Cap, then Trade

A conservative approach to a pressing problem #

NASA gives a brief overview of all of the scientific organizations that have come to the conclusion that climate is warming and that humans are the cause:

Multiple studies published in [peer-reviewed scientific journals](iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article) show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Another peer-review publication studied 1,000 other peer-reviewed publications that mentioned climate change. They also found that 97% of those that took a position agreed that climate change was man-made.

If you think you’ve heard alternatives to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), you probably have, they get a lot of media airtime- but they’re not all credible, and none are as widely accepted in the science community as the carbon-emissions explanation. In fact the most famous of the “climate-denying” scientists in February of this year was found to secretly be on the payroll of Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, American Petroleum Institute, and the Koch Foundation. Likewise- in the 17 month period between December 2009 and April 2011, the major television networks hosted over 200 guests to cover climate change. Only two of those appearances were by a climate scientist. It was the same guy, twice, on Fox News- Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute, and he receives 40% of his funding from Big Oil.

None of this is to say that we should stop doing research into climate science or “shut down the debate”. It would be bad science to reject alternative theories outright. Science requires that we continue to study. And if you’re looking for attempts to shut down climate science, look no further than the latest Congressional Budget Proposal- it’s Republican backers received over $26,000,000 from Big Oil and Gas in the last two years.

But let’s not distract from the topic- if we’re talking about politics and action, then we must act on the present consensus. The scientific consensus as to what is happening and the needed action is very clear: we need to reduce the amount of carbon we’re depositing in the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases cause the atmosphere to warm (a phenomenon discovered in 1896 that has very little to do with Al Gore). A warmer atmosphere has plenty of implications, many of which are already impacting the global economy.

There are many different greenhouse gases- H2O (water vapor), O3 (ozone), N2O- but the ones that are causing the most rapid change to our climate are Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Methane (CH4).

The science is simple: concentrations of these greenhouse gases in our atmosphere (naturally) have direct consequences on the amount of heat our atmosphere can hold. Greenhouse gasses, aptly named, trap heat and thus their concentration correlates nearly perfectly with global temperature. As you can see in the graph below, the concentration of Carbon in the atmosphere is higher this year than it has been in the history of the our species. And as nature abhors a change in flux, so does the earth’s food chain. Humans pay the price for a changing climate with food and water shortages, higher sea levels, and natural disasters… says the Pentagon.

Which brings us to the point.

Any corporation using public air to dump their byproducts for free is in violation of the non-aggression principle.

Like any other violation of the non-aggression principle (NAP), this requires action even under the most libertarian of justice systems.

There’s a very simple way to regulate who can dump what: find the total load of carbon that the atmosphere can handle (here is current scientific consensus), allocate a certain amount to public interests, and then privatize the rest.

We need to treat airspace for dumping like we treat land, radiospace, sewage dumping, etc: divvy it up and sell the deeds.

This idea is as conservative as it gets. But “cap and trade” was branded as a hippy-liberal-commie thing long ago by the likes of the Koch Brothers. They preach false-libertarianism while dumping chemicals for free at the expense of the rest of us.

Cap and trade is as necessary to a sustainable economy as land ownership laws; this is a conservative principle and it’s time it was recognized as such.