> references?

Clearing the Air: The Real Story of America's War on Air Pollution (1999), by Indur Goklany

"Carbon Dioxide: A Satanic Gas?" by Patrick Michaels, testimony before the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, October 6, 1999.

"The Forest Service's Tinderbox," by Robert H. Nelson, Regulation 23:4, Fall 2000.

"The EPA's Clean Air Mischief," by Jonathan Adler, Regulation 20:2, Spring 1997.

"In the early 1990s, the National Toxic Campaign Fund (a private environmental advocacy group) labeled the military establishment the nation's worst polluter, responsible for more than 14,000 "toxic hot spots" at military bases around the nation. The environmental group estimated that, in 1989, the defense Department generated 900 million pounds of hazardous waste. No private business, or combination of companies, has anywhere near such a devastating impact on America's environment. Nevertheless, because of poorly drafted laws and regulations, the public continues to associate environmental degradation exclusively with businesses."
-- Murray Weidenbaum, The Washington Times, September 26, 1998


http://www.pirg.org/enviro/pork/


David Armstrong of The Boston Globe writes:

"The United States government, which acts as steward and protector of the nation's environment, is itself the worst polluter in the land.

"Federal agencies have contaminated more than 60,000 sites across the country and the cost of cleaning up the worst sites is officially expected to approach $300 billion, nearly five times the price of similar destruction caused by private companies. . . .

"Nearly every military base and nuclear arms facility in the country is contaminated. The pollution extends from the US Mint, which released hazardous chemicals into the air when producing commemorative coins, to the national parks, where leaky oil tanks and raw sewage are polluting pristine rivers.

"Even the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], charged with enforcing the country's environmental laws, has been fined for violating toxic waste laws at its laboratories. At the EPA's lab in Lexington, for example, mercury was discovered leaching into the ground water three years ago."

["The Nation's Dirty Big Secret," The Boston Globe, November 14, 1999]


There's no shortage of information, and no difficulty finding it.

> > Here's a typical libertarian
> > solution: let consumer groups do the reporting. If a
> > reputable environmental watchdog group said Business A is
> > spewing harmful materials into the environment, then a
> > whole lot of environment-conscious people would choose
> > Business B until A was up to snuff.
>
> You have to be joking. I'm not trying to flame you, but this is absurd. Such a proposal assumes that enough of the public would care enough to choose an environmentally friendly product even if it meant paying more for it. I don't think so.

It may sound absurd to you, but it happens continually. Much of the paper scattered on my desk is recycled, and not because recycling is cheaper; products on store shelves routinely advertise their environmentally-friendly manufacturing; this computer monitor has extra-low radiation, and not because it is required; food packages scream about being all-natural. The natural trend is toward better environmental quality, because people want it. Counter examples in specific fields cannot readily disprove that. And yes, it may be that requiring converters on high-end sportscars is silly and wasteful, as these cars are a miniscule proportion of the total.

> > Another solution is to
> > attach pollution rights to the contract/deed for a parcel of
> > land, and, if the company or individual pollutes too much,
> > they violate the contract and lose the property.
>
> But who would set the initial standards and who would determine when they were violated? I fail to see the purpose of this at all. It still seems like it requires governmental oversight; anything which involves resolution of contract dispute falls square into the realm of "settling disputes" which is one of the fundamental purposes of government.
> Stephen

Sure. Libertarians often advocate strong government, but strong government limited to safeguarding people's rights. The standards would be set by whoever owns and sells the land. If the Audubon Society bought land and sold or rented it as part of an environmental contract, they could easily accomplish a great deal for the environment and respect property rights as well.

An interesting facet of the natural law, and morals in general, is that they always produce the best results. In turn, if one wants the best results, the methods one chooses are the ones which happen to be moral. There are definite reasons morals exist, including the idea of inviolable property rights. Thus moralists and consequentialists usually end up arguing for the same action.

gab"They say economics is the art of the counterintuitive obvious"by