/liberty/ - Liberty

>>15158

Property rights.

>>15159

More or less this. Property Rights and Common Law would have prevented pollution from ever being an issue.

There's a famous common law case in America where a judge ordered an entire factory to be shut down until it fixed its pollution problem after the farmer got a cheap test from one of his science showing that the single dead cow died because of the factory's pollution.

One of the responsibilities of owning property is to also own responsibility over your property's actions. This is why they go after you if your pet hurts someone, and why you can't just fly a pesticide plane over your house.

But ignoring that, the question of climate change is irrelevant since the only real viable solution is to keep other countries in abject poverty and hellfire missile them when they dare to industrialize. This is why first workers are actually raising huge amounts of capital for them- they're sealing the deal so there's no excuses when they bomb them/go after them for making mistakes.

>>15166

First worlders* fuck this new phone is worse than the old one.

>>15165

>>15159

sounds incredibly unrealistic

so I can sue an SUV for polluting co2 near my house? What?

>>15179

>So I can sue an SUV for polluting co2 near my house?

A volcano shits out more CO2 than most humans do. That aside, theoretically if you could show harm to your property due to the makers of the SUV's pollution, then yes, you could theoretically "sue" them.

You can call it what you will, it's how things were done for years and it worked perfectly fine prior to the foreign takeover of our legal system. It's more realistic than 90% of the regulations in place.

If you want solutions to climate issues from a Libertarian perspective, talk to PERC. http://www.perc.org/

The solution is sending them Stefan Molyneux videos

>>15185

Thanks, that comment really got me thinking. ( ° ʖ °)

Why should we care? The rich can easily survive, and the poor deserves to die.

>>15166

>This is why first workers are actually raising huge amounts of capital for them- they're sealing the deal so there's no excuses when they bomb them/go after them for making mistakes.

What?

>>15206

/pol/ or /leftypol/ shitting the place up with what they THINK libertarianism is.

>>15182

Thanks for the link bro.

>>15158

The climate changes. Why is that a problem? Why does there need to be a solution?

Also property rights. People take better care of things when they own them.

If you're worried about man's atmospheric emissions, look at the biggest offenders. I think you'll find national militaries produce more emissions than anyone else, and libertarians aren't big fans of large militaries or worldwide deployment.

>>15232

>The climate changes. Why is that a problem? Why does there need to be a solution?

Because the result of the climate changing is going to be a REALLY fucking expensive problem.

>If you're worried about man's atmospheric emissions, look at the biggest offenders. I think you'll find national militaries produce more emissions than anyone else, and libertarians aren't big fans of large militaries or worldwide deployment.

Exactly. I think a lot of environmental policy, at least in a climate change focus, is misguided.

Why bother with regulating automobiles extremely tightly when the 15 largest ships in the world allegedly pollute more than every single car in the world?

Why is energy independence not priority #1 for environmental policy, even if that means more coal plants to cover the gap?

Can you imagine how much the US government would save if they didn't have to worry about protecting thier oil interests in the middle east?

Why is a runaway greenhouse effect widely considered an existential threat, but nuclear power is somehow unthinkable and hated by all "environmentalists"?

I'd imagine most of these could be answered by one word: Lobbying.

>>15233

It doesn't become an expensive problem until 2070

Until then it actually becomes better as warmer climates/more CO2 = more wildlife, lower heating bills, more fish, easier farming/higher crop yields, etc.

If climate change was an actual problem the free market would fix it.

>>15277

Kek

>>15278

uhhh it actually would, retard

Remove the moratorium on nuclear and solar power plants

>>15330

>Moratorium

>Solar

top kek.

I live in an area that gets about 3x the solar radiation of people at sea level, so solar works where I'm at, but solar has been getting subsidies and all sorts of funding to get built for years now.

The issue is that the pollution costs of producing a large enough and/or a large enough quantity solar panels to power most places outside of ranches and select day-time factories (like breweries) is so high that it barely negates the pollution it prevents- in some cases it has a negative effect because companies will turn on the gas generators which burn less cleanly in a few hours than coal generators do in the course of a day given current cleaning methods.

There's a Libertarian/Conservatarian research group/think tank that focuses on solar and wind energy in the United States (not PERC)… I can't remember their name off the top of my head, but I met them at the Independent Institute.

>>15347

Turn on gas generators during peak hours when Solar isn't efficient or during cloudy days* is what I meant to say.

Batteries are not a solution, though if you're willing to donate about 100-500 billion towards Chinese-USA graphene supercapacitor aerogel research, it could potentially be used on a large enough scale to solve most electronic consumption issues to reduce the need for such huge generators.

>>15232

But nobody owns the whole Earth, so we're gonna need to create a one world government and tax everybody :^)

>find the shit that pollutes

>replace it with shit that does not pollute

holy shit fam that was so fucking difficult give me my nobel prize!!

of course it wont happen because capitalists care about profits only: see the electric car

>>15424

>le single comtext example

try harder

>>15470

>if i use the word le and follow it with something it will make his post seem retarded somehow

>>15233

> when the 15 largest ships in the world allegedly pollute more than every single car in the world?

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-in-the-world-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars

lel try again

>>15239

>more fish

>what is ocean acidification

>what is oxygen solubility

>why are all the coral reefs dying

try again

>>15470

>dindu nuffin!

