Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?

[Anonymous]

I am ignorant of environmental science, yes. Frankly, I feel little can be done. If there is true damage being done to our planet that will affect our prospects as a species, I don't know if our current governments can quell any further damage. Corporate interest has control of most governments and I am sure they will have their way unless environmental damage will impact their own self-interest.

[FirstAscent]

I am ignorant of environmental science, yes. Frankly, I feel little can be done. If there is true damage being done to our planet that will affect our prospects as a species, I don't know if our current governments can quell any further damage. Corporate interest has control of most governments and I am sure they will have their way unless environmental damage will impact their own self-interest.

I agree with most of this statement. I contend that our best course of action at this point is through education and awareness, so that policy (or whatever governmental or societal forces are available) factors in all the ramifications of mankind's footprint, and prevents observations made thus far from being downplayed or squashed.

That which I disagree with is the notion that little can be done. That simply isn't true.

[Hawker]

I am ignorant of environmental science, yes. Frankly, I feel little can be done. If there is true damage being done to our planet that will affect our prospects as a species, I don't know if our current governments can quell any further damage. Corporate interest has control of most governments and I am sure they will have their way unless environmental damage will impact their own self-interest.

Once a critical mass of people is convinced that there is a real problem and that there is a realistic solution, things get fixed very fast.  In the UK, forests have been allowed to regenerate over the last century and thousands of years of deforestation is being reversed.  In the US, the Clean Air Act is an example of something that worked so successfully that people now don't remember that there was a problem in the first place.  Whales are coming back from near extinction.  All the evidence is that we, as a species, can do very well if we decide that something is worth doing.

The problem for global warming is that we need energy and there is enough coal to last 3000 years in known reserves.  Its cheap and until we find something better, for example, nuclear fusion, we have to carry on using it.

The positive thing is that we have time.  If hydrogen cars were to be made affordable (and that's a huge 'if') we know that within 25 years the entire global vehicle fleet would have migrated to the hydrogen model.  And 25 years is a blink of an eye in terms of atmospheric science.  Right now, there are a lot of projects to find a cheaper cleaner way to make energy.  Until one of them succeeds, we will carry on with dirty old coal.

[FirstAscent]

We really don't have quite as much time as you think. Regarding deforestation, 80 percent of the earth's forests have been destroyed.

Eighty percent.

As China and India (that's more than two billion people) migrate to western lifestyles, the demand for resources is going to skyrocket. And so are carbon emissions.

[JA37]

We really don't have quite as much time as you think. Regarding deforestation, 80 percent of the earth's forests have been destroyed.

Eighty percent.

As China and India (that's more than two billion people) migrate to western lifestyles, the demand for resources is going to skyrocket. And so are carbon emissions.

Fun fact: The yearly increase of CO2-emissions from China are roughly the same as Germanys total yearly CO2-emission.

And you know what. We can say fuck-all about it. You really can't say to someone: "I'm sorry, you can't be allowed to have what I'm currently having".

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking you to change his ways". M. Jackson.

[FirstAscent]

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking you to change his ways". M. Jackson.

Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously.

Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there.

[fergalish]

I like the comment about pointing a loaded gun while cleaning the trigger. That's an interesting theory. The real question is can you bridge the gap between intent to do harm and ignorant accidental potential harm?

Of course, it would seem reasonably actionable, assuming your bounty request was justified, to incinerate anybody's specimen regardless if a government facility owned it or I owned it. If you feel threatened, you're suggesting it doesn't really matter who has possession. I'm trying to take a fair, equitable and lawful stance regarding your concerns. Is that correct?

You have to evaluate the risk and the hazard.  If the vials are held by a qualified laboratory with sufficient checks and controls built into its operations, then there is no reason to feel threatened, though even then you might not see people queuing up to buy houses right next door.  If it's held by your neighbour in his back shed you'd probably have to wonder exactly what he wants it for.

[JA37]

Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously.

Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there.

I don't mind giving incentives to people to change their ways. I've found that a combination of carrot and stick works very well.
Actually it's the only thing that works.

[FirstAscent]

Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously.

Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there.

I don't mind giving incentives to people to change their ways. I've found that a combination of carrot and stick works very well.
Actually it's the only thing that works.

Then read this post of mine from this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg526491#msg526491

[JA37]

Then read this post of mine from this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg526491#msg526491

AFAIK that's already being done in Sweden. Taxes are high on undesirable things, such as pollution, and that finances low tax on desirable behaviour.

[fergalish]

Then read this post of mine from this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg526491#msg526491

AFAIK that's already being done in Sweden. Taxes are high on undesirable things, such as pollution, and that finances low tax on desirable behaviour.

All you need then is an acceptable society-wide definition of "desireable" and "undesireable".

[JA37]

AFAIK that's already being done in Sweden. Taxes are high on undesirable things, such as pollution, and that finances low tax on desirable behaviour.

All you need then is an acceptable society-wide definition of "desireable" and "undesireable".
[/quote]
I believe those definitions comes from a process known as "voting".

[JA37]

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking you to change his ways". M. Jackson.

Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously.

Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there.

I wasn't talking about change on an individual level. I was talking about systematic change, although that would have to transform into individual change eventually. 

[FirstAscent]

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking you to change his ways". M. Jackson.

Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously.

Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there.

I wasn't talking about change on an individual level. I was talking about systematic change, although that would have to transform into individual change eventually. 

Give an example of systematic change that you are in favor of.

[WiseOldOwl]

I personally, will shoot at it.

[FirstAscent]

I personally, will shoot at it.

You lost me. Please elaborate.

[WiseOldOwl]

It was kind of a joke, implying that shooting (with a gun) something would fix it.
Global Warming is something that humans cant control. I had a very intelligent rocket scientist explain to me one day how 95% of the green house gasses are water vapor from the ocean. And how the distance from the sun and the sun's hotspots/activity are more directly in relation to our earth's warming than our produced gasses. He was giving a short class to us and had plenty of mathematical evidence to back it up, like crazy cosmic math. Anyways the earths fluctuation of temperature is an inevitability that we must deal with and adapt to.

[FirstAscent]

It was kind of a joke, implying that shooting (with a gun) something would fix it.
Global Warming is something that humans cant control. I had a very intelligent rocket scientist explain to me one day how 95% of the green house gasses are water vapor from the ocean. And how the distance from the sun and the sun's hotspots/activity are more directly in relation to our earth's warming than our produced gasses. He was giving a short class to us and had plenty of mathematical evidence to back it up, like crazy cosmic math. Anyways the earths fluctuation of temperature is an inevitability that we must deal with and adapt to.

I could provide you with a wealth of reading material that would make things more clear to you, and likely change your opinion on the matter. Before getting too excited about your rocket scientist's presentation of the sun's activity, start with getting a solid understanding of the Maunder Minimum, Milankovitch cycles, and the ice albedo feedback loop. Plenty more to come, if you're interested.

[JA37]

Give an example of systematic change that you are in favor of.

Planning infrastructure to allow for more public transport is one thing, "cap and trade", tax undesirable things and lower tax on things desired (society wise), implement Euro5/Euro6 for vehicles.
There's plenty to do.

[FirstAscent]

Give an example of systematic change that you are in favor of.

Planning infrastructure to allow for more public transport is one thing, "cap and trade", tax undesirable things and lower tax on things desired (society wise), implement Euro5/Euro6 for vehicles.
There's plenty to do.

I agree with this stuff. Most people choose to remain willfully ignorant of what is undesirable. Education is important. Unfortunately, it usually takes about a generation, as opposed to a couple of years.