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.