>>15515

>he thought that post would've been less retarded if the le had been missing

>>15158

Climate change is real, but it isn't man made.

Regardless, however, pollution is still an issue.

In my opinion it falls into what >>15159 said, along side liability. See, I still say, company gives you a product what explodes in your face, you should be able to sue them for it. Pollution, I say, falls into the same boat.

>>15588

>Climate change is real, but it isn't man made.

op said no denial

>>15717

yeah and money grows on trees

Privatize the atmosphere.

>>15721

Actually bankers just make it up

>>15761

Maybe global warming was deliberately caused by the capitalists so they can flood the Earth and sell air.

>>15783

wat

>>15724

no.

>>15792

lol

To let it happen

>>15424

*Statist capitalists.

Personally, I take no issue with electric cars becoming the norm.

>>15517

Things that have a lot to do with more than just ocean temperatures.

>>15855

What you take issue with has nothing to do with the most competitive means of transportation which sure as hell ain't electric cars.

>>15855

that's wrong

capitalism literally means caring only about profit

any other benefit is just a side-effect

maximizing profit is the only goal

The overall effects of climate change won't be all that bad. IPCC says it has nothing to do with extreme weather. Just that the oceans will rise 3 feet in the next 100 years and that the average temperature will increase by 3 degrees. A lot of land will become habitable due to the warming effects, namely all over russia. Hell it might even be a net positive.

So pretty much do nothing

>>15906

this.

I'll be waiting with my gold to buy new land that just resurfaced from the ocean

Hopefully the arab subcontinent tilts and drowns

>>15885

no.

>>15761

>nevermind the fact that we are charging for the work and equipment needed to store air in tanks, we are totally charging for the air alone

this is why you dont engage in reductionism kids

>>15927

You realize that air in air tanks has been specially processed/cooled to remove impurities, right?

This process is how you get liquid nitrogen to fuck around with as well.

>>15906

I guess 99% of life getting eradicated because of ocean acidification means nothing when you are living in the American suburbs

>>15913

Yes. This is literally what capitalism is.

>>15953

lol get rekt faggot

>>15918

I want this.

>>15928

>imblying people who can think are religious

>>15980

well said

>>15158

turns out that next gen nuclear is like 2cents/kWh

libertarian solution in lieu of reasonable regulation: technology

everything else like acid rain etc falls under property rights

and as other anons have said, theoretically, you are entitled to damages if you can prove x activity has done them

>>15167

get a 20$ bluetooth keyboard from amazon

Carbon tax would be the best solution but I guess tort law could work

Carbon offsets and common law. If global warming damages your property or person, you can sue. In practice you would sue the largest emitters and then have them mandated to go after smaller ones. Of course, if an entity (individual or company) can offset its own emissions through iron fertilization or some other carbon capture mechanism, then it cannot be said to be harming you through global warming. Perhaps all emitters could set up a charitable fund to nudge ferous metiorites into the ocean. The only thing restricting algeal growth is lack of iron in the water; as soon as the metiorite hits, algea uptake an immense amount of carbon, trapping it in sediment on the ocean floor. There is some historical evidence that this would work- there was a ferous metiorite that landed in the South Pacific immediately before an ice age 20,000 years ago.

That said, current world temperatures are still below those of the mideval warm period, when grapes from the French riviera could be grown in England. The mideval warm period was quite peaceful and posperous; only after wineries begin openning up in England will I be concerned.

Carbon offsets and common law. If global warming damages your property or person, you can sue. In practice you would sue the largest emitters and then have them mandated to go after smaller ones. Of course, if an entity (individual or company) can offset its own emissions through iron fertilization or some other carbon capture mechanism, then it cannot be said to be harming you through global warming. Perhaps all emitters could set up a charitable fund to nudge ferous metiorites into the ocean. The only thing restricting algeal growth is lack of iron in the water; as soon as the metiorite hits, algea uptake an immense amount of carbon, trapping it in sediment on the ocean floor. There is some historical evidence that this would work- there was a ferous metiorite that landed in the South Pacific immediately before an ice age 20,000 years ago.

That said, current world temperatures are still below those of the mideval warm period, when grapes from the French riviera could be grown in England. The mideval warm period was quite peaceful and posperous; only after wineries begin openning up in England will I be concerned.

>>15158

cap-and-trade (or some variant thereof) is not particularly anti-libertarian, at least compared to government subsidies of "green" tech.

Global warming is bad news not just for libertarians, but also for international diplomacy and world peace,because we'd have to reach a bare-minimum of worldwide consensus about complex large scale cause-effect relationships, max safe amount of CO2 per year, natural vs man-made disasters and so on. OTOH, globalists, particularly Trotskyites (world-government commies) love the idea, because it's the perfect excuse for totalitarian world government. That's also a reason why libertarians are skeptic of sensationalist claims in MSM.

Climate change is not at all a rebuttal of libertarianism. We do have libertarian ways to address the alleged problem, we are just not ecstatic about it, like globalists are.

>>15165

This. Plus,

>As fossil fuels become more sparse, it will become increasingly expensive to acquire them

>Technology will advance, making renewable energy sources less expensive and more efficient over time

>Eventually, it will become more profitable for the oil companies of today to become renewable energy companies of tomorrow

So the pollution thing will be largely fixed within the next century or two by market forces alone.