Question Earthority!

Guest editorial by Brian Holtz
Originally published at Libertarian Intelligence

I wouldn’t rely on only fashion and torts to police chemical assault, any more than I would rely only on them to police spousal assault. I don’t think the [Libertarian Party] has enough consensus to specify all the details of how the legal system should police chemical assault, but I will never agree with Platform language saying that torts and fashion are the only acceptable libertarian response to it. Even a Rothschilds-control-the-Fed government-planned-9/11 conspiracy enthusiast like Aaron Russo protested against having to run for President under the LP’s torts-only environmental plank.

If the Platform should say that private lawsuits should be the only response to chemical assault, why shouldn’t the Platform say that about all kinds of assault? Why not hold high the Rothbardian banner of private defense agencies? Why hide the lamp of liberty under a basket?

I just don’t agree that the LP Platform should enforce the narrow dogma that there is no such thing as what economists call market failure. Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve always thought so. Brian Holtz thinks so, too. See the EcoLibertarianism Wiki for more on his framing of the idea. This week’s backgrounder is the draft EcoLibertarian Manifesto from that site.

Holtz leans heavily toward the “geolibertarian” school, which parts ways with other schools of libertarianism on the theory of property in land (e.g. George v. Locke). He also advocates Fred E. Foldvary’s “green tax shift.” I suspect that many libertarians will consider both of these items unattractive, or even entirely un-libertarian. Might as well start that argument, though.

Guest editorial by Fred E. Foldvary

The tax reform that would best promote liberty, the environment, and prosperity is to tax bad things instead of good things. Labor, entrepreneurship, and wanted products are good things, yet these get taxed as though they were crimes that need to be punished. Pollution and congestion are bad things, yet these are in effect subsidized as though we wanted more of them. The forced redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich is usually considered a bad thing, yet government makes this transfer with taxes and subsidies.

Good products and activities are those that are voluntary, not just for the buyer and seller, but also for others who may be affected. Generally, production, trade, and consumption are good things, as they provide the goods that people want. Bad products and activities are those that are not voluntary, as they coercively harm others. The prime examples of bads are pollution and congestion. Economists call these “negative externalities,” since they impose costs on others. For example, each extra car on a crowded road slows down the traffic for the other cars.

Read the rest of this entry »

I think perhaps we are … and it’s not a good place to be at.

The folks at Grist note a new manifesto from more than 150 businesses calling for “tackling climate change” as a “pro-growth strategy.”

CLS at Classically Liberal takes a dimmer view, asking “Why is business support for warming hysteria surprising?” and correctly answering his own question (it shouldn’t be).

Setting aside the question of whether global warming is real, anthropogenic and problematic (a question dealt with at length in QE’s last guest editorial) or just superstitious hysteria as CLS would have it, it’s clear that the vultures are beginning to circle.

When businesses go from “there is no global warming” to “yes there is, and why don’t WE do something about it,” odds are that the play for subsidies and awarded monopolies is about to begin.

When the environmental left stops screaming “greenwash!” and starts applauding “big business’s initiative,” odds are that deals are about to be made.

Read the rest of this entry »

Guest Column by Dan Karlan

The core of the Global Warming thesis appears to be this:

1. Global Warming is real (not transitory or part of a short-term cycle)
2. Global Warming is anthropogenic (humanity represents the tipping factor)
3. Global Warming is a problem
4. The solution is more control, less freedom, less capitalism, less growth

Many libertarians, concerned about the last point, take the following strategy: Since they reject point #4, they start by rejecting point #1. Failing that, they challenge point #2. Failing that, they dispute point #3. Failing that, they have played themselves out of the debate, and cannot challenge #4 legitimately.

But what if points 1, 2, and 3 ARE correct? How would a libertarian actually propose to solve such a problem? Because most libertarians refuse to think that points 1, 2, and 3 are even remotely correct, they have given no thought to challenging what they perceive as the most problematic point, the proposed solution, #4.

So I ask my fellow libertarians to suspend their disgust at the advocates of point number 4, and take this ride with me. Read the rest of this entry »

In the Grist commentary I’ve chosen for this week’s QE! backgrounder, Mike Tidwell writes “while I do believe we have a moral responsibility to do what we can as individuals, we just don’t have enough time to win this battle one household at a time, street by painstaking street, from coast to coast.” Tidwell’s paean to urgency is unsurprisingly accompanied by a call for “Churchillian” mobilization to save the planet by legislative fiat, just the way the civil rights movement got rid of the n-word and “discrimination in housing, employment, voting, and other realms of national life.”

“[E]very time an activist or politician hectors the public to voluntarily reach for a new bulb or spend extra on a Prius,” writes Tidwell, “ExxonMobil heaves a big sigh of relief.”

This is what libertarian environmentalists are up against … and it’s also a sign that we’re winning the battle.

Read the rest of this entry »

guest editorial by JD Tuccille

Flagstaff, Arizona, is one of those communities dotted across the country where the city politicos and much of the population pride themselves on buying into the whole slate of right-thinking college-town beliefs. You know what those are: recycling is good, President Bush is bad, taxes are never too high, property rights are archaic and, above all else, the environment is an Important Issue.

So it’s with some interest that I note this story in the Arizona Daily Sun pointing out how difficult — nearly impossible — it is for the residents of Flagstaff and the nearby unincorporated areas to get city or county approval to install wind generators.

Read the rest of this entry »

While crawling the Web for today’s QE commentaries, I happened across two pieces which set the stage for the point I’d like to make. One examines reluctance to discuss gas rationing — the other cautions environmentalists against “doom and gloom.”

The reason for avoiding discussion of gas rationing should be obvious … as soon as that kind of talk starts, the discussion is over for the vast majority of Americans and other citizens of relatively wealthy nations. Even most “mainstream” American environmentalists aren’t going to allow their concerns over pollution and climate change to justify forcing what they view as sacrificial lifestyle changes on themselves.

On the other hand, Peter Madden has a point when he contrasts the future vision of the most forward environmentalists with what people really want:

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s that time again. I’m looking out the window at a lawn much in need of mowing (my little city’s government strictly enforces a 6″ limit on grass height, and it looks like about 5 7/8″ out front).

Over the last couple of years, I’ve been looking into ways to replace some of the open, grass-covered areas in my lawn with lower-maintenance landscaping. I’ve told myself that it’s because I don’t like wasting water and electricity (yes, I use an electric mower — at least the pollution is produced at the power plant instead of outside my window), but really it’s mostly because I don’t much like mowing. Fortunately, This week’s backgrounder says that my laziness and the saving the environment coincide!

Read the rest of this entry »

We’ve discussed the benefits of compact fluorescent light bulbs before. They’re not just good for the environment, they’re good for your utility bill. Now, the One Billion Bulbs project is making it fun with comparison and competition. Let’s show them that free market environmentalists are more than just talk! Check out the stats below, and click to join. I’ll keep a permanent copy of this banner down in the “events” section for continued tracking.