This is my favorite video series on the subject. I’d suggest anyone interested watch it. (I’m of the opinion that GW is real and caused by humans, but that it doesn’t matter).
Sorry for the old bump, but lately I’ve been working in the greenhouse gas regulatory compliance field and have been pondering private property-based solutions to the AGW “problem”. Though I’m not particularly well-versed on the scientific nuances of the debate, I am nevertheless extremely skeptical of AGW paranoia and to me it seems likely that the climate impact of greenhouse gas emissions is negligible.
However, just for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that AGW is real and that CO2 emissions do in fact cause global temperature to increase. Is a property owner whose land has been demonstrably (I realize this would in most cases be difficult to prove) damaged or otherwise adversely affected by this temperature increase entitled, in principle, to any compensation from the polluters?
Since the atmosphere where the GHGs are deposited is, for the most part, unowned and unlikely to be homesteaded in the near future, there are no property owners up there to be damaged, so this is a much different case than air or water pollution where private property is directly affected by the physical presence of the pollutants. But when the property owner on the ground homesteads his land, does he also homestead the exit point for heat (upwards)? If we think about water, I think most here would agree that if a downstream property owner erects a dam on his property and inundates his upstream neighbor under an artificial lake, this would constitute aggression. Would the emission of a GHG greenhouse over someone’s land, blocking the natural exit of heat, be a difference in kind or only degree?
Of course, assigning responsibility for the emissions would be a nightmare. Since it’s a “global” phenomenon, conceivably everyone on Earth who burned any fuel (or even breathed!) could be considered an aggressor in the matter. Would compensation even be possible without some sort of insidious global carbon tax? Obviously, even if AGW were a real threat, practical concerns like these would make enforcement under property law extremely difficult, and maybe not even worth the trouble. But, conceding that, could the emission of GHGs into an unowned atmosphere ever, even if only in principle, constitute aggression against the property of others?
Potholer is great.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Consensus.htm
I love this link. It even has quotes from current warming alarmists worrying about cooling.
Also here’s a great lecture by Richard Lindzen of MIT.## And another.
Global warming, Ice Ages, Reversing Polar Caps, Magnetic Field Reversals, Giant Astroids, YES, they are coming, they have been here before, and if the human species is so long-lived (which we don’t act like we’re meant to be), we might enjoy at least in those moments an actual TRUTH. Bless them, everyone, the dinasaurs managed not to eat each other out of existence before their great extinction, what ever the cause. I can only say, I’d be so thrilled to live to see the Apocolypse.
In final address to the endless research submitted with arguments by all individuals concerned, let me say, the experts in science once believed the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, and the Greeks thought a dog swallowed the moon, from time to time. There are no Bruce Willis’, who will drill holes in astroids. there are no heros who will zap perfect storms. There will be nothing to prevent any of the global threats to humanity that we so aggressively debate solutions.
Instread there should be volumes for us to read regarding SURVIVING some or most of these possible events. Where’s a good place to move to in the event of an Ice Age? What about surviving excessive heat? Can we build cities beneath the seas? Could we replenish the seas with fish after a radio active event proved deadly? Can the magnetic field be stabilized? Can a nuclear blast move the Earth back to its previous tilt??? If not, can we build individual shelters which could provide the necessary magnetic field to protect us and preserve some atmosphere in the event of a solar wind invasion.
Most modern people don’t believe in any of this..Not the Apocolypse…not global warming.. not the prevention of any of these events, for that matter. The heated debates among those interested, or just amused at exchanging proof of wit, is evidenced here in these sites where mostly its “can happens” against the “can’ts”. And best of luck to both sides who joust on paper horses.