A property-based solution towards climate change
Posted by davidmcnab 10 years, 2 months ago to Business
There will be diverse opinions within this group as to whether we are undergoing serious climate change, the effect that any such climate change may have on human activity, and the extent to which past and present human activity may be contributing to climate change (if even at all).
In this context, one can speculate on a solution based on taking privatisation to the next level. Arguably, the first product of nature to become the subject of property rights was land. One of the main issues for inter-tribe relations was territorial boundaries. As eastern and western societies evolved, land property rights were refined to the level of family, then individual.
However, despite the vast quantum leaps we have made in property rights (there is even a patent on the "business concept" of cutting crusts off sandwiches before serving them), other natural resources critical to human welfare remain in communal possession, which could arguably be blamed for our current climate issues.
Maybe it's time for climate-related resources to catch up with human civilisation and join land and water in the inventory of privately held assets. If the sun were floated as a publicly traded company, then the company Sun Inc could charge for solar radiation by the megajoule. Farmers benefiting from sunlight in growing their crops would have to pay. Ditto for people and companies generating solar electricity. Sun Inc would have legal liability, however, for adverse solar events such as sunspots causing interference to electronic communications.
Similarly, the atmosphere can be floated as well. Users of atmospheric resources such as oxygen would need to open accounts with Atmosphere Inc, and pay for every breath. People who fall into arrears would have their atmospheric breathing rights cut off, and would be required to source their oxygen from elsewhere.
On the other hand, Atmosphere Inc would have legal accountability for atmosphere-related natural disasters such as tornados and hurricanes, and would be incentivised to research technologies for reducing or eliminating these occurrences. Conversely, Atmosphere Inc would be able to control who emits what into the atmosphere, and charge according to substances and amounts. They could charge individuals for carbon dioxide exhalations, for vehicle emissions as well.
The concept of international waters need to be brought up to date with today's property rights advances, and placed into private ownership as well. Oceans Inc would own all waters not within respective nations' economic zones.
Between Sun Inc, Atmosphere Inc and Oceans Inc, there would be robust private ownership and management of critical resources. They would enjoy substantial revenue benefits, but also need to mitigate their legal liability. Insurance contracts would drop any "act of God" clauses, and instead budget in the costs of suing these three companies instead. This would be the new era in advanced privatisation, taking these crucial resources out of the hands of looter governments and putting them safely into private hands where they belong.
In this context, one can speculate on a solution based on taking privatisation to the next level. Arguably, the first product of nature to become the subject of property rights was land. One of the main issues for inter-tribe relations was territorial boundaries. As eastern and western societies evolved, land property rights were refined to the level of family, then individual.
However, despite the vast quantum leaps we have made in property rights (there is even a patent on the "business concept" of cutting crusts off sandwiches before serving them), other natural resources critical to human welfare remain in communal possession, which could arguably be blamed for our current climate issues.
Maybe it's time for climate-related resources to catch up with human civilisation and join land and water in the inventory of privately held assets. If the sun were floated as a publicly traded company, then the company Sun Inc could charge for solar radiation by the megajoule. Farmers benefiting from sunlight in growing their crops would have to pay. Ditto for people and companies generating solar electricity. Sun Inc would have legal liability, however, for adverse solar events such as sunspots causing interference to electronic communications.
Similarly, the atmosphere can be floated as well. Users of atmospheric resources such as oxygen would need to open accounts with Atmosphere Inc, and pay for every breath. People who fall into arrears would have their atmospheric breathing rights cut off, and would be required to source their oxygen from elsewhere.
On the other hand, Atmosphere Inc would have legal accountability for atmosphere-related natural disasters such as tornados and hurricanes, and would be incentivised to research technologies for reducing or eliminating these occurrences. Conversely, Atmosphere Inc would be able to control who emits what into the atmosphere, and charge according to substances and amounts. They could charge individuals for carbon dioxide exhalations, for vehicle emissions as well.
The concept of international waters need to be brought up to date with today's property rights advances, and placed into private ownership as well. Oceans Inc would own all waters not within respective nations' economic zones.
Between Sun Inc, Atmosphere Inc and Oceans Inc, there would be robust private ownership and management of critical resources. They would enjoy substantial revenue benefits, but also need to mitigate their legal liability. Insurance contracts would drop any "act of God" clauses, and instead budget in the costs of suing these three companies instead. This would be the new era in advanced privatisation, taking these crucial resources out of the hands of looter governments and putting them safely into private hands where they belong.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
To recognize property, someone must be able to defend it. How do you defend the sun? The air? The ocean? You can defend space but not energy, nor a freely moving fluid. You can defend an invention of man, or its physical result. But you cannot always defend a feature of the ocean or sky.
That said: you can define a certain seemingly constant condition that affects a parcel of land, or a defined volume of air or water. You can then define a right not to have anyone on the outside change those conditions without consulting you. So when your neighbor puts up a "spite fence," you can sue him.
Pollution, then, becomes the tort of creating a nuisance for your neighbor. A nuisance for which your neighbor, or even someone further away, can hold you liable.
Today we define riparian water rights the same way. One who restricts the flow of water, infringes on the rights of everyone downstream of him. One can assign civil liability to pollution of water the same way. And pollution of air and land.
No thanks.
The governments of the world would never allow those revenue streams in private hands. And the governments, UN, amd NGOs control too much already.