Daily Anarchist Forum
April 15, 2014, 11:38:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Climate change  (Read 1876 times)
Alricaus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72



View Profile
« on: December 05, 2011, 06:00:32 PM »

I know that a lot of people doubt about climate change. Others believe in climate change but donít attribute it to humans, while others only doubt of the consequence of it for humans beings. I donít want to start a debate on it here; I let people believe what they want.

My question is more theoretical and hypothetic. I was wondering how anarcho-capitalists will deal with climate change (if we find that there is effectively a climate change). Is any theory on how to handle the problem (again if there is a climate change)?

Thanks
Logged
Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2011, 06:30:43 PM »

I know that a lot of people doubt about climate change. Others believe in climate change but donít attribute it to humans, while others only doubt of the consequence of it for humans beings. I donít want to start a debate on it here; I let people believe what they want.

My question is more theoretical and hypothetic. I was wondering how anarcho-capitalists will deal with climate change (if we find that there is effectively a climate change). Is any theory on how to handle the problem (again if there is a climate change)?

Thanks


Pollution is a violation of property rights. Pollution makes land less valuable. If all land is privately owned and no ones really wants to devalue their own property or pay fines for polluting someone else's.

Oceans are a bigger issue because it is much harder to homestead and privately own them. I think it mostly comes down to costumers demand and social ostracism.

If companies are polluting the oceans, and costumers don't want them polluting the ocean, they could demand they stop it or they boycott the company.

One could also set up a worldwide network of people that seek to limit pollution. people or companies that break the rules that they set would be blacklisted and the people who are part of the network promise to completely ostracize any polluters.
Logged
Alricaus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2011, 06:55:13 PM »

Quote
Pollution is a violation of property rights. Pollution makes land less valuable. If all land is privately owned and no ones really wants to devalue their own property or pay fines for polluting someone else's.

Oceans are a bigger issue because it is much harder to homestead and privately own them. I think it mostly comes down to costumers demand and social ostracism.

If companies are polluting the oceans, and costumers don't want them polluting the ocean, they could demand they stop it or they boycott the company.

One could also set up a worldwide network of people that seek to limit pollution. people or companies that break the rules that they set would be blacklisted and the people who are part of the network promise to completely ostracize any polluters.

Interesting. I didnít that itíll considering a violation of property right.

I suppose we can assume that the persons who believe in climate change will buy product made in a greener way, increasing the development of new Ďgreení technology. I read a text that talk about how free market can, in fact, help the environmental situation in two ways:


1-   Developing new technology (and technic)
2-   ĎGagingí the price

For example, if we all buy a product and that it becomes uncommon, the price will augment, reducing the demand of that product. 
Logged
Syock
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2192



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2011, 03:59:26 PM »

There are currently some places in the US where people or companies can own parts of a ocean.  It was used very well by Virgina at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay to deal with overfishing issues they were having.  The private ownership encouraged them to protect the wildlife in the water they owned in order to maximize profits. 

If someone were to pollute that I have no doubt there would be lawsuits to deal with.   

If you look at other places where it is a free for all over whats considered a common resource, wildlife populations tend to plummet and food prices rise.  I wouldn't doubt that there would be companies happy to protect other parts of the ocean to harvest other animals to bring to market.  It would also bring much lower risk than what the fishing industry deals with now.
Logged

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant".
RJ Miller
Full Member
***
Posts: 159


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2012, 04:26:30 AM »

Speaking of homesteading and oceans, I just recently purchased a pretty worthwhile book on the subject entitled, "The Privatization of Oceans."

