A well written take on climate change

[handy]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/floy2.html

[Zeno Swijtink]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/floy2.html

Seems Vaclav Klaus supports free market environmentalism, the "legal position that argues that the free market, property rights, and tort law provide the best tools to preserve the health and sustainability of the environment."

That is fine as far as it goes.

But should we should turn a blind eye to, or deny the existence of, emerging problems that free market environmentalists do not know how to address within their political philosophy, such as non-source pollution, including GCC thru increased green house gas emissions and land use changes, or the recently publicized drug residue in drinking and surface water? Where private property does not apply and causal pathways are too complex to be dealt with in the courts?

A political philosophy has lost its vitality if it cannot anymore address the current social and environmental problems, and has to resort to the rhetoric of last recourse, claiming that people who have identified and detailed these issues are just fear mongering.

It's a pity that libertarians are putting their heads in the sand since we need them to deal creatively with these new environmental threats!