What is the libertarian solution to untraceable pollution?

[Slartibartfast]

Whenever pollution is brought up, I have seen many libertarians refer to property rights as the driver for solutions. If I am understanding the argument correctly, the idea is that if some person or company pollutes your property, you can sue them for property violations. I don't think that is a practical response, but that is beside the point of this thread.

My question is, what is the solution for pollution that either comes about as a result of lots of little contributors (each car pumping out a little bit as an example) or in cases where the source of the pollution is traceable but it is obviously man made? Would those cases justify the existence of an agency such as the EPA or is it possible for a private mechanism to provide solutions for these problems?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Whenever pollution is brought up, I have seen many libertarians refer to property rights as the driver for solutions. If I am understanding the argument correctly, the idea is that if some person or company pollutes your property, you can sue them for property violations. I don't think that is a practical response, but that is beside the point of this thread.

A small correction, they should be criminally liable like everyone else.
Only fining them would leave things as they are.

My question is, what is the solution for pollution that either comes about as a result of lots of little contributors (each car pumping out a little bit as an example) or in cases where the source of the pollution is traceable but it is obviously man made? Would those cases justify the existence of an agency such as the EPA or is it possible for a private mechanism to provide solutions for these problems?

Air is a common pool resource and regulations like mandated catalytic converters, etc are fine.

I think most pollution is on a micro level and not a macro.
A city/county could effectively regulate the air without any argument from me.

 

[cpwill]

actually Milton Friedman identified pollution as one of the (few) "issues of the commons"; and listed it right next to defense and enforcement of contracts as something that the government had a right to handle. if we can introduce direct property reimbursement all to the better, but libertarians shouldn't be calling for entire deregulation.

 

[stekim]

Whenever pollution is brought up, I have seen many libertarians refer to property rights as the driver for solutions. If I am understanding the argument correctly, the idea is that if some person or company pollutes your property, you can sue them for property violations. I don't think that is a practical response, but that is beside the point of this thread.

I'm a Libertarian and I agree that it is not a practical response. I'm fine with suing and all, but given that the court system moves at a snail's pace and those who pollute typically have large pockets, thereby allowing them to make the system go even slower while they continue to pollute, it's not in the least practical. I bad cases you could easily be dead before the case comes up.

My question is, what is the solution for pollution that either comes about as a result of lots of little contributors (each car pumping out a little bit as an example) or in cases where the source of the pollution is traceable but it is obviously man made?

Government. Sound like an odd position for a Libertarian to take? Not really. The goal of government is to protect the rights of its citizens from those trying in impinge upon said rights. If something is proven to be harmful and you are subjecting third parties to it against their will it's the government's job to put a stop to it. So I have no problem with an EPA. Seems quite prudent.

 

[stekim]

actually Milton Friedman identified pollution as one of the (few) "issues of the commons"; and listed it right next to defense and enforcement of contracts as something that the government had a right to handle. if we can introduce direct property reimbursement all to the better, but libertarians shouldn't be calling for entire deregulation.

Agreed. If you look back at U.S. history you can see quite readily the effects of no enviromental regulations. Hell, you can see them now all over the globe (China anyone?). When your actions cause harm to innocent parties the government has every right to step in and stop you. There are indeed few issues of the commons. A cloud of toxic gas is clearly among them. If air so thick with pollution one can hardly breathe (until dying from cancer) is not an issue of the commons nothing is.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

When two people are on an elevator, everyone knows who farted.

When six billion people are on the planet, farts aren't very significant.

Frankly, auto emissions are more than low enough to be negligible in terms of any possible property rights violation.

And for most people, that's the biggest pollutin' thing they have.

So your concern doesn't have a lot of real-world relevance.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

When two people are on an elevator, everyone knows who farted.

When six billion people are on the planet, farts aren't very significant.

Frankly, auto emissions are more than low enough to be negligible in terms of any possible property rights violation.

And for most people, that's the biggest pollutin' thing they have.

So your concern doesn't have a lot of real-world relevance.

Auto emissions now are low enough to be negligilbe

They werent 30 years ago in the US, and they arent in Mexico or China

 

[Solidus]

Sorry for the minor thread necromancy but I stumbled upon this thread and noticed that Pigovian taxation went unmentioned.

The classic "enforcement of property rights" is correlated with a Coasian solution. The textbook example being railroad sparks and farm fields. If farmers are capable of enforcing their property rights then they can be compensated for fires caused by the train sparks, or the railroad will install spark catchers on trains, whichever is the cheaper alternative. Coasian solutions run into problems when transaction costs are high. Farmers vs. the railroad is "many to one", while pollution is "one to many" (you have to seek out each person who drives near your house). As others have mentioned, enforcement by the courts is a high transaction cost all by itself.

