Conservative/Libertarian economics and anthropic global warming

[popeyespappy]

It’s been my experience that many conservatives and libertarians deny anthropic global warming. I believe this line of thinking is affected by belief bias with its roots in objections to proposed policies that would limit emissions of greenhouse gasses. I this thread I would like to discuss not the science of anthropic warming, that has been discussed in other threads, but the economic consequences of man-man climate change and how that effects the basic precept of property rights.

In his paper TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS SERIOUSLY: THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, libertarian lawyer Jonathan H. Adler argues the point that the do nothing attitude about climate change currently favored by conservatives and libertarians is a serious transgression against the property rights of those who stand to lose the most economically from such change. In the paper he concludes that advocates of free market environmentalism (FME) need to adjust their thinking.

This essay has argued that if FME advocates truly take property rights seriously, and reject utilitarian justifications for violating property rights, then they should reconsider their approach to global climate change policy. The focus on net welfare and other concerns in the context of climate change by many FME advocates represents a rejection of the libertarian principles upon which FME is based. There is nothing inconsistent with FME about opposing draconian emission-reduction policies or other mitigation measures that are unlikely to address the threat of climate change. But identifying policies to oppose is no substitute for identifying policies to support. While continuing to oppose global regulatory schemes, which may pose their own threats to property rights and individual liberty, FME adherents should consider the viability of various international compensation or indemnification mechanisms. An international liability regime, for instance, might come closer to realizing FME principles than the status quo.