Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 2

Walter Block at the Fraser Institute explaining the relationship between free market economics and environmentalism.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Environmentalism
• environment
• Walter
• Block
• Ron
• Paul
• libertarianism
• free
• market
• global
• warming
• pollution
• green

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Hashishin13]

This interviewer seems a little empty headed.

[Stormwern]

Good points apart from the flub on "breathing pollution"

[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*

[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]

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?