I will have to finish it before I make a new topic on oceanic homesteading but it looks like this book is definitely underrated.
Logged

stateexempt.com - The book should be done by early 2015

Privatize + Legalize + Decentralize
kunkmiester
Full Member
***
Posts: 165



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2012, 08:03:23 PM »

We see a trend already with people trying to develop new technologies that are efficient and/or alternative enough to avoid CO2.  This would be in place in an anarchist society--someone wants to save the whales, they'll either start a charity, and/or invent something to eliminate the need for the whales.
Logged

Evil is evil, no matter how small.
Daitokuji
Newbie
*
Posts: 9


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2012, 09:50:37 AM »

I believe that the question of climate change is no different than the question of religion when it comes to a free market.  Interest of the customers determines the direction of corporate decisions.  I saw a clear example of this recently. A glass door beverage machine at my work had a sticker on the front of it indicating that it used a streamlined energy source that was better for the environment.  This sticker was not placed as required by a government but because the environment is important to some people and the manufacturer wanted to advertise using this avenue.

Market demand will always drive innovations that function far better than any government requirement would.  I believe that the first thing a company does when a government demands that their product be more environmentally friendly is ask for government money to make this change since the market isn't making up the costs.  The second thing they will do is find a way to make the product adjustment as cheaply and quickly as possible.  The reason for this is that the government that funded this change will not usually be buying the end product.  When the market makes this request, the first thing a company would do is invest their own money hoping for a successful ROI.  Then, they would need to not only create the solution but find a way to make the solution better or more marketable than competing companies.

In a truly free market, demand drives innovation and if climate change were believed by most, you would see a cooperative push to make more environmentally friendly products at affordable prices.
Logged
Anonymous Infowarrior
Full Member
***
Posts: 129


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2012, 08:43:34 PM »

If we stopped all pollution, the earth would still be warming for quite a while.
Therefore all companies that pollute the earth, cut down trees, etc. are obligated to protect everyone on the earths property from damage.
In an anarchist society, pollution, deforestation, etc. is a violation of property rights, and therefore it costs companies quite a lot to pollute, because they are obligated to protect and clean up their messes.
Plus it devalues people's property.
I'm an environmentalist of the extreme variety. But I have a free-market approach to fixing the mess of a world we are creating.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2012, 11:32:58 PM »

Also, if you own the land you are logging, you sure as hell won't be clear-cutting. That practice only makes sense on government owned land.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Anonymous Infowarrior
Full Member
***
Posts: 129


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2012, 08:54:25 PM »

Also, if you own the land you are logging, you sure as hell won't be clear-cutting. That practice only makes sense on government owned land.
Clear cutting lowers air quality for everyone, violating property rights.
I love free market environmentalism Smiley
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3093



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2012, 09:17:16 PM »

Also, if you own the land you are logging, you sure as hell won't be clear-cutting. That practice only makes sense on government owned land.
Clear cutting lowers air quality for everyone, violating property rights.
I love free market environmentalism Smiley

I disagree with the logic here. It's one thing to say you cannot pollute the air with emissions, but it's entirely different to stop the production of clean air, which is not a violation, in my opinion.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Aegidius
Abuser of italics and semicolons
Full Member
***
Posts: 131



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2012, 07:59:04 PM »

Also, if you own the land you are logging, you sure as hell won't be clear-cutting. That practice only makes sense on government owned land.
Clear cutting lowers air quality for everyone, violating property rights.
I love free market environmentalism Smiley

I disagree with the logic here. It's one thing to say you cannot pollute the air with emissions, but it's entirely different to stop the production of clean air, which is not a violation, in my opinion.

There's a tremendous ethical difference between doing harm and failing to provide benefit.  In the clear-cutting scenario, we're looking at the latter.  Fortunately, any smart logging company would care about future harvests as well as the immediate term, so clear cutting would, as stated, be counterproductive.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 08:02:54 PM by Aegidius » Logged

"I need not say how eager we are to trade with you and your kind!  Now, how can I be of service to you?"
MAM
Guest
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2012, 03:41:38 AM »

On this issue it seems clear that Info Warrior want to rationalize violating the NAP. In any case I agree with previous users refutations, and just say be careful not to predetermine what conclusion you want, and then rationalize to get there.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!