Let’s assume for the moment that global warming is in fact happening, and it is man-made. How would this be dealt with in an anarcho-capitalist or Austrian world?
There was a threat just a few days ago dealing with this if you search around.
Also this:
http://mises.org/daily/3246 was entertaining
and this:
http://mises.org/daily/2120#9 while not touching on global warming directly, will be worth a read because it will get your thinking juices going…
here’s the thread from the other day https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/global-warming-what-if/5211/32
Thanks you, my mistake for not searching first.
Assuming for a moment that AGW is not based on false premises, the libertarian solution would be simple: do nothing that violates property rights. No carbon taxes. No “cap and trade” programs. No bailouts of people who build in hurricane and flood-prone areas. No so-called “emergency relief.” No artificial barriers (borders) blocking people from moving inland to safer areas. This would provide proper incentives for people to move inland, away from areas which could be flooded by AGW-caused sealevel rises. It would also incentivize the use of levees, swamplands, forests, and other natural and manmade flood and hurricane barriers.
Moving away from those areas essentially implies a loss in wealth - so this cost has to be factored in. Would, for example, the entire country of Bangladesh being wiped out, be small enough compared to the costs of preventing global warming? Who knows, just asking a question…
Why? If global warming is an externality, the incentives would not be there
Without the intervention (and probably in spite) of the state:
-People have an incentive to live on/use “safe” land
-People have an incentive to protect their property from damage
-Entrepreneurs have an incentive to market profitable products
So:
-People won’t live in flood zones. Or it would be cheap enough that they may risk it, but the risk is theirs to bear
-People will insure or improve their property with their own dime instead of the “public”
-businesses will offer “environmentally safe” products at prices consumers will willingly pay
What about if telecomunications companies redirect an astreoid towards Earth, so that it will hit North America, because on its way it will suite well for reflecting radio signals globally.
Would your solution still be that everyone better just leave the USA because their property is soon to be annihilated by other users of “unownable public good”, such as as the trajectories of asteroids (or gas emissions in the atmosphere)?
In opposite to you, I advocate the application of property rights. Those who cause damage to other’s property, should face the responsibility of their action.
im not sure how what you wrote was a response to what krazy wrote…