All the recent tooing and froing on libertarianism, free market capitalism, the defence of Rand Paul and the big oil spill in the gulf has raised an interesing contradiction.
I’m seeing a lot of proponents of libertarian economic theory raise their hands in defense of Rand Paul. Lots of “if a company pollutes, they should be made to make full restitution” and if “a company does you harm they will pay” etc. Most of these types of comments have come about in defense of libertatian idealogy as it relates to the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf and the damage that is causing. No need for regulation, let the market punish BP.
What has me a little confused is that the people who maintain that private industry should pay to clean up our oceans when they pollute tham, don’t have a problem with tose very same industries polluting the very air that we breathe and not paying a price. They are the same people who oppose cap and trade (a free market approach) or a carbon tax (big government approach). They seem just fiine with energy companies and others pumpiing pollutants by the ton into our air every day, causing untold damage to the environment and public health, without any sanction.
Can any among you explain this contradiction or conflict? either the polluters pay or they don’t. Either you’re for cap and trade or you’re not. Why don’t you want the market to punish those who pollute the air we breathe?
If so, using your logic, you are the problem. Hell, using your logic we should nuke Iceland because the freaking volcano is spewing enormous amounts of polution…
And really, surely you are smarter than this…do you think either cap/trade or carbon tax is going to reduce polution? Really?
**They seem just fiine with energy companies and others pumpiing pollutants by the ton into our air every day, causing untold damage to the environment and public health, without any sanction. **
That’s an exaggeration, at least for the U.S. Companies are highly regulated in what they can emit. Coal plants, for example, are no longer allowed to emit much except CO2 and coal slag. And the slag has to be properly stored.
I think the U.S. has done well to regulated pollutants with obvious local effects. I.e. sulfur dioxide which causes acid rain, or dioxins in the water table.
CO2 is the exception. The problem with CO2 is that it a) has effects which are non-monitorable by the public, and b) has global effects. A) means that we have to trust scientists to tell us what’s going on. Which we love scientists when they give us iPhones, Viagra, and PowerTaps, but bad news and we go after them with pitchforks. It’s also not like rain eating through your roofing tile or dead fish littering a stream. b) means that if you regulated the U.S. you’ve just put your domestic industry at a large(er) competitive disadvantage to the rest of the world. Hence a global solution is needed, which, if we can’t even reach a consensus in the U.S., good luck with that.
I would argue, though, that Big Government solutions to the above local pollution problems have been extremely effective. Heard about acid rain lately? No? Thank the government regulators. How about the ozone layer? No? Regulators.
I’m going to jot this down and check back with you in 20 years. When I’m locked down in my elitist bunker with all the other elitists I’ll be chuckling over smug little jokes about the CO2 deniers back in 2010, and scoffing as you frantically try to fend off the lapping waves from your garden with sand bags.
