Julian Simon and the climate skepticss positivism and the market fundamentalism Jos Eustquio Diniz Alves

Doutor em demografia e professor titular do mestrado em Populao, Territrio e Estatsticas Pblicas da Escola Nacional de Cincias Estatsticas - ENCE/IBGE; Apresenta seus pontos de vista em carter pessoal. E-mail: jed_alves@yahoo.com.br Positivism and market fundamentalism, using scientific language, end up fooling many people. With a pseudo-technical discourse they try to identify themselves with great scientists of the past, but they are, in fact, their misleading versions. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the false similarities between serious scientists and climate skeptics. Enlightenment thinkers of the eighteenth century and the utopian socialists in the early nineteenth century, believed in progress and in "human perfectibility." Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794), the feminist Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) and Saint-Simon (1760-1825) were three revolutionary exponents who believed in the evolutionary ability of human beings, gender equity, social transformation, peace, the end of prejudice and improvement in living standards for the world population. Some historians classify Condorcet, Wollstonecraft and Saint-Simon as precursors of positivism. However, as shown by Michel Lwy, there is a very big difference between these thinkers and true positivists, such as Comte (1798-1857), Durkheim (1958-1917), and more recently, Julian Simon (19321998) and Bjrn Lomborg (1965 -). The first three - Condorcet, Wollstonecraft and Saint-Simon - shared a critical-revolutionary utopia and were against the privileges of the nobility and the clergy (dominant classes of their time). On the other hand, the positivists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have a conservative ideology, identified with the established capitalism and with the fundamental mechanisms of the law of supply and demand. In other words, positivism, since Auguste Comte, became a conservative ideology identified with the established order. Positivists inherited Francis Bacons (1561-1626) world view that considered science as a kind of knowledge that can be used to dominate and control nature. But modern positivism, based on Newtonian-Cartesians scientificism, went beyond empiricism and started interpreting nature as a machine, and the human being as the driver that manoeuvers it in favor of humankinds interests. As Fritjof Capra said: "The world machinery became the dominant metaphor of the modern era, and today science and technology produce deeply anti-ecological results." Positivists hypostatize human ingenuity and progress. For them science and technology are Deus ex machina, a panacea to solve all societies and the environments problems. They ignore all criticism by authors such as Marx, Weber, Adorno and Foucault who showed how instrumental reason enables capitalism to use science and technology to maximize profit, to dominate ideologically portions of the population without access to technology and to strengthen domination at macro and micro biopower level. 1

Some positivists - with an environmentalist cornucopian view advocate that the natural world is an infinite source, affluent and abundant enough to meet all the demands of humankind. Julian Simon is a typical example of modern positivism, in addition to being an advocate of market fundamentalism (let us not forget that he was one of the founders of free-market environment). His books are a blind defense of indefinite population and economic growth. He believed that the price of commodities and fossil fuels would permanently fall to the extent that market forces could be deregulated and economic freedom would enable a more efficient allocation of production factors. He became famous by winning a bet against Paul Ehrlich in the 1980s, arguing that some metals and oil prices would fall along the decade. If instead the bet had been made in the first decade of the twenty first century he would have lost by a large margin. Simon was a skeptical environmentalist, i.e. he did not believe that human activities were the cause of global environmental problems such as the destruction of the ozone layer, acidification of the oceans, and especially he disagreed that global warming was caused by the emission of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, methane, etc. He defended the idea that the infinite resources of human ingenuity, enabled by technology, could circumvent all the world's environmental problems, without compromising the foundations of capitalism accumulation at local and global scales. In the book "The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment", Julian Simon argues, already in the introduction, the idea that natural resources are becoming less scarce: "natural resources have been becoming less scarce over the long run, right up to the present" and the world is less polluted: "But we now live in a more healthy and less dirty environment than in earlier centuries". In chapter 6, he affirms that there is no limit to food production: "What are the limits on food production?". And in chapter 11 he maintains that the worlds oil supply is infinite: "When will wer out of oil? Never!". And so on and so forth. To make his reactionary and anti-environmentalist proposals more palatable, the positivist Simon attacked a supposed neomalthusian enemy, stating the following: "People are the most valuable resources in the world, the human brain is the key resource to solve any economic, social and environmental proble; the larger the population the better". For him, each new baby is like production good: "From the economic point of view an additional child is like a laying chicken a cacao tree, a computer factory, or a new house. A baby is a durable good in which someone must invest heavily long before the grown adult begins to provide returns on the investment". With this anti-neomalthusian discourse, Julian Simon won the backing of the public opinion and support by leaders of religious fundamentalism, market fundamentalism and moral conservatism in reproductive issues. Simon was the inspiration for the neoliberal policies of the Reagan administration (1981-1988) and for all types of defenders of pronatalist policies: "And there is compelling reason to believe that human nutrition will proceed to improve into the indefinite future, even with continued population growth". On top of his pronatalist and anti-environmentalist discourse, the true intention of Julian Simon is defending market fundamentalism: "The key elements of such a framework are economic liberty, respect 2

