By the way, as proof that government intervention in environmental affairs is counterproductive, I would point to the recent energy bill, of which environmentalists on “the left” should be ashamed. Well, at least those who cheered it and thought it was the greatest thing for the environment since the Clean Water Act- there were some that saw how bad it was.

I can’t imagine many things more harmful to the environment than dramatically increased ethanol subsidies and a mandate for higher ethanol content in fuel, but there they are. Oddly, the same politicians who passed this bill are now using rising food (and fuel) prices as a justification for more government welfare spending. And of course there is the fact that these subsidies will result in the creation of more farmland, which means an increase in fertilizer production, which means more chemicals being released. Then there is the fact that corn ethanol requires almost as much energy to produce as it creates (more, IIRC, once you factor in associated costs). But hey! It’s renewable, and it’s not as if politicians and environmental lobbyists need to recognize the existence of trade-offs, anyways, since that would mean living in the real world.

The rest of the bill is just a bunch of feel-good measures like the asinine 35 MPG CAFE standard that will do little to nothing to help the environment.

Your response is exactly what more libertarians and people on “the right” should try to echo. Too many people have the impression that by those who are against such things as the Kyoto Protocol and other big government environmental regulations are against the environment. Being against the Kyoto Protocol no more makes one anti-environment than being against affirmative action or hate crimes legislation makes one a racist/bigot (though there are plenty on the left who would make that charge).

If those who can advocate free market and individual rights (properly understood the rights of life, liberty, and property) solutions to environmental problems would only do so, we could have an honest discussion without sacrificing individual liberty (and perhaps enhance individual liberty). I think The Liberty Papers is just as good of a place to start this discussion as anywhere.

Well done Brad!

Sweetie, in the U.S. the free market was responding to air pollution, until about 1840 when U.S. judges decided that the common good of society (it’s need for manufactured goods) outweighed the individual rights of people who lived downwind of the factories.

Once the courts declared that there was a “right to pollute” that was the end of things.

But, please feel free to blame the free market for the doings of a government that gave higher priority to the “needs of society” over the selfish people who stood in the way of society by standing on their rights.

I liked your response on what the WWF should have wrote.

Let’s see… I advocated a solution to the problem that requires absolutely no government involvement whatsoever, specifically stating that the solution “won’t come from Washington or Brussels”, and you’re here suggesting I’m a shill for McCain and global carbon taxes?

Try to read what I wrote, rather than filter it through your ideological goggles. Not everything is left vs. right, which is why I used quotes around “the right” and “the left”. Try thinking a little bit deeper here.

I wish neocons would better define what they believe in and stick to it. I’m sure Brad here here be writing future posts on how good global taxation for carbon emissions are once he finds out it’s part of his leader’s agenda.