Global warming or no global warming, I've been watching the skies where I live (OR) and for the past decade or so there has been a marked, visible change in the clarity of the skies toward the horizon. Even on clear days after a fresh rain, the sky is perpetually hazy towards the horizon. I distinctly remember seeing blue skies from horizon to horizon, more than a decade ago. The area where I live is not very high population so the pollution cannot be from industry here. In fact, this summer, I drove to Yellowstone and I astutely watched the state of the skies along the entire trip and I have concluded that the entire Western United States must be engulfed in the same haze I see here in OR, regardless of population (Eastern Oregon, Idaho, Montana... these are extremely low population density regions).
Economists have suggested that homesteading of the oceans and waterways could contribute to pollution reduction in our waters. But how would you homestead the air? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. How do you establish borders/boundaries? How do you identify trespassing? And since sufficient volumes of pollution on the other side of the globe can smog up my skies, how do you enforce property rights?
I'm truly puzzled.
Clayton -
Pollution rights. Walter Block has done some work on this.
"But how would you homestead the air?"
Have you seriously not read Law, Property Rights and Air Pollution by Rothbard?
Sub-heading: Owning the Technical Unit, Land and Air
"How do you identify trespassing?"
Sub-heading: The Proper Burden of Proof
And on it goes...
"Pollution rights. Walter Block has done some work on this."
That was while he was at the Fraser Institute. I am about 90% positive he is now completely against that, essentially for the same reason Rothbard is.
"The Friedmanites concede the existence of air pollution but propose to meet it, not by a defense of property rights, but rather by a supposedly utilitarian "cost-benefit" calculation by government, which will then make and enforce a "social decision" on how much pollution to allow. This decision would then be enforced either by licensing a given amount of pollution (the granting of "pollution rights"), by a graded scale of taxes against it, or by the taxpayers paying firms not to pollute. Not only would these proposals grant an enormous amount of bureaucratic power to government in the name of safeguarding the "free market"; they would continue to override property rights in the name of a collective decision enforced by the State. This is far from any genuine "free market," and reveals that, as in many other economic areas, it is impossible to really defend freedom and the free market without insisting on defending the rights of private property." ~ For a New Liberty, MNR
@ OP - more concise here I guess:
"In so far as the outpouring of smoke by factories pollutes the air and damages the persons and property of others, it is an invasive act. It is equivalent to an act of vandalism and in a truly free society would have been punished after court action brought by the victims. Air pollution, then, is not an example of a defect in a system of absolute property rights, but of failure on the part of the government to preserve property rights. Note that the remedy, in a free society, is not the creation of an administrative State bureau to prescribe regulations for smoke control. The remedy is judicial action to punish and proscribe pollution damage to the person and property of others (ibid.: 182)." ~ MES, MNR
When I think of homesteading the atmosphere I think of floating cities in the sky.
that's what I wanted to write too, lol :D
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Property comes from action. What do you use the atmosphere for? That is where you can claim appropriation.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Since none of us are Calrissianites (yet), homesteading the atmosphere has little to do with the pollution situation. The only way the pollution of the skies relates to us is when such pollution affects property here on land or the water, and it is with the damage to such properties that any remedial actions are taken.
Slightly off-topic from the thread's central question, but I'd like to caution against using anecdotal perceptions of "haziness" to leap to the conclusion that the cause is anthropogenic pollution. It could be any number of things, from an increase in average humidity over the period, to your eyesight degrading as you age.
I think you nailed it, Stranger. I hadn't thought about it from that point of view. I still have reservations, though. For example, I use the atmosphere to breathe. Some pollution can be toxic enough as to render breathing more risky and dangerous to my health. Rothbard has used the illustration of a factory emitting pollution and he says that it depends on who was there first. If the factory was there first, then it has an easement on polluting. If the residents were there first, they have an easement on non-pollution. But I think this ignores the law of entropy, the fact that, over the long term, all local pollution eventually becomes global pollution (any pollution will tend to spread throughout the atmosphere until it is evenly distributed). Yes, it's diluted but maybe not diluted enough.
To use an analogy, imagine a company that emits effluent chemicals into a waterstream. The company can say, "Hey, we've been doing this since before there were people living downstream so now they can't complain about it, if they move in here." But if that waterstream happens to be the only one for 500 miles in every direction, the rules are different. It is doubtful that using the stream as an effluent for toxic chemicals is its most valuable use and I also think that simply dumping into a stream should not constitute homesteading since it is not an improvement on nature, it is a disimprovement. The Earth's atmosphere is the only one we have. It's a giant ocean of air that is everywhere connected. Dumping pollution into that ocean is a disimprovement of it that does not constitute homesteading in my view. So, the fact that you've been polluting the air long before anyone started complaining about it doesn't constitute much of a defense, in my view.
