There is much enthusiasm these days, from adults and adolescents alike, for the pursuit of nuttiness. Consider two instances.
One instance can be found in the environmental crusade, as explained by Gerard Baker in the Wall Street Journal (“St. Greta Spreads the Climate Gospel,” September 20):
The High Church of Environmentalism has acquired many of the characteristics of its ecclesiastical predecessor. An apocalyptic eschatology warns that we will all be consumed by fire if we don’t follow the ordained rules. The notion that it is our sinful nature that has brought us to mortal peril—from the Original Sin of a carbon-unleashing industrial revolution to daily transgressions with plastic bottles and long-haul flights—is as central to its message as it was to the Catholic Church’s. …
In the iconography of traditional religion, children have often played a central role. The revelation of universal truth to an innocent child is an inspiring story that is very effective in both offering role models and propagating the faith. There’s a reason the European faithful used to venerate St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Bernadette of Lourdes, the children of Fatima in Portugal: The testimony of a guileless child is a powerful weapon against skepticism.
Enter the Swedish 16-year-old Greta Thunberg. … Like the children of Fatima, she has a simple message that, if followed, promises to save the world from catastrophe.
Besides some useful ethics, religion—religious religion—offered the prospect of (good) eternal life. Religious environmentalism promises only mold love and green tyranny. But, some economist colleagues will reply, de gustibus non est disputandum. True, provided that the tastes or preferences in question are not imposed on somebody who doesn’t share them.
Under the same title as the present post, a piece of mine in the issue of Regulation that just came out of press (and electrons) discusses another instance: the current US administration. Why does it look nuts and does not seem to mind? I give a few examples and I conclude with some hypotheses:
Disregarding any constraint set by personal morality, politicians’ main limit is that their fabrications must not be too glaring, even to rationally ignorant voters facing whole baskets of complex policies with unknown future consequences. Politicians have an interest in retaining some credibility. They do not want to be seen as nuts.
Why this minimal constraint does not seem to work anymore—why nuttiness is becoming institutionalized—may have something to do with this era’s seeming retreat from reason, the substitution of wacky information sources for more credible ones, the intensification of blind partisanship, and the lure of raw government power.
READER COMMENTS
Phil H
Oct 2 2019 at 8:28am
It seems a shame to see these big-idea philosophies as “nutty”. Some of them may well be true. Democracy was seen as “nutty” not so long ago; and libertarianism is seen as nutty by many. I’m not sure what anyone gains from calling other people’s ideas nutty.
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 2 2019 at 11:34am
Some prudence is no doubt necessary. Nuttiness is the consequence of the analysis, not an assumption. And it is not because an idea is “big” that it is serious. I suggest that, to be non-nutty, an idea must meet three criteria:
1) It must be based on a logically coherent theory, even if it is a minimalist one.
2) The theory must not be falsified by empirical evidence or history.
3) If neither (1) or (2) is true, an idea might have some redeeming aesthetic value–although this is admittedly a largely subjective criteria.
As a big idea, the Odyssey or the Bible or Baudelaire’s The Flowers of Evil is not nutty, but Mein Kampf is.
Ian Fellows
Oct 2 2019 at 11:41am
Sorry, I’m a bit confused by your point. It sounds like a “look both sides are doing it” argument. However, I don’t see how this applies to your first example. Are you really saying that virtually every subject matter expert that has looked into the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere and climate are “nutty?” While I see Ms. Thunberg constantly dismissed for her age, I have not heard her actually say or suggest anything that would classify as guileless. Wouldn’t the nutty ones in this example be those who invent reasons to deny the basic chemical arithmetic of an altered atmospheric composition?
Michael Rulle
Oct 2 2019 at 11:52am
I think I understand the intent of the essay, but it still is vague. One comment to Mr. Fellows—-“invent reasons to deny the basic chemical arithmetic of an altered atmospheric composition?” The idea of boiling the political, economic, and scientific complexities of the climate change debate to “basis chemical arithmetic” is, for me at least, one example of “nutty”.
Ian Fellows
Oct 2 2019 at 1:24pm
There are lots of important and reasonable discussions to be had around projecting the consequences of and mitigating the effects of climate change. There are groups however, that deny the basic effect of the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, calling it a Chinese invented hoax. I’m not sure what to call this but “nutty.”
Mark Z
Oct 2 2019 at 8:38pm
”There are groups…” There are a lot of groups that believe strange things; some claim that the effect of CO2 emissions on temperature is several times as high as the upper bound of the scientific consensus who still manage get cited as authorities in major newspapers, and presidential candidates who think we have 12 years to stop Armageddon. How exactly do we decide then who is the appropriate synecdoche for which side of an dispute?
Regarding Thunberg specifically, most of her speaking that I’ve read of seems more vaguely millenarian rather than rational and scientific. She’s not being celebrated for making an incisive case for her position, but for making what people already share her opinion perceive to be a compelling appeal to pathos.
Michael Rulle
Oct 3 2019 at 3:40pm
Hi–I agree with your statement re: Chinese Hoax. Not sure I have the will to go deep here, and I am sure you are quite intelligent and knowledgeable on this subject. One thing on the “hoax” idea—is that “unilateral” reduction of emissions by the West seems like it would be beneficial to any country who does not participate, China included. Hence the conspiracy theory. But we do not need more disinformation—that is certain.
