I try not to make a habit of citing the New American, but there is quite a bit of data to support the theory that the current warming trend is just a continuation of a climate cycle the Earth has been in for thousands, if not millions, of years.

I’m currently ambivalent towards the subject. What I do know is that there is a large percentage of the world population that is motivated to stop climate change. There is also a large portion of the world population that disagrees or is apathetic to the cause.

The problem with government mandated reforms and regulations is that it forces both parties to conform to something they may or may not agree with. The same is true with all federally mandated programs (wars, immigration laws and social freedoms). All of these examples attest to the central government’s horrible track record of decision-making. What makes (the majority of) environmentalists believe that the federal government will miraculously get this one right? There are already a number of examples of initiatives put forth by state and federal governments to fight climate change that are either limited in their effectiveness or counter productive.

A better plan to curtail human-caused climate change (if it exists):

1. No additional regulations

Federal or state mandated regulations are the least efficient ways to affect private sector behavior or change public opinion. Regulations force organizations and individuals to scramble to meet arbitrary benchmarks. This wastes resources that could otherwise be used to better serve the public.

If these changes were voluntary due to pressure from consumers the changes would happen naturally with an emphasis on efficiency rather then compliance. Instead, the regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes are a form of force, which makes them completely unethical, and they favor big corporations who have the resources to get around the red tape.

2. No more government distributed grants and handouts

The vast majority of environmental organizations look to the federal government for funding, subsidies, and grants. This reliance on the government compromises their autonomy and forces them to comply with the wishes of the government, regardless of what’s best for the environment. These organizations also use a good portion of their resources to influence government law and policy, which would be much better spent on public awareness campaigns, voluntary clean up programs, and trying to change private sector behavior.

3. Strict private property rights enforcement

For this, I will directly quote from the Ron Paul campaign website, though I differ slightly on the end result of this process:

The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting. In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor’s land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter… After paying damages, the polluter’s production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way… Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.

The proper enforcement of property rights is essential to the libertarian philosophy, especially in the context of the environment. Those who respect their neighbor’s property are much more likely to respect all of their surroundings. Libertarians have many ideological similarities to environmentalists. In fact, after a quick search on the Internet, I found an institute with the sole purpose of promoting the parallel environmental/libertarian agendas.

If we implement the above policies in order to curtail human-caused climate change, public awareness will increase, resources will be more efficiently utilized, innovation will replace lobbying, pollution will decrease, and all of it will happen voluntarily.

I encourage all readers to respond with their comments/criticisms to this article.