{"id":2799,"date":"2009-12-20T00:47:05","date_gmt":"2009-12-20T05:47:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/?p=2799"},"modified":"2009-12-21T21:54:07","modified_gmt":"2009-12-22T02:54:07","slug":"the-fire-insurance-fallacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/2799\/the-fire-insurance-fallacy\/","title":{"rendered":"The Fire Insurance Fallacy"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On yesterday&#8217;s &#8220;Hardball&#8221;, Democratic strategist (and promiscuous presidential campaign kamikaze) Bob Shrum got into<a href=\"http:\/\/64.15.120.233\/watch?v=rZfdMU5RwvM\" target=\"_blank\"> an almost unwatchable scrimmage<\/a> over global warming and the Copenhagen Conference with Pat Buchanan. \u00a0In a tag-team effort with host Chris Matthews, Shrum tried to side-step <a href=\"http:\/\/online.wsj.com\/article\/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html\" target=\"_blank\">the epistemological questions surrounding climate change<\/a> by invoking the analogy of carrying fire insurance.<\/p>\n<p>This meme, which has started showing up in Democratic talking points lately, tries to get around climate uncertainty by invoking <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Precautionary_principle\" target=\"_blank\">the &#8220;precautionary principle&#8221;<\/a>: that it&#8217;s prudent to take decisive action proportional to a catastrophic threat even if the potential of that threat being realized is miniscule. This irrational doctrine has been part of the environmental left&#8217;s catechism for decades, but its appearance in the political sphere shows that liberals are becoming sensitive to the fallout over Climategate and trying to reframe their position as a common sense hedge against catastrophe. \u00a0Wrong.<\/p>\n<p>The Precautionary Principle sounds good in a vacuum (who caucuses for increased risk, after all?), but is (ironically) non-empirical in its application. All of life is a matter of weighing probable rewards versus probable risks. Jettisoning this cost-benefit principle on a serious policy issue is dangerous &#8212; and the insurance analogy shows why.<\/p>\n<p>Think about how fire insurance actually works. You pay a miniscule fee to hedge against the minute possibility of a catastrophic outcome. But that&#8217;s not how carbon abatement schemes work. First of all, there&#8217;s no pool to socialize risk within. As an inherently global &#8220;crisis&#8221;, everyone is supposedly effected &#8212; so it&#8217;s impossible to cross-subsidize in the way that insurance plans do. But more importantly, you wouldn&#8217;t buy fire insurance that costs exponentially more than the likely damage from a fire &#8212; and that&#8217;s what the economic disaster represented by cap and trade and other such schemes would mean.<\/p>\n<p>Liberals can&#8217;t get their head around the fact that there&#8217;s only so much value swimming around in an economy (regardless of the money supply). \u00a0If you use some of it in one place, you can&#8217;t use it in another. And when government mandates its use, it&#8217;s almost always less efficient than the private sector. This is called an opportunity cost. It&#8217;s usually covered in the first few days of an elementary economics course. This is what happens when we elect people who cut that class for a Sierra Club meeting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On yesterday&#8217;s &#8220;Hardball&#8221;, Democratic strategist (and promiscuous presidential campaign kamikaze) Bob Shrum got into an almost unwatchable scrimmage over global warming and the Copenhagen Conference with Pat Buchanan. \u00a0In a tag-team effort with host Chris Matthews, Shrum tried to side-step the epistemological questions surrounding climate change by invoking the analogy of carrying fire insurance. This [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[26,663,205],"class_list":["post-2799","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-posts","tag-climate-change","tag-copenhagen-conference","tag-global-warming"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2799","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2799"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2799\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2832,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2799\/revisions\/2832"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}