Does private property extend to the air?

In discussions of reducing environmental damage, property rights (to schools of fish, rivers etc) invariably come up as the best response, but any discussion that moves onto the air immediately dies. Can the air be incorporated into this idea, or is it best left as a free, unowned resource? It may seem a ridiculous question, as there appears to be no clear way of “homesteading” air; moreover it seems incomprehensible to suggest that people could in some way defend “their air” (feel free to correct me if I am wrong here). I reject the “power-of-life-and-death” argument as confusing causality, just as the argument that employees are effectively slaves because they need the money is fallacious, however the main problem for me is: how can air pollution be incorporated into marginalist theory if there is no control of “air property”?

I am not arguing for a state-led solution, nor am I an “environmentalist”, although I do love the world I live in. I am just wondering if there is a libertarian solution that I have not thought of, or if there should not be a solution at all.

Extending private property rights to air is no different than changing a two-dimensional claim into a three-dimensional claim. For instance, we commonly denote our land claims by identifying it on a flat map and everybody assumes that you can walk or dig on that land. We assume a claim to a third dimension.

The ability to “homestead” air (or anything, for that matter) is limited by technology. If you can physically contain air – for example, build an enormous sealed bubble or aquarium – go ahead and protect it from invaders. However, if you want to homestead a three-dimensional space in air – in other words, you do not care about whether the air molecules flow in and out of the space – go ahead and again, you have to protect it from invaders or pollution.

If you want to claim damages arising from a neighboring polluter, the problem is really no different than any old two-dimensional property dispute. However, you will have the technical problem of proving your case. So the real interesting question is How do you prove your case?