for property, and fair and sensible rules of the market that equally are enforced for all. The world's problem is not too many people, but lack of political and economic freedom". Writing before the economic success of mommunist China, Julian Simon makes a defense, without solid foundations, of the success of Taiwans capitalist economy: "In each case the centrally planned communist country began with population less 'pressure', as measured by density per square kilometer, than did the marketdirected economy. And the communist and non-communist countries also started with much the same birth rates. But the market-directed economies performed much better economically than the centrallyplanned economies. This powerful demonstration cuts the ground from under population growth as a likely explanation of poor economic performance". Such apologetic positioning of the market which disregards negative environmental impacts of human footprint, had several followers, among them much of the group known today as climate skeptics. The Danish writer Bjrn Lomborg, who wrote the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is one of the best known disciples of Julian Simon. He uses methodologies based on the theory of economic welfare and on the cost-benefit analyses to defend neoliberal positions against state regulation and in favor of the free market forces. Lomborg defends subsidies for the oil industry and he believes that burning fossil fuels is cheaper than producing renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.). He opposes the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to reduce carbon emissions in the short term and he argues that the world should adapt to new temperatures, as an inevitable phenomenon, which is not caused by anthropic activities. If sea level rises, the solution to the population of countries such as Tuvalu is to emigrate. I.e. for Lomborg it is more efficient to follow the logic of the market than regulatory policies which, according to skeptics, distort the efficient allocation of productive resources. To make his positivist and market fundamentalist positions more acceptable, Bjrn Lomborg says similar to Julian Simon - the whole world population will have a very high standard of living at the end of the current century and that the world does not need to worry about measures of universal reproductive health and even less with the decline in fertility, but one needs to worry with the problems of mortality and dealing with more urgent matters, such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and malnutrition. In other words, authors such as Julian Simon, Bjrn Lomborg and climate skeptics argue that the model of production and consumption of capitalist society is the most efficient and that it contributed to remove millions of workers from poverty, and also raising the standard of living of large parts of the world population, as has never before been seen in human history. They consider that occasional environmental problems can be solved with the ingenuity of the human brain and with respect to the invisible hand of free market. They also consider that environmentalists are little more than catastrophic prophets. The positions of "scientific" ideological and Julian Simon and Bjrn Lomborg serve as inspiration for today's anti-environmental policies of the Republican Party in the United States, and the mobilization of the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement. Positivism and market fundamentalism tend to attack reproductive rights and the main flags of the feminist movement, as they have a patriarchal view of the 3

world. Of course, these positions only hinder multilateral negotiations to mitigate the effects of global warming, as well as weaken attempts to advance the environmental agenda at international conferences. Not surprisingly, the Zero Draft of the Rio + 20 ignored the recommendations of the Conference on Population (ICPD Cairo, 1994) and Women (Beijing, 1995). However, in view of ecodevelopment or biocivilization - by Ignacy Sachs (1927 -) and several other authors - there is a real threat of global environmental collapse if not adopted conservation measures, based on forms of rational use of the environment, combating global warming and promoting an equitable socio-economic development through environmentally sound strategies and with respect for the rights of the earth and biodiversity. The world must overcome the anthropocentrism and walk ecocentric perspective. Both the population and the economy need to contain within the planetary boundaries. As shown Elinor Ostrom (1933 -) - the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in economics - co-operation brings better results than the competition. For her, the regulation of the commons must take precedence over positivism and market fundamentalism.