspective reducing our dependence on petroleum and encouraging technologies that enable others to do so as well. But there is more.

B. Energy saving technology will be far more advanced than it otherwise would be. This will reduce the need for investments in energy production, many of which have unpleasant side-effects that are not currently internalized.

C. IF a measure such as reducing income taxes while raising the same money through carbon taxes were adopted, there would be no increased government taking of people’s wealth. In fact, it might be less. Certainly our freedom will be no more limited than it is today.

D. Growth will be not so much slowed (which assumes a single metric, ‘growth,’ which is as un-Austrian concept as you can find) as shifted. Some will be slower, some faster. Cities will be denser, more public transportation will be available – public or private, the highway lobby will be weaker, the RR lobby stronger. Some impacts will be good, some not good.

But I do not see piles of bodies here, Steve, nor justifications for an American Caesar. The mathematical models some like to use to calculate the human costs of slower “growth” receive a great deal less consensus than does current global warming analysis that is rejected by classical liberals because it is ideologically inconvenient. Sort of like the moons of Jupiter and another all embracing ideology a few centuries back.

Finally, Many environmentalists – including this one – oppose subsidies to biofuels. It is America’s “market loving” corporations, especially those engaged in industrial agriculture, who are the chief advocates. These groups are usually not considered environmentalists.

A ‘carbon tax” that is offset by reductions in other taxes is far the most intelligent approach to the issue.

Best,

Gus

Subscribe to our mailing list