<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>I'm glad to see that I'm not the last person still worrying about climate change. I think this is an exceptional argument to use against climate change deniers.</DIV>
<DIV>Caroline<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>----- Forwarded Message ----<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> shane que hee <squehee@ucla.edu><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tue, January 10, 2012 7:30:49 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot)<BR></FONT><BR><BR>>Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:10:46 -0800<BR>>Subject: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot)<BR>>From: Thomas Scott Tucker <<A href="mailto:scott@tstucker.com" ymailto="mailto:scott@tstucker.com">scott@tstucker.com</A>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot)<BR>><BR>>As soon as it encounters environmental issues, the ideology of the new right<BR>>becomes ensnared in its own
contradictions.<BR>><BR>>By George Monbiot<BR>><BR>>The Guardian, 6th January 2012<BR>>http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climate-change/<BR>><BR>>Over the Christmas break I read what I believe is the most important<BR>>environmental essay of the past 12 months. Though it begins with a mildly<BR>>unfair criticism of a column of mine, I won¹t hold it against the author.<BR>><BR>>In a simple and very short tract, Matt Bruenig presents a devastating<BR>>challenge to those who call themselves libertarians, and explains why they<BR>>have no choice but to deny climate change and other environmental problems.<BR>><BR>>Bruenig explains what is now the core argument used by conservatives and<BR>>libertarians: the procedural justice account of property rights. Briefly<BR>>stated, this means that if the process by which property was acquired was<BR>>just, then those who have acquired
it should be free to use it as they wish,<BR>>without social restraints or obligations to other people.<BR>><BR>>Their property rights are absolute and cannot be intruded upon by the state<BR>>or by anyone else. Any interference with or damage to the value of their<BR>>property without their consent even by taxation is an unwarranted<BR>>infringement. This, with local variations, is the basic philosophy of the<BR>>Republican candidates, the Tea Party movement, the lobby groups which call<BR>>themselves ³free market thinktanks² and much of the new right in the UK.<BR>><BR>>It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates<BR>>the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess<BR>>the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as<BR>>freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to<BR>>address inequality,
hardship or social exclusion. A transparently<BR>>self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of<BR>>those with wealth and power. But for the sake of argument, Bruenig says, let<BR>>us accept it.<BR>><BR>>Let us accept the idea that damage to the value of property without the<BR>>owner¹s consent is an unwarranted intrusion upon the owner¹s freedoms. What<BR>>this means is that as soon as libertarians encounter environmental issues,<BR>>they¹re stuffed.<BR>><BR>>Climate change, industrial pollution, ozone depletion, damage to the<BR>>physical beauty of the area surrounding people¹s homes (and therefore their<BR>>value), all these, if the libertarians did not possess a shocking set of<BR>>double standards, would be denounced by them as infringements on other<BR>>people¹s property.<BR>><BR>>The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained
the<BR>>consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid<BR>>rain there. So their emissions, in the libertarian worldview, should be<BR>>regarded as a form of trespass on the property of Swedish landowners. Nor<BR>>have they received the consent of the people of this country to allow<BR>>mercury and other heavy metals to enter our bloodstreams, which means that<BR>>they are intruding upon our property in the form of our bodies.<BR>><BR>>Nor have they or airports, oil companies or car manufacturers obtained<BR>>the consent of all those it will affect to release carbon dioxide into the<BR>>atmosphere, altering global temperatures and through rising sea levels,<BR>>droughts, storms and other impacts damaging the property of many people.<BR>><BR>>As Bruenig says, ³Almost all uses of land will entail some infringement on<BR>>some other piece of land that is owned by
someone else. So how can that ever<BR>>be permitted? No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify<BR>>the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect<BR>>the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause<BR>>damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from<BR>>those affected. They are the ethical equivalent for honest libertarians <BR>>of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else¹s window.²<BR>><BR>>So here we have a simple and coherent explanation of why libertarianism is<BR>>so often associated with climate change denial and the playing down or<BR>>dismissal of other environmental issues. It would be impossible for the<BR>>owner of a power station, steel plant, quarry, farm or any large enterprise<BR>>to obtain consent for all the trespasses he commits against other people¹s<BR>>property
including their bodies.<BR>><BR>>This is the point at which libertarianism smacks into the wall of gritty<BR>>reality and crumples like a Coke can. Any honest and thorough application of<BR>>this philosophy would run counter to its aim: which is to allow the owners<BR>>of capital to expand their interests without taxation, regulation or<BR>>recognition of the rights of other people. Libertarianism becomes<BR>>self-defeating as soon as it recognises the existence of environmental<BR>>issues. So they must be denied.<BR>><BR>>www.monbiot.com<BR><BR></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>