Eating The Rich Won’t Fix Climate Change

The world’s richest 1% have more purchasing power, and hence more command over what the economy produces than ordinary people. They can afford a more extravagant lifestyle - at the extreme including multiple yachts, mansions, and private jets. 

One may reasonably quibble with the way activists like Oxfam produce their numbers (e.g. in their enthusiasm to generate the most outrageously large numbers, they include the emissions of companies rich people hold shares in). But it is obviously true that the average 1 percenter has a far greater climate impact than the median person in a rich country, let alone the world. What a waste! What a crime against the planet! How can it be allowed to continue?

Oxfam, Guardian readers, an unfortunate number of my academic colleagues, and many others are confusing questions of fairness (whether huge economic inequality can be justified) with questions of harm (whether inequality speeds up climate change). Specifically, it can be true that

1. Per person, rich people do enormously more harm to the climate than ordinary people, and

2. It is unfair that the rich consume such a high share of the world’s economic output

Without it being true that

Redistributing rich people’s wealth would result in less harm to the climate

Deepfake porn is not going away. Recognising that is the first step to dealing with it

In a world in which anyone can create fake sexually explicit images of anyone else, we should not be surprised when it happens, and we should not get especially upset if it happens to us.

Incentivising War Crimes: The High Cost of International Humanitarianism

Wars have never been the concern only of their combatants. Other states pay close attention to the geo-political implications and opportunities created by armed conflict, and interfere directly or indirectly when their cynical calculations suggest that would advance their interests.  For example, various countries - the UAE, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Qatar - have been involving themselves in Sudan's ghastly civil war, apparently looking to pick up geopolitical advantages - especially access to Red Sea ports that would allow them to threaten international shipping via the Suez Canal, or to prevent other states from doing so. When extended to material support to favoured factions this increases the resources of the combatants, increasing the ambition of their respective war goals and so extending the war by reducing the scope for a mutually acceptable peace deal.

Such amoral realpolitik in international relations is as old as war itself, together with its unfortunate consequences for human lives. What is somewhat more recent is the rise of international moral concern for the lives of civilians threatened by war, expressed through the increased influence of civil society. At least since the Greeks' 1820's war of independence, states have also been interfering in other people's wars out of humanitarian concerns to reduce civilian suffering.

The problem is that although each individual humanitarian intervention may be sincerely morally motivated - and even sometimes succeed in its goal of reducing suffering - the practise of morally motivated interference would seem actually to increase the amount of civilian suffering due to war. It makes civil wars more likely to start and harder to end, while incentivising crimes against civilians.

If Climate Change Is As Bad As Activists Say, Their Demand Should Be 'Geoengineering Now'!

Some climate activists claim to believe that climate change is an existential threat to humanity, if not the entire biosphere. This is the justification for groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil to engage not only in demonstrations and civil disobedience to raise awareness of their concerns and persuade fellow citizens to demand government action, but also blocking and disruptive actions aimed at coercing governments and businesses to speed up the transition to net zero.

Blocking public transport systems, vandalising art, offices, SUVs, pipelines, and so on are attempts to impose direct and indirect costs on society that will continue and escalate until we comply with the activists’ demands. It is a Mafia-esque strategy of extortion by a small minority that is clearly directly opposed to liberal democratic principles and values - especially, the idea that decisions should be made in a way that respects the equal moral reality of other people (by counting up opinions) rather than by consulting your own feelings of righteousness. Moreover, its logic is clearly escalatory, since a rational government will only concede when the costs of compliance (several percentage points of GDP per year) are lower than the costs activists can impose.

Yet many people who do not themselves feel the call to join such coercive actions remain sympathetic to the reasoning of those who do. From a distance these activists may even be mistaken for heroes. The human mind’s innate attraction to story book reasoning (previously) makes us easily slip into assuming that those taking extraordinary actions to oppose an extraordinary challenge must be the good guys, the heroes of the story of climate change.

But that reasoning is flawed. It is not enough that the cause be worthy of heroic action. The action itself must be worthy of the cause.

Israel’s Crimes Get Too Much Attention

A great many people around the world believe that Israel’s government and military have committed and continue to commit crimes against humanity, the ethics of armed conflict, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide in Gaza since the attacks by Hamas in October 2023. Many also believe that Israel as a state was and remains founded on a colonialist principle of ethnic supremacy and the systematic practice of mass atrocity crimes. Many of these observers conclude, further, that they have a moral duty to respond to these crimes by criticising and directing attention to Israel’s behaviour, and also by calling for intervention by relevant political actors such as their own national governments, but also (international) civil society organisations such as Human Rights Watch, universities, business corporations, and internationally authorised actors like the International Court of Justice and the United Nations Security Council.

The charges against Israel can be and are disputed. I will leave the adjudication of claims about the relevant facts and their legal and ethical implications to others more expert in such matters. For the purposes of this analysis I need only note that many people sincerely believe that these charges are substantially correct. In that case – believing what they do - those criticising Israel and calling for interventions may appear to be responding correctly. Injustice on such a scale would deserve the world’s attention, condemnation, and at least consideration of appropriate external interventions. Nevertheless, the cumulative result of many apparently individually correct actions can be unjust, and this is the case here. This much criticism of Israel is too much - a grave moral failure - insofar as it comes at the cost of neglecting other injustices that also deserve the world’s attention.

My argument comes in two parts. First I will take up the (deontological) principle that mass atrocity crimes straightforwardly deserve the world’s attention and condemnation, and show that directing a disproportionate share of the world’s attention to Israel’s crimes is inconsistent with this principle. Second I will consider the case from an alternative consequentialist principle that the world’s attention should be directed towards cases where it can be most effective at deterring, ending, or ameliorating mass atrocity crimes. Here, again, I conclude that the share of attention directed towards Israel cannot be justified because it necessarily entails neglecting many other ongoing and arguably more ameliorable mass atrocity crimes.

Inheritance Tax Is Largely Irrelevant to the Problem of Economic Inequality

Source

Lots of people think that a few people controlling a very large share of a society's economic power is a bad thing. It is unfair that some should have so much while so many have so much less. It is inefficient that so much wealth lies in the hands of people who already have everything they could reasonably desire. It gives some people an outsized influence on decisions that affect the whole society, and on democratic politics itself (previously). And so on.

These people often also worry that economic inequality is increasing and becoming entrenched as the rich pass their excessive wealth on to their children and more and more wealth ends up concentrated in ever fewer hands. Many of them think increasing inheritance tax is necessary to stop this. But this solution relies on a mistaken understanding of how wealth is actually transmitted between generations.

UPDATE: Now also on Substack

Google seems to have lost interest in the Blogger app and it is showing its age. 

I am trying out Substack, and if it works out will be migrating the blog there.

For now I am duplicating posts in both places. Check it out here.