2.2 Environment

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

I love the way this starts. Even the bicameral uniparty is not so stupid as to say "We want a polluted environment". At least the cliche ends there.

The Libertarian party, yet again, affirms its faith in people. Land owners have a clear vested interst in getting the most from their land. And the government does have a dismal track record.

The key to understanding this plank is in the held in the phrase "...requires a clear definition...", likely passed over by readers who are not looking for the essence of the plank. I would add to it this tiny bit "...requires a clear and reasonable definition..."

The Libertarian party does not advocate letting anyone do anything on their land. The discharge of pollutant into a stream, or the air or what have you is not a Libertarian value. The question is, when do those discharges become an infringement on the rights of others. Others have a right to drink clean water, and breath clean air. At the same time, 100% emission free operations are unrealistic and not required. The environment is perfectly capable of absorbing and disposing of reasonable amounts of some pollutants.

This is where the clear definition comes in. Without understanding what is reasonable, in scientifically verifiable terms as to the impact of the pollutants, clear definitions of good environmental policy is not possible. The knee jerk reaction is to have zero emissions. This is prohibitavely expensive in many cases, and unrequired in a even more.

The basis once again rests on the balance of rights. If we were to take coal fired electric generation plants as an example, each city might have one. Each plant is busy making electricy and pumping some amount of pollution into the air. However, should everyone suddenly decide that they too wish such a plant on their property it would quickly become a problem with all the pollution in the air.

The mistake is to think that "we the people" by "right of emminant domain" can capriciously tell some people they can have coal plants and others they cannot (all dressed up in land zoning regulations.) The right thinking is to reliaze that the first person to use the resource has the stronger claim, and those who would come after know of the first persons claim. Thus, if they choose to build such coal plants they should first be required to make sure that the operation of such would not violate the established clear and reasonable definition.

In the event that new information is presented that alters what is reasonable, the government will have to take responsibility and compensate those who are adversely effected because not to is to wash its hands of the errors in its own past. The government cannot be above responsibility for its own rules. If the current science of the day establishes what is thought to be a reasonable level of emissions, and businesses build accordingly, they have in fact blessed the businesses operation. To then come back at a later date and say "we were wrong" without also saying "we live up to our error" makes the government unaccountable. Any government that is unaccountable will act erratically, which will only hurt people who have every reason to believe they are safe from such random harm.