Climate change and private property rights

Eliot Rosewater

I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion about this, if at all possible, as it's been something that's been mulling through my head for a few weeks.

Typically, solutions to the climate change problem (we assume here that it is true) are seen as infringements of strict private property rights. Typically such solutions involve regulation and taxes. I think it's gotten to a stage where there is a general feeling that private property rights and governmental climate change solutions are irreconcilable.

So - is it possible to develop a convincing and workable theory in which the climate change problem can be addressed within the framework of private property rights?


Here are my thoughts. The world, as I see it, is the sum total of its parts, which is, by and large, property owned by people. When someone pollutes the atmosphere they don't just pollute this legally hazy notion of the shared earth; they pollute the component parts of the world which are private property.

When person A drives past person B's garden, the car releases C02 which has a negative effect on the fuana in that garden and the general environment in the locale. The difference in this phrasing of the climate change problem is that it's no longer abstract actors affecting an abstract entity: here we have a direct causer and a direct "victim". We can then ask: is person B entitled to compensation from person A for the pollution?

Suppose the answer is yes. Given that the number of pairs of people in the world (and thus the number of compensation claims that could arise) is about the population squared (about twenty five thousand billion in Ireland's case alone) and that it is hard to prove cause and effect given the pooling of pollution, one can reasonably argue that it's not practicable for people to take compensation claims against other people personally. So could one argue that the government should enforce those pollution based compensation claims on citizens' behalf?

If so, then it is natural that a) the government would charge full green taxes to compensate the "victims" of pollution and that b) the government would not pass on the taxes but rather use the money to undo the pollution. So here, within a private property framework, we have possible developed a morally sound basis for green taxes and government intervention in pollution matters.

Discuss!

karma_

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

When person A drives past person B's garden, the car releases C02 which has a negative effect on the fuana in that garden and the general environment in the locale. The difference in this phrasing of the climate change problem is that it's no longer abstract actors affecting an abstract entity: here we have a direct causer and a direct "victim". We can then ask: is person B entitled to compensation from person A for the pollution?

/Puts on pedant hat.

CO2 or Carbon Dioxide contributes to plant growth as part of the process of photosynthesis. So perhaps the Driver should be charging the occupant!

(sorry...)

Eliot Rosewater

Okay, so suppose person B is driving past a forest...

Perhaps I was trying to bring it too close to home. Put simpler, according to the experts carbon dioxide has a negative affect on our planet. Therefore it has a negative impact on each component of the earth, namely private property owned by people. Therefore, etc.

RichieC

karma_ wrote: »

/Puts on pedant hat.

CO2 or Carbon Dioxide contributes to plant growth as part of the process of photosynthesis. So perhaps the Driver should be charging the occupant!

(sorry...)

Indeed, but carbon monoxide poisons them. ever see the leaves on a tree close to a busy road? the black mottling is due to carbon monoxide and other poisons in the car exhausts.

mathepac

I'm not sure what experts you're listening to, but methane from the vast cattle ranches needed to satisfy our increasing need for meat is far more damaging than carbon dioxide.

The earth's climate has changed many times in the past, even before humans inhabited the planet and all the nut-case legislation in the universe could not have stopped it. Maybe the rate of change has changed but climate change is the status quo.

Eliot Rosewater

In fairness, this is pretty much irrelevant. My point is to discuss private property based climate change solutions *under the assumption that climate change is happening*. I think discussions of whether it is or not, or what form it takes, are not relevant to the political theory basis.

AhSureTisGrand

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Suppose the answer is yes. Given that the number of pairs of people in the world (and thus the number of compensation claims that could arise) is about the population squared (about twenty five thousand billion in Ireland's case alone) and that it is hard to prove cause and effect given the pooling of pollution, one can reasonably argue that it's not practicable for people to take compensation claims against other people personally.

What might happen is somebody would take somebody else to court for driving their car past his house and get a massive payout. Then the floodgates would open. To avoid being sued, most people would have to give up their cars and a host of other things.

Needless to say, that would be chaotic and could lead to the end of civilisation.

But if we ever reach a stage where pollution is rare, perhaps it could then be handled on a case by case basis