Balancing environmental concern with liberty

[DocHolliday]

Hey guys. I get the sense, when I talk to libertarians, that most are not overly concerned about environmental degradation.

I hope I'm mistaken.

I realize that there is doubt about global warming. Let's ignore global warming in this thread completely.

I am a believer in limited government and sound money, but also a realist.

I believe that people and corporations, when left to their own whims, will sometimes seriously damage the earth.

In some cases it's because they don't understand the consequences of their actions. Sometimes they know and don't care.

I've read Ron Paul's rather unexpansive take on environmental care in The Revolution, and was unimpressed.

While I agree that strong laws and lawsuits may protect property owners more than the EPA does, I wonder who is protecting the property from the property holders?

Mountain top minding is destroying entire ranges for coal and other mineral wealth. We are left with decapitated peaks in areas generally too poor to fight back.

In other countries such as Brazil, American capital is paying for the destruction of thousands of acres of rainforest.

Brazil is outside of our jurisdiction, but it's our buying power that's paying for the destruction. We are still responsible for it.

What are the consequences of losing the rain forests?

1) Species extinction. A commonly cited estimated is that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation. Let's say this is a gross exaggeration. Let's say it's 1 per week. It's still unacceptable.

2) Change in rainfall patterns. This is a poorly understood area, yet it doesn't take much to see that large portions of the world are in the middle of extended drought. (And Yes, I am aware of the rain the north east is getting, but I'm also aware of all the rivers going dry.)

Scientists studying rainforests have discovered the rain forests did not just grow because there was a lot of rain, but the rain also comes because there are trees. When destroyed rain forests in asia were restored, the land that was down on rainfall started getting a lot more.

Weather patterns across the whole world are worsened by deforestation.

Others There are plenty of other environmental issues, and libertarians seem to be hands off about solving them.

Is it that libertarians refuse to believe that these are legitimate concerns? What is it? What are good libertarian ways of dealing with these issues?

 

[BenIsForRon]

Yeah, if enough trees are cut down, the weather pattern changes completely, and the rest of them could go.

I actually just took a class on this: Environmental Politics. The professor had many libertarian leanings. He had worked for the GAO and done studies on water projects in New Mexico. Total eye opener. When people here say that government does more damage to the environment than most corporations, they're not lying! One of the best classes I've ever taken.

The answer is, yes, there are libertarian ways to deal with this, however, we may need some amendments to the constitution to take care of some of them.


I'll expand more later on my opinions, I can talk about this stuff all day.

 

[DocHolliday]

Please do. I'm looking forward to hearing about it.

Yeah, if enough trees are cut down, the weather pattern changes completely, and the rest of them could go.

I actually just took a class on this: Environmental Politics. The professor had many libertarian leanings. He had worked for the GAO and done studies on water projects in New Mexico. Total eye opener. When people here say that government does more damage to the environment than most corporations, they're not lying! One of the best classes I've ever taken.

The answer is, yes, there are libertarian ways to deal with this, however, we may need some amendments to the constitution to take care of some of them.


I'll expand more later on my opinions, I can talk about this stuff all day.

 

[Epic]

"I believe that people and corporations, when left to their own whims, will sometimes seriously damage the earth. "

Remember, in a pure libertarian society, there is just private property.

"Mountain top minding is destroying entire ranges for coal and other mineral wealth. We are left with decapitated peaks in areas generally too poor to fight back. "

If they own the land, we can only conclude that those individuals are using their property in the most socially optimal way. If society values that property for its nature value, then it will be bought up by people who care about that. If society values that property for its natural resources, the individuals who perform that will bid more, acquire the land, and use it for that.

In a market system, people express their preferences with their demand for various goods, and then the selection of how to use different natural resources are imputed from those consumer values.

Walter Block on private property environmentalism: http://www.blubrry.com/scotthortonshow/419547/antiwar-radio-walter-block/
YouTube - Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 1 (walter block youtube free market environmentalism)

And, yes, you cannot be a serious environmentalist if you support a huge government like the one we have now. It is the biggest environmental damager.

 

[DocHolliday]

Thanks for that video, Epic. Very interesting, and as I mentioned, I agree that, in many cases, lawsuits would do more to protect the environment on private property than the EPA/ government.

You said:

If they own the land, we can only conclude that those individuals are using their property in the most socially optimal way. If society values that property for its nature value, then it will be bought up by people who care about that. If society values that property for its natural resources, the individuals who perform that will bid more, acquire the land, and use it for that.

But we know from experience that, if this is the most socially optimal, it is very destructive. Also, what of the people that are left with the mess? There are many cases of companies polluting land and then going out of business. There are at least a half dozen brownfield (polluted) industrial sites in my city of Meriden, CT

The companies that did the polluting are all long bankrupt, and there is no one to sue.

