I have been given the following question to do as an essay:
Why are pollution problems often best understood as externalities? Can we rely on private agents to negotiate them away? If not, what should the government do about pollution problems?
I am familiar with the Austrian approach.
In most situations, it is an issue of defining property rights, or of a tort.
However in a situations with many polluting agents, many of these agents contributing only a neglible amount, and the collective result conclusively (with a clear causal link) being negative (infringing on the rights of many others agents), what practical solution would you offer?
I cannot see how one could define property rights over the air of London, without operating some form of collective cap and trade scheme (with all its flaws).
A tort solution to air pollution would be much harder to achieve than with a simple case of somebody pumping gases into your house.
Move if you don’t like the air quality. The market also provides air/water filters for your home/car as well. In fact, the government does such a piss poor job of cleaning water, that people have to get private sector water filters!
Also, as stated here. the pollution you are describing is pretty much attributed to everyone. And generally speak, air quality is worst where there are the most people. Which is why I said to move if you don’t like the air quality.
I think your solutions is a bit simplistic. If there is a violation of my property, saying I should move is insufficient. If somebody were to dump their rubbish on my front lawn, then they have infringed on my property right, and there is a clear tort. You wouldn’t just tell me to move.
and what if there is air pollution everywhere?
The Austrian approach is to define property rights, enforce them as best as possible, and to resort to tort , not just to tell people who have had their property rights infringed to move.
It is not so much a problem of being air pollution, some level may be fine, and a lot may be fine, it is the fact that my grievance is not being treated to, and the interpersonal conflict is one sided. Some form of compensation seem appropriate.
If the government infringes your rights by taxing you, if you haven’t consented to government authority… why don’t you just bugger off? … see the problem?
That is because the problem is simplistic. In your example of someone dumping garbage on your lawn, it is clearly known who the culprit is. The problem of air pollution is a problem of population, not of one person. You might say that energy companies are major polluters, but if they really are, then people will move away and they will lose business. So it is in their best interest to pollute as little as is economically possible. But there really is no tort claim to be made against them. Because pretty much everyone pollutes. And pretty much everyone uses energy.
I would have a section where I point out all of the pollution government has created. I would specifically look at communist China and Soviet Union for examples of how the government ruined lakes, rivers, agricultural lands, etc. I would also point out pollution created by the USA government, specifically nuclear fallout pollution, such nuclear test sites, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, as well as depleted uranium in the Middle east left there by the USA military.
And the answer as to what government can do to reduce pollution: I would compromise and say that if the government enforced private property rights, then factories wouldn’t be able to pollute the private property of other people.
Yeah, that too. Those tanks use about 30 gallons a mile. Fighter use burn up a gallon a second. Hummer are probably the most efficient at 6 miles per gallon. (I’m throwing out numbers here.)
iidk… bashing actual governments is like shooting fish in a barrel. A smart statist will admit that modern states have failed but that they want to create a super utopia where government does good things. They can simply counter “so some governments pollute, but the ideal government does the opposite”.
I think you should focus on why states shouldn’t be trusted with environmental protection because of inherent institutional problems. Everyone knows that russia was a crappy government… but they still dream of command economies. You gotta kill all the birds with one stone.
I advocate a free market solution. However the free market (the millions of individuals that comprise it) decides to address the problem, if indeed it is a problem, then I’m all for it. Non-free market approaches will fail due to the problem of calculation.
Is it really true that pollution problems are best understood as externalities? There seems to be an assumption that the buyer and seller have not considered the other costs/benefits to the exchange. Wouldn’t the production of pollution be beneficial to another who specializes in it’s cleanup or prevention? And since there would be a benefit, wouldn’t the corresponding market response be to produce less pollution? Externalities seem to be a principle that’s loaded towards State intervention, however it would seem solutions could most effectively come from additional free market exchange.