| Muck and Mystery Loitering With Intent |
blog - at - crumbtrail.org |
There's a lot of fuzzy, simplistic thinking on the subject of international treaties and other forms of regulation. Advocates for nanny state and nanny world approaches to common problems fail to examine their biases when making claims for the feasibility of regulatory approaches, so their arguments are empty, but perhaps more importantly they are truly clueless about human behavior and simply can't comprehend what they observe. Consider this review by Frances Cairncross of the work of Scott Barrett.
Many people assumed that Montreal’s [ozone treaty] success in curbing CFCs could be replicated for other treaties, such as those on biodiversity or greenhouse gasses. They were wrong. “They failed,” says Barrett, “to realize that international environmental problems do not come with one-size-fits-all solutions...No, it isn't. The treaty worked because the big players, such as the US, would benefit in excess of their costs from their own efforts even if no one else cooperated, and alternatives to CFCs were available. All the treaty did was add international legitimacy to what the US and other developed nations wanted. It allowed them to bully smaller nations and so gain even more than they would have on their own.The fundamental reason for Montreal’s success, despite the fact that it demands so much from so many parties, is that it reversed the incentives to free ride...The treaty included both sticks and carrots: punishments for countries that did not comply and rewards for poorer countries that did. Both involved controversial decisions. The aim was to make the treaty self-enforcing. This insight, argues Barrett, was crucial to Montreal’s success.
None of the other environmental treaties are like this and so they fail, just as all other types of treaties during the whole of history have failed when impacts are disproportionate. Any entity that suffers losses or forgoes gains will sooner or later break their treaties. They must or the stakeholders will change the management team, replacing them with more sensible members.
The key to Montreal was that there were alternatives to CFCs. Switching to them required investment in new equipment and methods and abandonment of otherwise adequate equipment, but there were few technical impediments. The treaty was nothing more than an escrow agreement, a neutral third party to hold the bets while all major participants did what they wished to do.
All of the blather in the article about punishments, incentives and the deep desires of experimental subjects [students] to be forced to do the right thing by some all powerful entity is sheer nonsense when there are no alternatives that do not involve losses for everyone. Treaties don't work, don't lead people to do things that are immediately harmful to them for the promise of a future benefit. As economists point out (at least those that think a bit) the present value of a future benefit is discounted due to interest, opportunity cost and risk.
In the case of many environmental treaties, such as Kyoto, that have been proposed there is a fourth impediment; they are based on immature science. Not only are there no ready alternative behaviors - countries are expected to agree to goals they have no idea how to achieve - the problem, global warming, is theoretical and disputed. The underlying science is sparse and empirical data is contradictory. This is where both Cairncross and Barrett reveal their blind spot. They are true believers blinded by prejudice and it clouds their thinking about workable approaches.
The useful approach to climate change induced by anthropogenic gasses and pollutants doesn't involve treaties, it is solely a matter of technology. We need to develop alternative methods to transport ourselves and generate power. Anything that politicians do to impede discovery and invention makes the problem worse. All of the money they squander on treaty negotiations would have been much better spent funding research and development.
There is no role for wonks or politicians, not yet. They are the last trade needed when social change is afoot. When everything is ready, when change is feasible, then they can broker the transaction. Politicians never lead, they follow. They may try to jump in front of passing parades and pretend that they are leading them, but only the naive and uninvolved fall for their pretenses. The principals of society, those who do the heavy lifting and fine assembly, those with knowledge power rather than position power, are the leaders, the creators that carry society.
When insane politicians start believing their own press releases and abuse their position power to attempt to force change before it is feasible then societies are ruined, bankrupted and defeated, humiliated and retarded. The 20th century gave us several good examples of such insanity in Europe and Asia. There are many that have not yet absorbed these case histories and internalized the lessons. You can't solve technical problems with political solutions. You can't just insist that things be different. All the advocacy, protest and bribes in the world won't solve technical problems. What treaties like Kyoto expose for the world to see is the socio-political bankruptcy of the promoters.
The most environmentally destructive activity for the world isn't anthropogenic emission of gasses and particulates, it is politics. During the 20th century, the period most associated with the rise of global pollution, far more damage was done by politicians than industry. The most beneficial treaty we could possibly adopt would limit politicians rather than emissions. Emissions will fall as technology advances but there are no limits to political harm.