“A serious rebuttal to my review would require Adler to get into climate science rather than assuming CO2 as a ‘pollutant’. It would also require a much deeper look into climate economics….”
Previous posts this week have presented the (unrefuted) case by Jonathan Adler et al. against climate policy activism based on the precautionary principle (here) and the peculiar turn toward such activism by Adler in academia (here). This post takes on some very brief arguments made by Adler in response to my critical review of his new recent book, Climate Liberalism: Perspectives on Liberty, Property, and Pollution.
Adler’s criticisms involve either erroneous statements or non-sequiturs.
“Robert L. Bradley, Jr. of the Institute for Energy Research offers less favorable commentary on the book at Law & Liberty (which previously ran a favorable review).”
Comment: My review was not “less favorable” but negative. Adler’s misstatement is not so much as to be polite but to demote my piece as less important. The “favorable review” was cheerleading, not a scholarly dive by a specialist in the field.
“Bradley notes that climate science is uncertain, that warming can produce costs as well as benefits, and that government intervention to address climate change may be costly, clumsy, and a threat of its own.”
Comment: Yes to the first, and what does this mean? Yes to the second point, but what does this mean? And no to the third point: government intervention has been, is, and will be “costly, clumsy, and a threat of its own.” So much so that there is no classical liberal case for global climate governance. (And if there is, classical liberalism has no meaning.)
“These are all points noted in the book, but Bradley breezes by that. Indeed, he never really engages with any of the actual arguments made by various chapters.”
Comment: What a dodge! No “breeze by” at all if you read the book and my review. It is Adler and most of the authors (excepting several who focused on adaptation) who refused to debate but assume and fail to get past surface argumentation for government intervention/judicial activism.
“Time permitting, I will respond in more detail.”
Comment: I understand that Jonathan has a lot of other responsibilities and issues on this plate (his drive-by knowledge of the multi-disciplinary climate issue reflects this). A serious rebuttal to my review would require Adler to get into climate science rather than assuming CO2 as a ‘pollutant’. It would also require a much deeper look into climate economics: the problem of distant, uncertain benefits vs. present costs, as well as the passage of time that makes mitigation less effective and adaptation more imbedded.
His case for judicial activism with tort law, finally, is very undeveloped on the specifics and the problems therein, which will be apparent with a final cost tomorrow on a 2005 exchange between Adler and critics on his case to invocate climate litigation (judicial activism) into the debate.
The post Adler on Bradley: A Response appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource
November 15, 2023 at 01:13AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 