Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 2

[OrganicTory]

Is Professor Block proposing a form of 'cap-and-trade' with his recommendation that capitalists buy pollution credits, and that the more successful entrepreneurs will be producing more per credit, with less successful businesses unable to compete for the limited pollution credits?

This appears to be the case, but cap-and-trade has received such opprobrium that I'm a bit hesitant to equate Block's proposal with c-&-t.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

The problem with his argument (and I'm surprised he is even making it) is that the decision making process to determine the "scientifically correct" amount of pollution will absolutely be corrupted. In fact, it has been (see Climategate). I wonder if he would advocate carbon trading schemes today. In fact, this part of his argument is NOT rooted in property rights at all.

[sdcair]

i love how the interview gets convinced, haha!

[madscirat]

I am luvin this guy, great post. His point about the forest land was illuminating. I used to work in public forests and I always wondered why they were clearcut so badly and so frequently.

[Hashishin13]

This interviewer seems a little empty headed.

[Stormwern]

Good points apart from the flub on "breathing pollution"

[JETZcorp]

Well, the amount of CO2 the human population breathes is about 9% of the amount released by humans through other means. Of those "other means," cars make up 22%. So clearly, breathing isn't as bad as traffic, but it's not a trivial amount of CO2.

Now of course, the carbon that one breathes had to be taken out of the atmosphere by some plant or animal which you then ate, which makes breathing carbon-neutral, unlike cars.

Algae-based fuel would put the cars on par with breathing in this way.

[bimmjim]

Search "love canal" to see what Hooker Chemical did to its land. Why did the executives at Hooker not behave as Block says they should or would? It's because Block is wrong and there are many more examples.

[stealthswimmer]

on wikipedia it says that the city allowed stuff to be built over that land. So in the case of the chemical company, they probably figured they had to put the waste somewhere....

anyways, i barely started reading, but looks like

a) the chemical company didn't say they had dumped waste there when they sold the land (that's fraud and there's supposed to be legal action against that)

or

b) the city DID know about the waste and figured they should build there anyways without letting people know

[StrafingMoose]

That doesn't make Block wrong. He's not saying such a private property system will PREVENT ANY such occurence, but rather set the incentives to not do such things.

[11mc22]

bimmjim

no Hooker chemical warned the government not the build the school there. Hooker made sure that their pollution did not end up on anyone else's property however the government used Eminent Domain and took that land to build a school.

In the end the company was the one to take the blame but most environmentalists use the love canal tragedy to justify more government involvement

[bimmjim]

Hooker, being a chemical company should have known the dangers.

I worked in various industries doing materials science so I was either regulating or being regulated. I know the reality of regulation whether it is environmental, product safety or worker safety. Although I am now retired I continue to do this type of work for free. Check out the link on my youtube page.

In capitalism there is the concept of competition on a level playing field. The field is made of taxes and regulation.

[11mc22]

Hooker DID know the dangers

in fact they WARNED the government not to build to school there

It was the government that used Eminent Domain and built that school there even though Hooker tried to avoid this happening

[DarthKazi]

Look what happened to Hooker.

Obviously, any suggestion to a problem isn't perfect and there are always exceptions and bad apples.

If Block is wrong, why don't you propose a solution, instead of spouting indignation. Do you think more "Big Brother" tax-payer "solutions" are the answer?

[11mc22]

I find it strange how many people think that government is the solution to government problems.

The thing is, Government is the biggest polluters in the world! They subsidize projects that would otherwise be unprofitable such as constantly buying new property for logging or mining.

Liberals then say it is the free market thats the problem and somehow putting forth more regulation and wasting more tax payer's money is the solution.

[DarthKazi]

Well, if Hooker Chemical was still around and making profits, etc... "bimmjim" might have a point. But when companies engage in bad practices or do wasteful, inefficient things, they fail. Sure, damage was done, but it's not wholly indicative of markets and private owned projects.

But when government wastes and engages in market manipulation, it still stays in business because the coins and paper say, "In God We Trust".

Apparently, "The State" is only answerable to "God".

*sigh*

[milfrie]

Very interesting video.. my husband is a scientist in agricultural ecology and found this insightful since we are conservative/libertarians.

[bimmjim]

There is at least one problem with his little theory on air polution. It is all based on the science and the science is corrupt and corruptable. I did that kind of science for a living and now I do it for free. This is how I know. Please go to the hot link under my avatar on my u-tube page. Read the captions.

If you require any more proof just contact me.

[McOath]

wait free market doesn't mean those with more moeny making more money, that seems to be how it's always worked. Also all the stuff about cows, cows and dairy/steak farming are some of the biggest polluters in the world that's the industry destroying the Amazon, just because cows aren't close to being extinct doesn't mean the enviroment has won by letting people own them.

[r3dredwine]

To bad you didn't listen to anything he's saying about buying pollution rights and privatizing waste companies. Besides if they pollute or affect my land in anyway, I will sue and own the the greenest dairy/steak farm in the world :)

[ithinkronpaulissmart]

That joke was terrible.

[StrafingMoose]

Haha, I like Block but indeed, awful joke.

[bimmjim]

Google "CASSE" to learn how we must change our economic systems.

[bimmjim]

This guy is full of crap. If you read the history of english law you will learn why the law of the commons was invented. In those days if a person had a creek running past their property, they would put a net across the creek and catch all the salmon, leaving none for anybody else or for the future.

Also people would dump garbage or industrial waste into a creek there by poluting it for all down stream users. Regulation works. I've done it for a living.

Politicians should reject lobyists

[passerby23]

Uh oh, we've got a government bureaucrat in the house defending the great deed of regulation! People use creeks, rivers, and lakes for garbage bins when they are collectively owned, not privately owned. Why? Because nobody is going to do anything about it. Worse case scenario, you pay a small fine. Plus, someone who owns a creek would probably own the whole thing, i.e. plenty of salmon to go around. A lawsuit or an injunction would be filed against the salmon catcher and it would be squashed.

[rayyf69]

Politicians should not reject lobbyists it's in their best interest to gain campaign contributions. This is why your ideological system breaks down. It relies on the beneficence of a small group of people to work. People are not angels.

[kulza23]

I'm just discovering Walter Block, and he seems to have some brilliant insights! He also has current articles at Lew Rockwell's site.

Thanks for uploading!