3 ms·

I've never seen a libertarian answer to how that philosophy would solve global climate change so I very much doubt it.

ballenf 9y ago
One answer I've heard is that libertarian policies promote fast economic development. Well-off nations and people don't want to be around pollution and can afford and demand cleaner tech. Forcing developing nations to adopt the policies of the wealthy creates an understandable tension and incentive for cheating the regs.
hutzlibu 9y ago
Well, I don't see much solutions to climate change happening now. Libertarian approach would be simply adopt to the new situation, as I realistically see many people just don't care or believe. So I would (and do) still try to act as ethical as possible and go all for green technologies, but I doubt it can be forced up on people and do much good in the end, if people are not convinced of it.
- ams6110 9y ago
  You're right that most people don't care about climate change. They may say they do, but look at behaviors. Ford is having trouble making enough $100K Lincoln Navigator SUVs, so high is the demand for them.
pmcollins 9y ago
I think that you can call yourself a libertarian and still be in favor of the state compensating for negative externalities.
Helmet 9y ago
Maybe because it's a ridiculously vague and abstruse question that presupposes a set of ideas that libertarianism, or any political philosophy for that matter, never set out to directly answer? Libertarianism is simply a political framework which we can use to see and interpret the world. It can be combined with other frameworks to help us reach even deeper levels of understand (or perhaps not). The right-libertarian could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels. A left-libertarian, maybe someone with a strong civil libertarian persuasion, could argue that the non-aggression principle is being violated by the emissions of greenhouse gasses. They would then establish an "emissions rights" framework, and perhaps a marketplace to address the issue.
- rubber_duck 9y ago
  > could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels Or ween of dependence on climate. All these green arguments start from a false premise that human interference is the only threat to the stability of our ecosystem, ignoring extinction events and natural catastrophes that we know can be as impactful as global warming (and more). Instead of being conservative and hoping for the best if we stop burning stuff we should be discussing how to deal with a more volatile climate in general.
clarkmoody 9y ago
> solve global climate change Does anyone have an answer to this question? > libertarian answer Property rights in the land, air, and water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism
- Daishiman 9y ago
  Assigning economic value to every natural resource is not only stupid, but immoral.

One answer I've heard is that libertarian policies promote fast economic development. Well-off nations and people don't want to be around pollution and can afford and demand cleaner tech. Forcing developing nations to adopt the policies of the wealthy creates an understandable tension and incentive for cheating the regs.

hutzlibu 9y ago

Well, I don't see much solutions to climate change happening now. Libertarian approach would be simply adopt to the new situation, as I realistically see many people just don't care or believe. So I would (and do) still try to act as ethical as possible and go all for green technologies, but I doubt it can be forced up on people and do much good in the end, if people are not convinced of it.

ams6110 9y ago
You're right that most people don't care about climate change. They may say they do, but look at behaviors. Ford is having trouble making enough $100K Lincoln Navigator SUVs, so high is the demand for them.

pmcollins 9y ago

I think that you can call yourself a libertarian and still be in favor of the state compensating for negative externalities.

Helmet 9y ago

Maybe because it's a ridiculously vague and abstruse question that presupposes a set of ideas that libertarianism, or any political philosophy for that matter, never set out to directly answer? Libertarianism is simply a political framework which we can use to see and interpret the world. It can be combined with other frameworks to help us reach even deeper levels of understand (or perhaps not). The right-libertarian could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels. A left-libertarian, maybe someone with a strong civil libertarian persuasion, could argue that the non-aggression principle is being violated by the emissions of greenhouse gasses. They would then establish an "emissions rights" framework, and perhaps a marketplace to address the issue.

rubber_duck 9y ago
> could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels Or ween of dependence on climate. All these green arguments start from a false premise that human interference is the only threat to the stability of our ecosystem, ignoring extinction events and natural catastrophes that we know can be as impactful as global warming (and more). Instead of being conservative and hoping for the best if we stop burning stuff we should be discussing how to deal with a more volatile climate in general.

clarkmoody 9y ago

> solve global climate change Does anyone have an answer to this question? > libertarian answer Property rights in the land, air, and water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism

Daishiman 9y ago
Assigning economic value to every natural resource is not only stupid, but immoral.