So what are we to do? There are huge swaths of city land that cannot be used to build on or to grow on. If we leave them alone, they will still be polluted in 1,000 years.

What of the future generations stuck with a polluted earth because it was socially optimal for our generation, or our forefathers generation, to pollute?

It's a burden that's been transfered to the tax payers of the city, to some extent, but more broadly by the state and federal tax payers, which have shelled out millions to incinerate thousands of pounds of polluted soil on several of these sites.

To clean up the whole city, it will be million more out of tax payers' pockets.

How can we allow property owners to destroy land and then run, leaving others with the burden?

"I believe that people and corporations, when left to their own whims, will sometimes seriously damage the earth. "

Remember, in a pure libertarian society, there is just private property.

"Mountain top minding is destroying entire ranges for coal and other mineral wealth. We are left with decapitated peaks in areas generally too poor to fight back. "

If they own the land, we can only conclude that those individuals are using their property in the most socially optimal way. If society values that property for its nature value, then it will be bought up by people who care about that. If society values that property for its natural resources, the individuals who perform that will bid more, acquire the land, and use it for that.

In a market system, people express their preferences with their demand for various goods, and then the selection of how to use different natural resources are imputed from those consumer values.

Walter Block on private property environmentalism: http://www.blubrry.com/scotthortonshow/419547/antiwar-radio-walter-block/
YouTube - Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 1 (walter block youtube free market environmentalism)

And, yes, you cannot be a serious environmentalist if you support a huge government like the one we have now. It is the biggest environmental damager.

 

[Objectivist]

In 4.5 billion years all of the thing above mentioned have been occurring, are you arrogant enough to believe that just because humans showed up(recently) that we are supposed to stop or change anything?

The planet is not static, it is dynamic and it warms and cools with or without humans. There is no reason to think we can stop or change that simple fact. This makes climate change a non- issue.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

And if those that claimed there was a problem with the planet warming were for real, then they should be calling for the construction of 400 new nuclear power plants.

 

[DocHolliday]

I very specifically noted that I wasn't talking about climate change, global warming, etc. There are many other environmental issues facing the world, and I'm focusing on those.

In 4.5 billion years all of the thing above mentioned have been occurring, are you arrogant enough to believe that just because humans showed up(recently) that we are supposed to stop or change anything?

The planet is not static, it is dynamic and it warms and cools with or without humans. There is no reason to think we can stop or change that simple fact. This makes climate change a non- issue.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

 

[Epic]

But we know from experience that, if this is the most socially optimal, it is very destructive.

That destructiveness is factored into the social optimality. See my previous comments. The people who want the land most will end up owners. If people demand the land to be preserved, there will more demand to preserve it than mine the resources. I've read articles about environment groups buying up land that would have otherwise been bought by "evil corporations". I support this behavior because it abides by the libertarian ethic.

"What of the future generations stuck with a polluted earth because it was socially optimal for our generation, or our forefathers generation, to pollute?"

How is is socially optimal for people to stick their kids with a polluted earth? 'Socially Optimal' takes into account all of these things. If you believe that pollution is not factored into anybody's decisions about what to buy, what land to preserve, etc. then you are postulating that nobody cares of pollution, the environment, etc. This is not the case.

Plus, again, pollution can be handled by whatever legal system exists.

 

[TinCanToNA]

In a world where the only accountability is personal accountability, then each individual is accountable for all pollution they emit, be it plastic refuse or smoke from their chimney or smokestack.

I, too, had concerns with the apparent disconnect between environmental concern and libertarian philosophy. Even on RJ Harris' website, on the issue he has the shortest possible blurb about the environment. However, so long as a legal framework exists to allow people to be personally accountable for their pollution (and by extension, the pollution of their corporation), I don't think it will be a very big disconnect.

 

[DocHolliday]

How is is socially optimal for people to stick their kids with a polluted earth?

Yes, it seems a ridiculous question, doesn't it? But yet here Meriden stands, very polluted because, despite the social optimality of the factories at the time, today we're stuck with tons of polluted ground.

If you believe that pollution is not factored into anybody's decisions about what to buy, what land to preserve, etc. then you are postulating that nobody cares of pollution, the environment, etc. This is not the case.

Plus, again, pollution can be handled by whatever legal system exists.

And when the private owner is long gone and there's no buddy for the legal system to take on?

But to clarify....

Are you suggesting that it would be within libertarian bounds to create laws directly restricting what a person could do on their property? Such as destroy mountains to get at the coal?

 

[Objectivist]

I very specifically noted that I wasn't talking about climate change, global warming, etc. There are many other environmental issues facing the world, and I'm focusing on those.

Why? they are non-issues.

One landslide can destroy a mountain lake and the life contained in it.

A volcano can put out more damage than a small country.

