Market prices could and should be used to allocate any
scarce good. If producers predict increasing scarcity of fossil fuels, the
price will rise. The rising price will draw more resources into that line of
production. The increase in activity will exploit new ways of finding and
extracting currently infeasible stores of oil. We will all be better off.
Pollution and climate change should be dealt with via
property rights. Before the days of the “public interest” (which really means
government interest) individuals were able to get injunctions against
businesses who polluted their own property. Measurably affecting my property is
trespassing. Any “bad” climate change is a result of two government problems:
- The lack of private property (Who owns the air, the water and the skies?)
- The failure of government to protect existing private property.
Finally, not all climate change is necessarily “bad,” let
alone devastating. Some animal species might die off, but others might come into
existence. Previously uninhabitable land maybe become fertile. For the “bad”
things that government-controlled climate supporters predict, human beings are
highly adaptable creatures. For the particular case of rising sea levels, maybe we ought to think about how FEMA encourages waterfront housing through its
insurance program, whereas private insurance premiums would be so high as to
discourage it.
Supporters of a state-controlled climate take the staunchly anti-human view that increased
energy consumption is a bad thing. To the contrary, increased energy
consumption is a result of the vastly higher global standard of living. To use government
force to reduce it is to encourage mass starvation, sickness, and death.
No comments:
Post a Comment