Thaomas
Oct 2 2019 at 5:16pm
I see the biggest problem in combating “nutty” proposals for reducing the harm from the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere the complete incoherence of most people who find them nutty. They can’t seem to figure out whether to argue that
1 CO2 is not increasing, so do nothing instead of nutty policy X or
2 CO2 is increasing, but not causing harm instead of nutty policy X, so do nothing
3 CO2 is increasing and is causing harm but nutty policy X will cause even more harm, so do nothing instead of nutty policy X.
Fortunately, the economic mainstream has adopted what I think is a better argument.
4 CO2 is increasing and is causing harm but nutty policy X will cause even more harm, so adopt taxation of net CO2 emissions instead of nutty policy Y.
Michael Rulle
Oct 3 2019 at 3:59pm
A dedicated follower of Professor Sumner—-nothing wrong with that. It will never be resolved as an issue, not in our life times. So there is no cost on insisting one is right (I do it too) as we will never find out. But…(everyone has a “but”—pun intended) we constantly conflate the processes of global warming and its causes with the extraneous concept of existential crisis. The most passionate defenders of radical action (which a carbon tax is not–i.e., not radical)—at least of my friends—all highly educated old guys—argue the crisis angle. I can give many reasons why I think that is wrong—-but it is not important at all. Ultimately, it is a subjective judgement given all the available information. Since the pols want radical action—or at least say they do (why?) —-and I most definitely do not—-my default position is preferring we do nothing. If it is not a crisis, we do not need carbon tax as it won’t be necessary—–if it is a crisis, a carbon tax will not be enough. Unless new information rears an ugly head—I am sure my mind will never change.
Thaomas
Oct 4 2019 at 11:33am
I don’t get the “crisis,” “no-crisis” distinction you make. I understand a “crisis” to mean a sharp upturn in the estimated cost of CO2 emissions function. If one expects merely a fairly smooth steady increase (and can we be sure there isn’t a kink in the curve out there somewhere?), does it not still makes sense to have a tax on net CO2 emissions sooner rather than later? And even politically, isn’t advocating for a tax on net CO2 emissions a better defense against radical (growth inhibiting) measures in reaction to a possibly non-existent “crisis” than “do nothing?”
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 4 2019 at 9:16pm
In the cost of a carbon tax must be included the increase in government surveillance and power.
That this cost is not obvious how to calculate adds another layer of uncertainty to the mountain of uncertainty in climate models. On this latter point, it is worth reading the recent article “Predicting the climatic future is riddled with uncertainty” in The Economist. Climate models are even more uncertain than economic models.
On this general “froth of uncertainty,” see what Tyler Cowen, who is sympathetic to some environmental arguments, has to say in my Regulation review of his latest book.
Thaomas
Oct 5 2019 at 7:06am
How does a revenue neutral tax on net CO2 emissions require a lot more government surveillance? Does it require more than the plethora of ad hoc subsidies, set asides, and prohibitions that are the likely alternative to a revenue neutral tax on net CO2 emissions.
Climate models do have lots of uncertainty. Each one implies a different trajectory for the tax rate on net emissions. How many of the outcomes result in a zero rate in year zero?
I’ll go read your review of the book. Thanks for the tip.
Thomas Hutcheson
Oct 5 2019 at 7:26am
Just read the review. Frankly, I did not see anything in it, in your description of Tyler’s book which is very similar to many other descriptions, that calls into question revenue neutral taxation of net CO2 emissions (with future costs and benefits discounted at near zero time preference). [As I understand the way most models work, zero discounting as Tyler plausibly argues implies higher taxation sooner than if we discount distant future harm.] The policy by design is the one that minimizes the drag on economic growth. It looks to me like a perfect fit for Tyler’s vision.
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 6 2019 at 6:29pm
Thomas: Your interpretation of Cowen’s book is correct. But although I am sympathetic to his view on long-term discounting, I wanted to emphasize here that his “froth of uncertainty” or “radical uncertainty” is a double-edged sword. Climate models are extremely uncertain, and the more so as most of their builders seem to share a great trust in (and love for) state action. One scenario, for example, could be one where an all-out war on global warming would give so much more power to the state that it would tip the balance towards a world nuclear war, which would lead to an ice age (among other catastrophes). Global warming would be solved by creating global cooling and a much worse problem. In case of doubt, no coercive intervention is better. One may argue for a mild intervention, but that’s assuming it can be kept mild.
IVV
Oct 3 2019 at 11:43am
Environmentalism does promise eternal life, through the continued apparently-infinitely extendible existence of the environment. It’s not eternal life for the self, but it is eternal life for your family (dynasty, really). It does require the initial belief that the continued success of your children and grandchildren are the true goal of existence, but it is part of the belief system.
I mean, we can argue that it’s not a well-stated belief, given the number of environmentalists who refuse to have children because of the environment, which conflates selfish and dynastic goals, but there’s the undercurrent that the goal of environmentalism is to preserve the natural world as is forever.
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 10 2019 at 11:35pm
My post proposed two examples of nuttiness. An article by Brendan O’Neill in Spiked is quite relevant to the one example that has attracted the most comments: https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/10/07/the-madness-of-extinction-rebellion/?fbclid=IwAR2uQYK3y5LAy4qYHH0nfixmsUqoID8frIj5Ydrf2OdrlmDdmx2EgHO9jP8. (Thanks to Mark Brady for bringing my attention to it.)
Comments are closed.