The Libertarian Solution to Global Climate Change

By Barry Hess

Much has been said about the apparent changes in our climate, world-wide, but all that has been said has been coupled to the writer’s ‘solution’ to what they claim is a “problem” that needs to be addressed. And therein lies the real problem.

The people posing as the ‘scientific community’ are the real problem, and not surprisingly, the ‘numbers’ of scientists weighing in on the subject is almost exactly split in making opposite claims to support their particular position. Pseudo-science is making a comeback through the political realm using environmental changes only as a springboard to forward political ends.

Hopefully, there can be no argument from any sentient being that weather patterns are in an almost perplexing flux. Seasonal weather patterns have certainly changed over the span of time that data has been collected or can be reliably determined through other means.

The ‘issue’ of whether or not the climate of our planet is changing is not, or should not be in contention. There is some contention as to exactly ‘what’ is changing. We’ve been told the climate is both heating up, and cooling down, by ‘real’ scientists.

Dr. Bob Balling (a personal acquaintance), a climatologist at ASU, has spoken clearly and with reference to ‘peer’ reviewed journals in asserting that ‘global cooling’ is the effect we are experiencing. Others, spouting the same sort of ‘peer’ reviewed journals claim the effect is the opposite.

This leaves the layman scratching his/her head over whether the Earth is cooling down or heating up. Regardless of what is actually happening we (the global community of Mankind) can rest assured that ‘something’ is happening.

This debate will continue, so it remains a ‘real’ question, but it really is a moot point. Whether the Earth is cooling or heating literally doesn’t matter—if it is the result of a natural environmental cycle. If it is, human beings must necessarily adapt to the changes. That’s not a question.

The next question that should be scrutinized is really the crux of the whole ‘debate’: Have, or can human beings make a difference, in terms of Earth climate/environment changes?

This is where the debate itself heats up, and this is where the political agenda comes into play.

Sociologically, libertarians are rational, thinking individuals not generally given to the emotional scare tactics of politics, but they are practical and cautious in their considerations. They certainly cannot ascribe to the Al Gore approach of stretching proofs and sprinkling the story with fear, but they will agree that instead of allowing the issue to be used as a control mechanism over any individual’s property, it should be dealt with in a prudent and practical manner.

If a matter is in genuine contention, ‘fixing’ the problem is all a libertarian considers. Fixing blame, is left to the Republican/Democrat/socialist groups.

So, how would a libertarian ‘fix’ environmental issues? Simple, just follow the philosophy. Libertarian philosophy is centered around a very basic concept that entwines personal individual liberty to do anything they want (as long as it doesn’t harm another individual’s person, property or inherent natural Rights) with the property they own. Understanding this concept is critical.

Prudence demands that if there is a genuine contention as to a causal connection between human actions and climate change, human actions must be curbed.

Here’s where the whole ‘debate’ gets lost in politics. The socialists have historically announced their intention to use environmental concerns to further their control over the actions of individuals. They’ll say things like; “We have to stop anyone and everyone who uses the combustion engines they own”. From there the litany of demands for more laws as to what an individual can or cannot do with their property splinters into a million directions, depending on which special interest group happens to be screeching at the time, and what they think ‘you’ should ‘be allowed’ to do, i.e. government control of people’s private lives through the use of force.

The real ‘truth’ is that most of the pointy-heads (those claiming to be ‘experts’ or ‘scientists’) who chime in either have an agenda of their own, or are a front, hired by the politically-motivated to bolster their particular claims. Yes, ‘scientific’ proof of virtually anything can be bought and paid for (look up the famed anthropologist/archeologist, Dr. Leaky to find that many of his incredible ‘scientific’discoveries were faked to keep his grant funding flowing). This is also why insidious people like our novelty president can use environmental issues to pad the pockets of their friends and cohorts with nonsensical laws that allow the selling of ‘carbon credits’. Their concern is obviously not the environment or they would institute a very libertarian principle to solve the problem perceived through environmental pollution.

What is that libertarian principle that would literally solve the ‘problem’ (whether perceived or real)? Well, here it is: That no person (or artificial entity) may pollute either the atmosphere or terra firma beyond their own property line—period. No ‘carbon credits’, no more pollution of any kind. Simple, huh?

I would assume that no one can argue that stopping all ‘public’ pollution would necessarily be as much as can be done to actually ‘fix’ the pollution problem without revealing their political agenda of control over the lives of individuals.

In what the socialists say is “the real world”, stopping all air/water/ground pollution couldn’t be done because big businesses can’t function without spewing garbage into the atmosphere. They are simply and obviously wrong. While they will argue till they are blue in the face that ‘their’ solution is the only solution—they’ll still be wrong.

Would such a libertarian approach to landownership Rights work—yes, undeniably, “if” the real motive for addressing the problem of pollutants causing global warming/cooling is the future habitability of this planet. The answer is no, if the real motive is control over others through the bigger guns of government.

Would such a demand that all those who pollute the common air cease and desist their polluting ways really shut down what minor manufacturing is still left in this country? No, in fact it would most likely stimulate a whole new industry in developing ways, means or products that clean up the unhealthy pollutants before they get into the common environment. We won’t even need governmental oversight or regulation to tell them ‘how’ to clean up a smoke stack, or to make it fit an economic model.

So, the next time an ‘environmentalist’ tells you that ‘they’ have the only solution to save the planet, just ask if stopping everyone from polluting the environment would suit them.

What they don’t say in their response is what you should pay most attention to.