axiomata
05-19-2009, 07:27 PM
For the sake of argument, let's grant some concessions. The goal of increasing fuel efficiency is noble. For argument's sake we will grant the CO2 emissions have an impact on climate change and climate change has the potential to negatively affect property. Near the oceans, valuable beach front property will be underwater, and structures on the coast will be damaged by flooding. Valuable farming property may lose value if it becomes less fertile, less temperate to live in, less biodiversity, more acclimated to extreme weather etc. We can also grant that decreasing the use of oil from the unstable Mideast would decrease the costs the US government currently expends to secure that oil (wars, buying off Saudi princes etc.)
We will also grant that currently, the costs of these risks and expenses are not fully internalized in the market. Specifically, how do we propose to internalize these costs using concepts of private property, free-markets, and tort law?
A good primer may be Rothbard's Law Property and Pollution (http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf).
Has anybody expanded Rothbard's prescription for modern concerns about CO2 emissions? His article deals with "invasive" pollution of the smog type, which seems more easily accounted for and sourced. But when a power plant next door (or tree farm) emits CO2 and it floats over to your property can you really say that your property rights have been invaded? The CO2 itself is not harmful. In fact, with global warming, the victims of the effects of CO2 are not not necessarily anywhere near the emitters. The victims are those that I mentioned above, those that live by the oceans and those that might have some of the other potential problems I listed in my first paragraph.
Must we wait until the negative effects actually start to occur before these victims are allowed to sue? Should we start keeping track of who is emitting CO2 and in what quantities in order that in the future, we can more accurately assess restitution to the victims based on their past emissions? Is there any systematic changes that could be made to law or our court systems that could make assessing damages from CO2 and pollutants in general more efficient?
We will also grant that currently, the costs of these risks and expenses are not fully internalized in the market. Specifically, how do we propose to internalize these costs using concepts of private property, free-markets, and tort law?
A good primer may be Rothbard's Law Property and Pollution (http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf).
Has anybody expanded Rothbard's prescription for modern concerns about CO2 emissions? His article deals with "invasive" pollution of the smog type, which seems more easily accounted for and sourced. But when a power plant next door (or tree farm) emits CO2 and it floats over to your property can you really say that your property rights have been invaded? The CO2 itself is not harmful. In fact, with global warming, the victims of the effects of CO2 are not not necessarily anywhere near the emitters. The victims are those that I mentioned above, those that live by the oceans and those that might have some of the other potential problems I listed in my first paragraph.
Must we wait until the negative effects actually start to occur before these victims are allowed to sue? Should we start keeping track of who is emitting CO2 and in what quantities in order that in the future, we can more accurately assess restitution to the victims based on their past emissions? Is there any systematic changes that could be made to law or our court systems that could make assessing damages from CO2 and pollutants in general more efficient?