Coasian solutions are considered more effective than Pigovian solutions when transaction costs are low. Since that's often not the case with pollution a Pigovian tax on fuels (and other pollutants) would create the incentive to consume the 'optimal' amount of fuels, assuming that the tax properly modeled the effect of the negative externalities.

So an equally libertarian take on pollution would be Pigovian taxes on pollutants. The EPA could be tasked with studying the impact of the externalities created by various fuel types, pesticides, water contaminants, what-have-you, and setting the taxes accordingly. The EPA would then not be tasked with writing or enforcing a myriad of specific regulations.

In a broad sense, "cap and trade" is Coasian (companies have the right to pollute X amount, a commodity market in pollution credits has low transaction costs) while gas taxes are Pigovian.

J

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So an equally libertarian take on pollution would be Pigovian taxes on pollutants. The EPA could be tasked with studying the impact of the externalities created by various fuel types, pesticides, water contaminants, what-have-you, and setting the taxes accordingly. The EPA would then not be tasked with writing or enforcing a myriad of specific regulations.

How then would you price the externalities caused by species lost due to pesticide use then? What would a single frog species be worth for example?

How could you price wilderness preservation? What is wilderness worth economically?

It seems to me that a purely libertarian approach to environmental protection, and especially preservation, is completely inadequate in today's world. Its like trying to use a dead language like Latin to describe the internet.

 

[Solidus]

SouthernDemocrat;

"How then would you price the externalities caused by species lost due to pesticide use then? What would a single frog species be worth for example? How could you price wilderness preservation? What is wilderness worth economically?"

I don't know. How do they estimate the expected price of ecological damage from global warming? How do they estimate the expected price of ecological damage from the oil spill in the Gulf? I don't know what a frog or wilderness is worth, but I do know they are roughly equal to the price someone else is willing to pay to preserve them. What is a frog species worth to you? What is wilderness worth to you?

"It seems to me that a purely libertarian approach to environmental protection, and especially preservation, is completely inadequate in today's world. Its like trying to use a dead language like Latin to describe the internet."

Wow. That's an incredibly ignorant snap judgment to make. Particularly when the "big government" solution to the problems you cite (and the cap and trade and gas tax examples I gave previously) are merely poor implementations of these libertarian principles.

Take the frog species you ask about. What is the current "big government" solution? To ban pesticides, did they attempt a cost / benefit analysis between the ecological damage and the increased food production? Probably, and they could have used that data to implement a tax instead. A ban is a poor heavy handed execution.

The wilderness preservation you ask about is easier to resolve with traditional property rights. What is the current "big government" solution? Federal / State lands are set aside, visitors are charged usage fees, and people who degrade the property are fined (littering, arson penalties, etc.). I fail to see a difference between the "big government" solution where the government owns the land and a libertarian solution where the Wilderness Preservation Society Inc. owns the land.

J

 

[phattonez]

I need a better example for small contributors to pollution than cars. Reason being? The libertarian solution to roads would be privately owned roads. Those companies would be sued for auto pollution. Pollution from cars could be handled that way.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

SouthernDemocrat;
The wilderness preservation you ask about is easier to resolve with traditional property rights. What is the current "big government" solution? Federal / State lands are set aside, visitors are charged usage fees, and people who degrade the property are fined (littering, arson penalties, etc.). I fail to see a difference between the "big government" solution where the government owns the land and a libertarian solution where the Wilderness Preservation Society Inc. owns the land.

J

We tried the traditional property rights solution to wilderness preservation from the dawn of civilization until Teddy Roosevelt. It did not work. If land has a greater economic value to be developed than it does to be preserved then it will be developed regardless of whether its the world's last remaining stand of old growth timber or not. Public land is not government land, its public land. It is land that every owns that is simply managed by the government under the direction of the people. For example, the government cannot do what it wants with federal wilderness, it is mandated by law to be preserved. The government cannot do what it wants with National Forest, instead it must regularly submit management plans for public comment and approval.

 

[phattonez]

We tried the traditional property rights solution to wilderness preservation from the dawn of civilization until Teddy Roosevelt. It did not work. If land has a greater economic value to be developed than it does to be preserved then it will be developed regardless of whether its the world's last remaining stand of old growth timber or not. Public land is not government land, its public land. It is land that every owns that is simply managed by the government under the direction of the people. For example, the government cannot do what it wants with federal wilderness, it is mandated by law to be preserved. The government cannot do what it wants with National Forest, instead it must regularly submit management plans for public comment and approval.

Land will be used for its most profitable use only when it is in private hands. We can't guarantee that when the US government owns like 40% of the land in this country.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Land will be used for its most profitable use only when it is in private hands. We can't guarantee that when the US government owns like 40% of the land in this country.