To the other poster, the haze I see on the horizon is most certainly not a result of degrading eyesight. I have not jumped to the conclusion that it is anthropogenic but what about the biosphere has changed dramatically in the last 10 years? Nothing that I can think of. However, pollution levels are dramatically increasing. It is possible to acknowledge that fact without jumping headlong onto the World-Government-would-solve-all-our-woes bandwagon. If anything, public choice theory tells us quite the opposite. World Government will ensure that the atmosphere remains a commons.
In fact, now that I think about it, this could be a result of national law monopolies - the industries within the borders of each nation enjoy de facto immunity against lawsuits from everyone except other residents in that same nation. The national government will step in to ensure that foreign legal actions against local industry cannot go forward. Under world-wide anarchy, no producer would be immune from lawsuits from anyone. Hence, an environmentalist group that can align enough people against particular producers could go to court and possibly force those producers to take actions to curb their pollution. I wouldn't contribute to an environmentalist legal action group if I perceive the environment to be "pretty good overall" but if things got bad enough, I might think about contributing to such groups. This would act as a voluntarily-funded curb against excessive pollution of the public pool of air, water and other commons.
All I'm saying is that there are million different potential causes for this percieved haziness. I'm not familar with your local climate or pollution patterns, but even assuming that the haze is an actual phenomena and not just a result of your memory being a bit hazy (ZING!). The "biosphere", or more correctly the "ecosphere"**could have had numerous shifts in the past decade that you aren't aware of. Even a slight increase in humidity may create what you're talking about, and that may be perfectly natural. Or it may be anthropogenic. People percieve that "we're getting more snow than I remember" or "seems I'm finding more dead birds" or "the corn in the farmer's fields isn't growing as high/is growing higher than it used it" all the time. This really doesn't say anything.
The point is that if you're worried about this haze, dig into it. Do you have any evidence that "pollution levels are dramatically increasing". A quick and dirty search online tells me that smog levels in most of Oregon's major cities have been declining for much of the past decade.
This is of course quite seperate from your question about how best to respond to pollution in general. I'm just making clear that such casual obersvations really mean nothing when talking about pollution. You seem concerned about this percieved haziness, but I'm going to be it's premature.
**FYI, "ecosphere" refers to the combination of the biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere, which I think is what you were going for.
To use an analogy, imagine a company that emits effluent chemicals into a waterstream. The company can say, "Hey, we've been doing this since before there were people living downstream so now they can't complain about it, if they move in here." But if that waterstream happens to be the only one for 500 miles in every direction, the rules are different. It is doubtful that using the stream as an effluent for toxic chemicals is its most valuable use
If this is true, then the people who want to use the water downstream can outbid the polluting company. That is, after all, how we measure what is the most valuable use of a resource.
and I also think that simply dumping into a stream should not constitute homesteading since it is not an improvement on nature, it is a disimprovement.
I don't like where this train of thought leads. Who decides whether something is an improvement or not?
I don't see any problem with the theory here. We don't need to have "different rules" for air pollution. If I urinate in the ocean here in the UK, is it not true that I have polluted a beach in California, just a little bit? If I switch the lights on in my house, aren't there going to be particles of light invading the houses of my neighbours? Of course, but it's so insignificant that it doesn't constitute aggression. Where are the boundaries between aggression and non-aggression? That's for a court to decide in specific cases, so ultimately customs and social norms will determine it.
Same for pollution. I predict a customary law system will allow little old ladies to sue the big bad factory next door for getting soot all over her washing. But it will dismiss the case of you trying to sue someone on the other side of the world for causing some miniscule detrimental effect on the quality of your air.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
"But I think this ignores the law of entropy"
No it doesn't.
"Yes, it's diluted but maybe not diluted enough."
Then you've got the burden of proof. When private property rights are defended in the case of pollution, as they are currently not - the market will come up with answers. You've seen CSI no? It'd be that, but geared towards environmentalism and polluters etc.
"But if that waterstream happens to be the only one for 500 miles in every direction, the rules are different."
Begs the question.
"It is doubtful that using the stream as an effluent for toxic chemicals is its most valuable use"
Valuable according to who? Eh? If it's not and there are more profitable ways to use it, then a private company has incentives to adopt that approach no?
"I also think that simply dumping into a stream should not constitute homesteading since it is not an improvement on nature, it is a disimprovement."
Whoever claimed such a thing? Spitting in the ocean doesn't mean you homestead it.