Zeal For Truth

Presuming that global warming is indeed a pending crisis caused by pollution, we began (Part I) by looking at the two approaches one can take to solving this issue - a socialist solution, where resources protected, controlled, managed, utilized and/or distributed by the state as common property; or a capitalist solution, where resources are homesteaded as private property and managed through economic law.

It was then argued (Part II) that we have been attempting to solve environmental problems with socialism for some time, and capitalism is the only way out of the mess we’ve created via unintended consequences. In fact, global warming is an unintended consequence of socialism.

“Don’t Crap Where You Live”
The primary problem with the socialist solution is that there is no incentive for a person to “regulate” themselves on common property. I have seen this, for example, in every single one of my employer’s company kitchens. No matter where I work, there is always problems with the cleanliness of the corporate kitchen. People leave out dirty dishes and make messes for others to clean up - no one is responsible because “everyone” is responsible.

Private property, on the other hand, is someone’s capital asset. They need it to make profit of some kind - that could mean money, but it could just as easily mean psychological, moral or charitable profit. The point is that it is an asset to them rather than a dumping ground - it has real value. There is a principle hard-wired into many of nature’s creatures: “don’t crap where you live.” Private property would force polluters to “crap where they live.” Allow what is public and common to be “where someone lives” and they wont “crap” there.

The solution is to use the natural state of man - self-preservation, territorialism, value maximization, to harmonize with nature. The atmosphere is no different than any other part of nature, in that no one will care about it unless someone is using it. As soon as it is homesteaded, private property laws will apply like anything else. Just like you can’t go and dump your trash on my lawn, companies and individuals won’t be able to let their carbon go to the atmosphere.

Ideas for Implementation
Let’s look at some practical ways we can introduce these ideas.

Use the Court System - The first step is to go back to where we were in the 1860’s - people were allowed property rights in the air they homesteaded for breathing, sunlight, rain, etc… Lawsuits over pollution damages should not be laughed at and should instead be upheld and huge fines should be levied. The next time someone blows smoke in my face, I should be able to sue them (even for a nickel) on principle. If just one of the biggest polluters, such as the US, actually enforced their constitution and prosecuted all their factories, autos and so on that are damaging everyone’s air, then it would at least be started.

Allow Airlines to Homestead Air Tracts - Another possible way of “propertizing” would be allowing Airlines to homestead tracts of air. They would jump at this because the efficiency of running Rhumb Lines makes certain tracts of air very valuable. The airlines running these routs would now have a vested interest in not polluting their own airspace, because moving to other airspace costs in fuel, time, wages, etc…The point is that airlines themselves would have an incentive not to pollute in their air and they would be sued if they polluted in some other airline’s air.

Allow “Airfills” for Extra Carbon - What if we simply allowed companies to homestead tracts of air for storing pollution and carbon. There would likely be a rush for them. These “airfills” would fill up pretty fast with pollution, no doubt, and there’d be less and less air to fill. Meanwhile, every unit of fill would drive up the value of clean air as it becomes more and more scarce. Now there is a profit motive for cleaning air! Air cleaning companies may arise and create technology to purify old “airfills.” Just like water now: there’s no problem with water in more capitalistic countries. The market consistently generates profit signals in producing water, using water, then cleaning it again. It’s not even hard to imagine this with air. Moreover, maybe that technology allows weather stabilization, or ozone rebuilding or some other unintended good?

The Framework Will Provide An Answer
These plans are just thoughts I came up with and I am an idiot when it comes to these things. Imagine what an expert can do combined with an entrepreneur! The point is not whether my half-thought-out ideas will work - but that if there is a profit allowed, new ideas are now incentivized! It is now to someone’s personal profit to solve a global problem. Adam Smith’s invisible hand saves the planet!

These amateur solutions merely require us to think of the atmosphere as we think of everything else. Just as we pay for water, shelter, clothes and food - air is a legitimate commodity. We aren’t born with a right to air. If someone provides that to us, we should pay for it. It would be a great day when companies are competing for who can produce the cleanest air in their airspace. “Live in Google’s airspace - optimized for breathing” - “Fly American Airlines - our air tracts are purified every week (and scented with fresh mint)”. It would be much better than what we have now.

Property Brings Prices; Prices Bring Accuracy
Determining accurate prices for air is a life or death issue - we’re talking about something that, if it is screwed up even a couple of points, we will all die. If price is not determined exactly, then the same problems that plague every other such blunder - shortages and overproduction - will occur.

We have this problem because a correct price was not determined when we had the chance. There needs to be a cost on the atmosphere and the air. If it’s too low, then people start dying from pollution and global warming (and continue to die) - at the very least we severely screw up the atmosphere. If it is too high, then we severely screw up something else, most likely new solutions to both combat this problem and thousands of others (starvation, disease, etc..) and probably the atmosphere too. Socialist elites and experts can’t cover all the bases. In fact, I can’t think of a government regulation that hasn’t been circumvented to the detriment of the goal of the original legislation. Thinking global warming will be any different is actually, literally insane.

Murry Rothbard showed why the very nature of prices makes them unable to be set by a government in the form of taxes or carbon credits:

We realize that the real world of action is one of continual change. Individual value scales, technological ideas, and the quantities of means available are always changing. These changes continually impel the economy in various directions. Value scales change, and consumer demand shifts from one good to another. Technological ideas change, and factors are used in different ways. Both types of change have differing effects on prices. Time preferences change, with certain effects on interest and capital formation. The crucial point is this: before the effects of any one change are completely worked out, other changes intervene (Man, Economy and State).

Unless the prices are determined by the actions in the market, then they aren’t actually scientific - they will always be in error. The experts are incapable of setting the prices by objective means - the best they can do is trial and error. Putting the atmosphere in the trust of such bunk is absolutely foolish and would undoubtedly hasten any catastrophe. Subjecting something as important as our atmosphere to trial and error is suicide!

Final Thoughts
That is the reason the principle must come before the articulations - the articulations must be grounded. This is basic, basic logic. All these measures that are on the table do not address their case from a principle, only pragmatics. They tinker with this and tinker with that - meanwhile doing more harm then good. That attitude may feel safe because it’s actionable, but it really is careless - the law of unintended consequences will apply. This isn’t a game - this is our planet! We can’t be without grounding in our solutions or we will cease to exist!

We must not favor action merely for it’s own sake - especially when the only scientific methodology behind it is trial and error. Rather, we can use the centuries of science in capitalism - the very fabric of natural interaction and cooperation - to save our planet from global warming.