Adam Smith (Chicago version) and Climate Change

Curtis Brainard writing in CJR CJRDaily (“real time media criticism from the Columbia Journalism Review”), under the heading of “Emissions Markets: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly” makes a case here for using government regulations and proscriptions to tackle pollution problems associated with what is now called ‘global warming’ (a sometimes hysterical over-reaction by politicians to a perceived, but not yet understood phenomenon – a consensus is not the same as understanding it - of which I have no firm views and remain a sceptic in the Humean sense).

Now, Curtis Brainard has a case that is worth listening to about whether the remedies for the perceived phenomenon should be tackled by markets or by governments, or by some combination of both (of course, there may be nothing we can do about global climates), and I would like him and others to argue the case.

But I object to his dragging in false ascriptions to Adam Smith as part of his case. I found five obvious errors about Adam Smith in this paragraph:

“Free-market economists going back to Adam Smith have lauded capitalism because it doesn't wait for anybody, especially politicians and lawyers, to figure out how a market works most efficiently. An "invisible hand" pushes self-interested consumers to make decisions that benefit society as a whole. It's like magic, but actually this libertarian construct characterizes much of how emerging emissions trading markets operate. These markets are either "compliant," meaning that businesses must meet certain emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol, for example, or "voluntary," meaning that individuals and businesses pay for emissions-reducing technology without any obligation to do so. It's not exactly the laissez-faire world that Smith envisioned, but the now-lucrative trade in greenhouse gas credits and offsets has evolved largely without government standards and protocols.”

Re-casting the paragraph as Curtis Brainard should have written it, consistent with leaving Adam Smith out, it could have read like this:

“Free-market economists going back to the early 20th century have lauded capitalism because it doesn't wait for anybody, especially politicians and lawyers, to figure out how a market works most efficiently. Self-interested consumers make decisions that may benefit society as a whole, but as often don’t. It's how people have always behaved and it is a libertarian construct to characterize the emerging emissions trading markets as necessarily operating benignly. These markets are either "compliant," meaning that businesses must meet certain emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol, for example, or "voluntary," meaning that individuals and businesses pay for emissions-reducing technology without any obligation to do so. It's not exactly the laissez-faire world that Chicago economists have envisioned, but the now-lucrative trade in greenhouse gas credits and offsets has evolved largely without government standards and protocols.”

Of course, Curtis Brainard, a very clear writer indeed, would turn my suggested prose into finer a reading style, but my stilted version of his paragraph about Adam Smith, invisible body parts, and laissez-faire, is accurate, whereas as his golden touch is inaccurate. And among journalists, a penchant for absolute accuracy is a prime virtue. I hope he practices it in future when referring to Adam Smith and his views.