[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition to pointing to the previous thread, this is the PM I just sent to ojc about this:

Basically, although I am not worried because I don't by into the hysterical apocolyptic anthropogenic global warming bunk, the market will solve the problem the way it already solves pollution problems (when it is permitted to). All major pollution indices were on their way down after WWII prior to the passage of any major anti-pollution legislation or regulation. Why? In a nutshell, because consumers are all powerful under capitalism, and they don't like pollution. If consumers don't like CO2 emissions or the possibility of anthropogenic global warming, they will drive the market to ever cleaner technologies.

The problem has always been that a) governments are the largest set of polluters, b) the second largest set polluters are entities that have pollution subsidized (the public roads, for example) and companies that are either shielded from tort action by governments (bet you didn't know it was illegal to sue a company for air pollution, did you?) or effectively shielded from tort action by the complete failure of the state monopoly tort system (can you say decades to litigate? I knew that you could), allowing them to externalize those costs.

Also, it will be the accumulated future capital that will be created under the free market that will allow the technologies that could actually *do* something about "the problem" anyway. Why in the world would you want to reduce it?

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, I will own my little slice of the atmosphere here in America, and when some factory in Banglore pollutes and is .025% responsible for a hole in the ozone layer in the part of the atmosphere that I own, I will sue them, and they will of course submit to a neutral arbitrator. This will TOTALLY work.