A tsunami can lay waste to millions of people and life forms.

Th Ocean has seeps that release oil into the environment naturally and in very large quantities.

SO what exactly did you want to stop?

 

[DocHolliday]

Walter Block on private property environmentalism: http://www.blubrry.com/scotthortonshow/419547/antiwar-radio-walter-block/

I just listened to the Walter Block radio interview, and he has some good ideas.

I generally agree with the tragedy of the commons.

But here's the thing....

He has a point about there being no shortage of cows, because people eat cows and corporations can make a profit.

But corporations don't make a profit on, say, bonobos, our closet genetic ancestors that are starting to go extinct.

Why would they bother to preserve them on their own private property?

 

[DocHolliday]

Of course nature builds up and it destroys.

But mankind does it on a scale unheard of in nature.

We're in the process of wiping out most of the other species on the planet.

Nature is not nearly so efficient.

And if nature burns down a rainforest, it regrows.

If man hacks down a rainforest, it stays hacked down.

Our influences on this planet are not benign.

Why? they are non-issues.

One landslide can destroy a mountain lake and the life contained in it.

A volcano can put out more damage than a small country.

A tsunami can lay waste to millions of people and life forms.

Th Ocean has seeps that release oil into the environment naturally and in very large quantities.

SO what exactly did you want to stop?

 

[Objectivist]

Lets take your No. 1, 99% of all the species that have lived on planet earth are gone, man had little of nothing to do with that fact, so how is it unacceptable.

No.2, Building nuclear power plants is the only clean way to desal millions of gallons of sea water for use by man on a consistent basis.

 

[Objectivist]

Of course nature builds up and it destroys.

But mankind does it on a scale unheard of in nature.

We're in the process of wiping out most of the other species on the planet.

Nature is not nearly so efficient.

And if nature burns down a rainforest, it regrows.

If man hacks down a rainforest, it stays hacked down.

Our influences on this planet are not benign.

I think you need to educate yourself on global history, we've been around for a split second on the timeline of planetary evolution, which is 4.5 BILLION years in the making.
We haven't done much in the short time we've been here compared to the Earth in all its majesty.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Nature is not nearly so efficient.

And if nature burns down a rainforest, it regrows.

If man hacks down a rainforest, it stays hacked down.

Our influences on this planet are not benign.

In a free-market, man would be encouraged to re-plant trees that are used for practical purposes (paper, cardboard, wood etc), in order to ensure steady profits.

 

[TinCanToNA]

In a free-market, man would be encouraged to re-plant trees that are used for practical purposes (paper, cardboard, wood etc), in order to ensure steady profits.

That's not always the case. The new clearance could be used as farmland, replanted as you suggest, remain undeveloped due to lack of further capital or calamity, or put to any number of other uses. With only the commodity value of timber dictating the relative value of forestation, you're left with an economic model controlling an environment, which is quite possibly an unsustainable scenario, but perhaps not.

Here's a question I'd pose: What happens to the nearly one-fifth of the country's land area that is owned by the Department of the Interior if/when it cedes control to private interests?

 

[dr. hfn]

this is a really important topic if we want to appeal to the left and environmentalists

 

[Epic]

Yes, it seems a ridiculous question, doesn't it? But yet here Meriden stands, very polluted because, despite the social optimality of the factories at the time, today we're stuck with tons of polluted ground.

We haven't had a libertarian society (nor close to it). You are using the shortcomings of big-government system to criticize a libertarian solution?

Are you suggesting that it would be within libertarian bounds to create laws directly restricting what a person could do on their property? Such as destroy mountains to get at the coal?

Pollution can be construed as a private property violation, but doing "bad" things to one's own land is not a private property violation. I am just going by the libertarian ethic. I assume you are familiar with it.

Look, if caring for the environment is important to you, you should act on that voluntarily (buy up property to save it, donate to charities...) but don't force your views on other people (I define this as anything that violates the libertarian ethic). In a voluntary interaction framework, you can express your values (environment > cheap stuff) and other people can express theirs.

 

[BenIsForRon]

I support this behavior because it abides by the libertarian ethic.

Ok guys, here's the disconnect with most of you, right here^.

Who gives a crap about some political philosophy when you just want to preserve the mountains and the forest for your descendants?

You say "If people cared so much, why don't they just buy up all the land and protect it?" It's because they can't. Coal companies can get financing to blow up mountains because they will make millions and millions of dollars off just one mountain. When they do this to a few mountains, they already have enough capital to do it to the rest of West Virginia.

Now, you guys will probably say "Hey, its their property, they can do what they want". Now, let me ask you. Do future, unborn generations have rights? If you exploit all the resources and make all this land unlivable, how is that not encroaching on their rights? You're not going to live forever, so you have to think about what your great gandkids want.