AutoblogGreen

While I agree with the general opinion expressed, I have a concern about the Libertarian Party's views on the environment. As a Libertarian myself I'm concerned specifically that the Party doesn't seem to have a uniform platform that addresses environmental issues at all.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

Personally, I think the free market approach works in most cases and that government is RARELY the solution to problems (adding red tape and bureaucracy is very inefficient), but I don't know how the free-market system can address most environmental issues.

For example, even if all subsidies for both ethanol production and petroleum production were revoked so they could compete on more level ground (along with other great alternatives such as biobutanol) I'm not sure that petroleum wouldn't still be the least expensive option. Therefore most people without an overt interest in the environment will still go for the cheaper option, which is worse for the environment.

The Libertarian Party as a whole needs to get together to come up with a platform that addresses the very serious problem of climate change. Not that the Repubicrats have a better, more unified plan for the environment...

Reply

I am generally a voting libertarian and I agree our platform on the environment is a bit lacking. Eliminating tariff's and other red tape in the way of cheaper ethanol is absolutely a fantastic idea. But yeah, I still think oil will remain king regardless. I think one of the most reasonable positions a libertarian can take is admit that markets, as powerful as they are, can not account for everything. 99% of the time they should be left to their own devices and we will all be better for it. However a lot of libertarians (not the anarchists) admit that government control of the commons is a necessary evil. However a libertarian-sized government is much, much smaller, and so in theory it can do a much better job overseeing those commons and enforcing other necessary environmental laws, such as air pollution credits and water quality. An issue like global warming is another example. If government does need to step in, libertarians can advocate that it's done in a market based way. For example, if we want a cap on CO2 output, the most efficient way to do it is just to set up a system of CO2 pollution credits and set the price such that the equilibrium results in the desired output or less. Markets can react to the price and figure out how best to adjust, whether it be less air travel and more trains, or whatever. This is far better than government trying to set regulations that determine what kind of vehicles we buy, while letting people buy private jets without penalty. The markets are smarter and far more dynamic than bureaucrats so the challenge for libertarians is to convince people of that and sell ideas that use the power of markets. Some environmental regulations are necessary and libertarians should offer the ideas that are most compatible with free markets (or as free as possible).

Reply

When can we can stop giving away $Billions every year on corn subsidies mainly to large corporate producers? http://www.taxpayer.net/agriculture/learnmore/factsheets/corn.pdf Maybe we can spend some of that on something more productive than buying votes? Like, maybe renewable electricity generation and storage for ZEV transportation. You know, NO INTERNAL COMBUSTION PERIOD! http://internalcombustionbook.com and NO HYDROGEN SCAM http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm

Reply

Sebastian, I thought I would share my thoughts on seat belt laws since you mentioned it.

http://bothwell.typepad.com/whos_your_nanny/2007/01/kentucky_applau.html

Thanks,
TJB

Reply