Monday, November 15, 2004

Libertarianism and the environment.

Why the Clean Air Act? We have the common law doctrines of trespass and nuisance, either of which would give rise to a cause of action against air polluters for damages. We are able to contract around air pollution by paying for scrubbers that can be donated to factories. Hell, my electric company currently offers the option of purchasing power for a small premium that is generated by wind turbines. Don't we have enough free market solutions?

No. The main problem with tort actions against polluters is evidence of damages and evidence of causation. Do you have any idea how poor the current state of science is at deciding to what degree a particular factory's emissions caused a particular person's health problems? And without the threat of tort actions, it is hard to get the less scrupulous industries to play ball.

So we have the Clean Air Act to approximate the net results if our proof problems were substantially reduced. To crack down on the most obvious causes, to reduce the damages generally. How do we know the "obvious" causes are in fact causes? Science is pretty good at generalities; it is only on the specifics that it falters.

Does that mean libertarianism doesn't work? Yes. At least when broadly defined. There are certain types of human interaction that lend themselves to a hands-off approach, and there are certain types of human interaction that do not.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home