Yeah that is my point. The only reason why we still have large tracks of wilderness and some virgin forest left is because we have public land. It is America's "best idea".

 

[phattonez]

Yeah that is my point. The only reason why we still have large tracks of wilderness and some virgin forest left is because we have public land. It is America's "best idea".

So all land would be paved over unless government owned it? Doubt that HIGHLY.

 

[Solidus]

We tried the traditional property rights solution to wilderness preservation from the dawn of civilization until Teddy Roosevelt. It did not work.

Really? Then why are there 37 million acres currently being conserved through private land trusts. [1] Or how, "The pace of private land conservation has tripled" between 2000 and 2005. [1]

If land has a greater economic value to be developed than it does to be preserved then it will be developed regardless of whether its the world's last remaining stand of old growth timber or not. ... The only reason why we still have large tracks of wilderness and some virgin forest left is because we have public land.

I'll grant that conservation was not a primary motivation of land owners in the past, largely due to abundant supply. However, as the nation grew richer and wilderness became more scarce the value of conservation has met or exceeded the economic value from development. Strangely enough this follows basic economic principles. "Preserved nature" is a normal good (the richer we are the more we want it) and as supply diminished (and demand increased thanks to increased wealth and leisure) the value of "preserved nature" increased.

So in short the private efforts to conserve nature / wilderness as noted above clearly contradict your assertion regarding development of "the last old growth timber".

Public land is not government land, its public land. It is land that every owns that is simply managed by the government under the direction of the people. For example, the government cannot do what it wants with federal wilderness, it is mandated by law to be preserved. The government cannot do what it wants with National Forest, instead it must regularly submit management plans for public comment and approval.

You have it backwards. The government (State or Federal) owns the land and has decided to make it available to the public. Just like land trusts are private land made available to the public. There is no difference between how the government would manage the land, and how groups like the Sierra Club or Land Trust alliance would manage the land.

There is a role for government in preserving nature. By providing easement laws or tax incentives to conserve private land (that would be a Pigovian subsidy to represent the positive externality of preservation), or the outright subsidy of land purchases by conservation groups (again, subsidy to reflect the positive externality). This involvement need not be the direct ownership and management of land by the government.

Private conservation of nature on private property does work.

J

[1] Executive Summary — Land Trust Alliance

 

[hazlnut]

Let me guess, let the states handle it.

 

[phattonez]

Let me guess, let the states handle it.

Why would I expect you to read a thread let alone even given an opposing viewpoint a fair chance? :roll:

 

[Slartibartfast]

Let me guess, let the states handle it.

I think that would be reasonable if pollution didn't have a nasty habit of traveling between states.

 

[Regicollis]

Land will be used for its most profitable use only when it is in private hands. We can't guarantee that when the US government owns like 40% of the land in this country.

This is exactly why the government should protect nature. Private ownership will use the land for what is most profitable on a short term which is an extremely narrow-minded way of using land.

There are other valuable things in life than money (something libertarians will never understand) and future generations should also have the ability to enjoy nature.

Private ownership has proven unable to pay attention to anything else than short-sighted profits. It is necessary for the public sector to protect the environment and prevent pollution.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

This is exactly why the government should protect nature. Private ownership will use the land for what is most profitable on a short term which is an extremely narrow-minded way of using land.

There are other valuable things in life than money (something libertarians will never understand) and future generations should also have the ability to enjoy nature.

Private ownership has proven unable to pay attention to anything else than short-sighted profits. It is necessary for the public sector to protect the environment and prevent pollution.

Most libertarians recognize that money is not the source of happiness.
The will, to do as you please without hurting people, is to us pure joy.

Private owners protect nature all the time.
Why do you think private hunting and nature preserves are popular?

 

[Solidus]

This is exactly why the government should protect nature. Private ownership will use the land for what is most profitable on a short term which is an extremely narrow-minded way of using land. ... Private ownership has proven unable to pay attention to anything else than short-sighted profits. It is necessary for the public sector to protect the environment and prevent pollution.

Since you couldn't be bothered to read it the first time, I'll ask again. Really? Then why are there 37 million acres currently being conserved through private land trusts? [1]

Private ownership leads to the highest value usage. Since there are obviously people who value conservation over profit (even *gasp* Libertarians) then they will privately use land towards that end as I have demonstrated.

I think that would be reasonable if pollution didn't have a nasty habit of traveling between states.

Pigovian taxes that target negative externalities of pollution can be an effective means of reducing pollution when enforcement of private property rights fail. It also has the advantage of being vastly more transparent, much more difficult to game, and less susceptible to regulatory capture / bribery.

[1] Executive Summary — Land Trust Alliance