[–] kirkis 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's a pretty difficult proposition to clean up the environment without any government intervention. It really comes down to the consumers making environmental decisions with their wallet, by going solar, driving electric and eating local. Unfortunately that option is hardly available on the market.

I'm a geo-libertarian. It's an obscure political philosophy, but I believe it's intellectually consistent with laissez-faire economics and environmentalism. You can build a house, but you can't build the dirt it's on, you should own the house and the value you've added to the land, but the water table belongs to everybody. So shitting in the water "even on your own property" is absolutely out of the question.

You can drill for oil, but that oil doesn't belong to you. You are certainly entitled to compensation for the oil you find and the money and work you put into it, but the oil itself should be owned commonly and managed publicly, since the burden of disasters and clean up always falls on the public.

The market is great at creating ways of putting natural resources to good use in the short term, but bad at managing them responsibly in the long term. The only problem is that when government bureaucracy acts as a monopoly on everything, everybody suffers. So this is where I get creative and say there should be a free market of agencies that help with permits and meeting environmental standards that works pro-bono between industries and communities.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 



[–] mister_anonymity [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I agree with the "here and now" sentiment, as seen in the Baby Boomers. However, their children are seeing the need to care for their environment and one another in a more direct way through this scientific renaissance, particularly since Silent Spring. I agree with some regulation, but here in Boulder county (in Colorado), things are a little ridiculous. For example, I work at a camp, and if we want to remodel or replace any cabins, they can't increase in bed space (housing capacity), and cutting down trees has to be approved by a council, even though the tree density is dangerous for wildfire reasons.


[–] ThomasJefferson 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I feel your pain, I like Rand but he wants to abolish the EPA.