Pollution generally involves a tragedy of the commons type situation. Ownership over air in the atmosphere and water in a river is fluid and diffuse, and benefits to polluting can acrue to specific persons while the costs of pollution are externalised and spread across everyone.
Sometimes I wonder if future generations will be sickened by the idea that individuals thought it was ok to drive cars that simply released poisonous gasses and particulates into the air rather than trapping and storing them for safe disposal. After all, we know it has already led to society wide increases in violence due to retarded brain development.
A libertarian/hardcore capitalist approach might be to try to actually codify ownership rights over these things and give them to persons who could exert them against polluters.
I and I suspect many others would find that pretty disturbing. I think the idea of being forced to pay rent for breathing someones air is shocking, but if nobody stands to benefit from providing good quality air, there is no clear capitalist incentive to spend effort creating and ensuring it. Without that we need some other mechanism to force polluters to pay for the costs of their behaviour instead of forcing them onto everyone else.
One idea would be that if there were enough detailed, trustworthy information that consumers might hold companies accountable for their abuse of community resources, and vote with their wallets but empirically speaking this kind of safeguard seems to work very patchily when it works at all.
Once those two possibilities are eliminated I'm struggling to think of anything that doesn't end up looking like regulation.
Sometimes I wonder if future generations will be sickened by the idea that individuals thought it was ok to drive cars that simply released poisonous gasses and particulates into the air rather than trapping and storing them for safe disposal. After all, we know it has already led to society wide increases in violence due to retarded brain development.
A libertarian/hardcore capitalist approach might be to try to actually codify ownership rights over these things and give them to persons who could exert them against polluters.
I and I suspect many others would find that pretty disturbing. I think the idea of being forced to pay rent for breathing someones air is shocking, but if nobody stands to benefit from providing good quality air, there is no clear capitalist incentive to spend effort creating and ensuring it. Without that we need some other mechanism to force polluters to pay for the costs of their behaviour instead of forcing them onto everyone else.
One idea would be that if there were enough detailed, trustworthy information that consumers might hold companies accountable for their abuse of community resources, and vote with their wallets but empirically speaking this kind of safeguard seems to work very patchily when it works at all.
Once those two possibilities are eliminated I'm struggling to think of anything that doesn't end up looking like regulation.