What would Milton Friedman do about climate change?

474 views • 4 upvotes • Made by KylieFan_89 5 years ago in politics

15 Comments

SydneyB
4 ups, 5y, 1 reply
I knew this was you from the sheer volume of text.
KylieFan_89
1 up, 5y, 1 reply
SydneyB
3 ups, 5y
Giantsquonk
3 ups, 5y
KylieFan_89
3 ups, 5y
"What Would Milton Friedman Do About Climate Change? Tax Carbon."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/10/12/what-would-milton-friedman-do-about-climate-change-tax-carbon/#51501cfa6928
[deleted]
0 ups, 5y, 1 reply
KylieFan_89
0 ups, 5y
Not directly. But in the article I linked, his followers do.

The principle is the exact same. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is air pollution.
ORANGE.MAN.BAD
0 ups, 5y
Basically this that you repeat her is exactly what I made a meme about in my own words and none of you who get all uppity about the issue being manmade have bothered in anyway to comment on the brief how to fix it I suggested, which is odd. It's as if no one can compromise and wont enter comment on the position or they just didnt see it I suppose.

imgflip.com/i/3ly67r
KylieFan_89
0 ups, 5y, 2 replies
Friedman had remarkable foresight to already be discussing the issue of how air pollution imposes costs on others back in 1979, when global warming was only about right here on this chart.

As global warming deniers love to continually remind us, some climate scientists were predicting an “ice age” back in the 70’s, because the rate of the predicted increase in temperatures had stalled out a bit as shown in this graph. They were wrong.

But other climate scientists remained consistent in predicting that the ongoing accumulation of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere would eventually translate into a pronounced rise in temperatures around the corner. And they were right.

One of those scientists who was right? Wallace Broeker, author of this paper published in 1975 and considered the #1 most impactful climate scientist.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/460
SydneyB
3 ups, 5y, 1 reply
You really think people weren't crying about pollution in the 70's?
KylieFan_89
0 ups, 5y, 1 reply
Well, we did this as early as ‘63

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

Nonetheless this entire conversation still eerily prefigures a lot of the debates we are still having 40+ years later (and solutions we still have not adopted)

If Friedman sounds like a “Leftist” on this issue, it only shows how far this conversation has stretched to the Right.
Ma_Deuce
2 ups, 5y
I don't always agree with you KFan (except I think there was that one day... that I hope not to speak of ever again!) but I do like that you cite your sources.
VagabondSouffle
1 up, 5y, 1 reply
Good to see you finally circling another part of the graph this week, albeit with 1980 on the center instead of the 70s, the dip which surely you avoided by accident because no one can see lines.

Your constant refrain of this tax fake solution indicates you are a shill.
KylieFan_89
0 ups, 5y, 1 reply
When you look at the 5-year smoothing curve: yes, it's more of a stall than a significant dip in the 70's. What's a whole lot more significant? The pretty constant rise in temps from 1980 onward. 

And naturally: more little dips, blips, and stalls that you could talk about over that period, especially around the 2000's, but the 5-year smoothing curve sorts that out mostly.

Global warming is not tidy, uniform, or consistent. But it still trends in one obvious direction.
VagabondSouffle
1 up, 5y
You can draw a smooth line around a cactus, it's still gonna itch your butt something fierce if you wedge it up there.

In other words and to accomodate your pedantic tendencies: Your agenda induced smoothing doesn't mean diddly.

Show More Comments

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 2

Milton Friedman

Hesitant Milton Friedman

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:

MILTON FRIEDMAN ON THE PHIL DONAHUE SHOW (1979):; PHIL DONAHUE: "IS THERE A CASE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT POLLUTION?"; MILTON FRIEDMAN: "YES, THERE'S A CASE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING. THERE'S ALWAYS A CASE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS A CASE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SOME EXTENT WHEN WHAT TWO PEOPLE DO AFFECTS A THIRD PARTY. "THERE'S NO CASE FOR THE GOVERNMENT WHATSOEVER TO MANDATE AIR BAGS, BECAUSE AIR BAGS PROTECT THE PEOPLE INSIDE THE CAR. THAT'S MY BUSINESS. IF I WANT TO PROTECT MYSELF, I SHOULD DO IT AT MY EXPENSE. "BUT THERE IS A CASE FOR THE GOVERNMENT PROTECTING THIRD PARTIES, PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO ENTER. SO THERE'S MORE OF A CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR EMISSIONS CONTROLS THAN FOR AIRBAGS. "BUT THE QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DO IT? AND THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS NOT TO HAVE BUREAUCRATS IN WASHINGTON WRITE RULES AND REGULATIONS SAYING A CAR HAS TO CARRY THIS THAT OR THE OTHER. "THE WAY TO DO IT IS TO IMPOSE A TAX ON THE COST OF THE POLLUTANTS EMITTED BY A CAR AND MAKE AN INCENTIVE FOR CAR MANUFACTURERS AND FOR CONSUMERS TO KEEP DOWN THE AMOUNT OF POLLUTION."