Climate Policy vs. Classical Liberalism: The Curious Case of Jonathan Adler

The ability and beneficience of free minds and markets to handle the unknowns of future weather and ‘climate change’ has a strong intellectual case. Such is more true today than when the global warming debate began in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Four decades on, the case of classical liberalism against climate alarmism and forced energy transformation remains intact and strong–probably stronger than ever given the “saturation effect” of greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. [1] In fact, the debate should be not about the weather or climate but about Statism, that gargoyle of government intervention that makes rich people poorer and keeps poor people poor. Regarding climate, statism is what sets up the problems that are too often simplistically and erroneously blamed on ‘weather’ or ‘climate’.

I bring this up in relation to a new book that ignores and dumbs down the free-market, classical-liberal viewpoint on energy/climate in the name of … “classical liberalism.”…

“Greenhouse Policy without Regrets”: When Adler Refuted Climate Activism

“No insurance policy is worthwhile if the cost of the premiums exceeds the protection purchased. For greenhouse insurance to be worthwhile, it must either reduce the risks of anthropogenic climate change or reduce the costs of emission reductions designed to achieve the same goal, without imposing off-setting risks, such as those which would result from policies that slow economic growth and technological advance.”

“A true ‘no regrets’ approach to climate change is not greater government controls on economic activity, but fewer. Economic growth, market institutions, and technological advance are often the most effective forms of insurance that a civilization can have.”

– Jonathan Adler (et al.), “Greenhouse Policy without Regrets: A Free Market Approach to the Uncertain Risk of Climate Change,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, July 14, 2000.

Bingo! The Jonathan Adler of the Competitive Enterprise Institute circa 2000 made a case against governmental climate policy activism that is timeless and more true today than 23 years ago.…

The Futile Climate Crusade in One Graph

This graph has crossed my computer time and again. Kudos to the creator.

The bottom line of failed mitigation policy is not the work of Big Oil or “disinformers” or “deniers” … it is the reality of the best energies rising to the top of the market despite efforts of politicians to restrict the same.

Credit consumers who naturally choose energy value (affordability, reliability, abundance); like to eat meat and drink dairy; and like such things as charcoaling, cozying up to the fire, and holiday lighting.

May freedom ring–and the plants thrive. …

“Climate Emergency!” says Andrew Dessler (old vinegar in a new bottle)

“The Earth Is Warming, but Is CO2 the Cause?” (‘Ouch’ for climate alarmism)

Offshore U.S. Wind: Childish Energy Policy

Giberson: Mandatory Open Access (ISO/RTO) is “a very regulated market” (!)

Kiesling: ISOs/RTOs Suffer from “The Knowledge Problem”(!)

“Energy Choices and Market Decision Making”: A 30-year Retrospective

Windpower Noise vs. Farmers and Livestock: The View from Australia (Queensland)