ACism and global warming

wtfsvi · #1 09-19-2007, 07:08 PM

This seems like an obivous question, so I'm sure it has been asked before. I didn't have luck during my 2 minutes with the search function, though. How would ACland deal with the threat of global warming? If individuals in ACland are not fine with giving up personal comfort for the environment, does that mean doing nothing about global warming is ok and the people in Bangladesh will just have to deal with being flooded? Maybe you could point me to some article(s) about ACism and the environment.

You might say that the state isn't doing anything to stop global warming either, so it's a wash. That might be true about the US state, but maybe that's because the US is closer to ACism than most other countries. (I don't mean to say any state does enough to counter global warming, but there are certainly states doing more than what the US is doing.)

adios · #2 09-19-2007, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like an obivous question, so I'm sure it has been asked before. I didn't have luck during my 2 minutes with the search function, though. How would ACland deal with the threat of global warming? If individuals in ACland are not fine with giving up personal comfort for the environment, does that mean doing nothing about global warming is ok and the people in Bangladesh will just have to deal with being flooded? Maybe you could point me to some article(s) about ACism and the environment.

You might say that the state isn't doing anything to stop global warming either, so it's a wash. That might be true about the US state, but maybe that's because the US is closer to ACism than most other countries. (I don't mean to say any state does enough to counter global warming, but there are certainly states doing more than what the US is doing.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove to me that any state sponsored action to "combat" global warming is actually doing anything that has an iota of impact i.e. that if followed by all people, nations, whatever, will stop flooding Bangladesh. Better yet prove to me that Bangladesh will be flooded due to global warming. I'm not an ACist but I have to take issue with your befief that it's a given more or less that government needs to/has to do anything. Furthermore I take issue with the your assumption that government actually knows what is effective and what is not in "combatting" global warming.

Borodog · #3 09-19-2007, 08:06 PM

Holy [censored], adios. I just discovered your user number.

wtfsvi · #4 09-19-2007, 09:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Prove to me that any state sponsored action to "combat" global warming is actually doing anything that has an iota of impact i.e. that if followed by all people, nations, whatever, will stop flooding Bangladesh. Better yet prove to me that Bangladesh will be flooded due to global warming. I'm not an ACist but I have to take issue with your befief that it's a given more or less that government needs to/has to do anything. Furthermore I take issue with the your assumption that government actually knows what is effective and what is not in "combatting" global warming.

[/ QUOTE ] It seems to me that if I ask a statist what should be done about global warming, he'll have an acceptable answer ready. If I ask an ACist he will attack the statist's answer and the premise of the question, but he will not propose a solution of his own. I'm sure you see how that is worrying to me if I were to consider becoming an anarchist.

especially this question is what I want answered: If individuals in Y are not fine with giving up personal comfort to stop bad thing X, does that mean the citizens of Z will just have to deal with the negative consequences of that, and you don't think there's anything that could or should be done? Global warming is just an example of this kind of scenario. If you don't think it's likely enough that Bangladesh would be flooded, use another example like the citizens in ACland building nuclear power plants with weak safety.

AlexM · #5 09-19-2007, 09:35 PM

If people owned the air, it would cost way too much for companies to go around polluting it.

wtfsvi · #6 09-19-2007, 09:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If people owned the air, it would cost way too much for companies to go around polluting it.

[/ QUOTE ] What? Can you elaborate?

Kimbell175113 · #7 09-19-2007, 10:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If people owned the air, it would cost way too much for companies to go around polluting it.

[/ QUOTE ] What? Can you elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Boro or one of the experts can give a more nuanced explanation, but basically,

right now, no one owns the air so I can do what I want with it. If someone owned a particular piece of the air, though, I couldn't pollute it without committing a crime against the owner.

I could sign a contract with him, where I pollute for a fee, but
a) it would cost me, so I'd pollute less, and
b) presumably he wouldn't allow me to anything truly harmful, because he wants to keep his property intact

Richard Tanner · #8 09-19-2007, 10:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If people owned the air, it would cost way too much for companies to go around polluting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who decides what's good and what's bad? I'll just cut to the answer, no one.

One of two things happens, either a group of people with enough power decide to impose penelties on people that "pollute" the air (pollute in quotes because the definition will very widely) or some groups will pollute and others won't, though sadly everyone is effected.

I guess there's a third option in which everyone matures to the point they realize that even without an ironclad description of what constitutes "polluting" that the air and people under it would be better served by conservation. That said, I'm not really expecting the people that climb over each other to drive SUVs to figure this out/care about it.

Cody

wtfsvi · #9 09-19-2007, 10:17 PM

This would be all good if pollution stayed in one place. But it will be impossible for you to prove that pollution was the cause of the warm weather that caused your failed crop. Not even to mention proving who should pay you. The same is true about normal air pollution. Setting up an operation to figure out who was responsible for polluting what air would be really expensive if it would be possible at all. I don't know who you expect to do that.

Borodog · #10 09-19-2007, 10:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that if I ask a statist what should be done about global warming, he'll have an acceptable answer ready. If I ask an ACist he will attack the statist's answer and the premise of the question, but he will not propose a solution of his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why you bothered to ask the question. It seems you've already made up your mind and aren't really interested in the answer.