When Costs Aren’t
25th September 2012
David Friedman points out that certain people have upside-down values.
From the standpoint of an economist, the logic of global warming is straightforward. There are costs to letting it happen, there are costs to preventing it, and by comparing the two we decide what, if anything, ought to be done. I am fairly sure, however, that many of those who are sure we should be doing something about it do not see the question that way. What I see as costs, they see as benefits.
Reduced energy use is a cost if you approve of other people being able to do what they want, which includes choosing to live in the suburbs, drive cars instead of taking mass transit, heat or air condition their homes to what they find a comfortable temperature. But it is a benefit if you believe that you know better than other people how they should best live their lives—know that a European style inner city with a dense population, local stores, local jobs, mass transit instead of private cars, is a better, more human, lifestyle than living in the anonymous suburbs, commuting to work, knowing few of your neighbors. It is an attitude that I associate with an old song about little houses made of ticky-tacky—meaning houses the singer didn’t like and was therefore confident that other people shouldn’t be living in, occupied by people whose life style she thought she knew and was confident she disapproved of. A very arrogant, and very human, attitude.
And you know who you are. (But, more to the point, we know who you are, too….)
September 25th, 2012 at 11:17
Well, you’ve got to start at the beginning, even if you’re an economist. If global warming is happening, then if costs outweigh benefits, then …
And, it’s not as if these folks begin with a decision tree of global warming, instead they begin with their desired results, that is the borg like existence their favor for all, and find that global warming is a lovely reason for justifying their morbid little obsessions.