Get Energy Smart! NOW!

The core to a pure libertarian thinking could be …

• Absolute liberty of individual action … as long as …
• that does no harm to others.

Absent encounters with the real world (such as how the complexity of the modern world makes ‘total knowledge’ for decision making essentially impossible for individuals so that they can consciously choose their level of risk in purchases in the market place), perhaps like how Communism might appeal to many absent considering how the ideology has confronted reality, this Libertarian conception has great appeal.

For too many self-proclaimed libertarians, the ‘anti-government’ element of “absolute liberty” drives out actual consideration of that second bullet: the do no harm.  The most egregious space likely arises when it comes to “externalities” of pollution and environmental impacts: such as diseases from chemical industrial plant waste, damaged ecosystems from agricultural runoff, and leeching chemicals from trash threatening drinking water. Prominent among this are the major impacts from the burning of fossil fuels, most notably the climate impacts.

When considering motivations for climate science denial, many libertarians are driven toward denying climate change science for core ideological reasons: admitting to the reality of climate change and the scope of the problem drives one toward ‘governmental’ roles in finding paths forward to address these risks. While ideology shapes almost everyone’s perspective on the world, problems/opportunities, and best paths forward, when it comes to to many self-proclaimed libertarians and climate science, the ideology requires rejecting reality.

That caveat, “to many”, matters.  There are many libertarians who are honest to data and seek to promote paths forward honest with that data, honest with reality, that align (at least partially) with their ideological preferences. When it comes to climate change, that ‘honest to data’ strain of Libertarian is best represented by the Niskanen Center’s climate science and policy work within the Climate Unplugged project. As Niskanen has explained,

Why would a think tank chock-full of libertarian expats join with environmentalists and represent local governments in a lawsuit [about climate change]? Because we take property rights and the rule of law seriously.

For many (most) concerned about climate change risks, a strong hope has been to have basic common ground as to the science, some commonality as to risks, and then debate/fight/work together toward ‘best paths forward’.  While perhaps having realms of disagreement with Niskanen Center staff’s basic preferences and ideological perspectives, (almost all of) those with fidelity to climate science and seeking action on it are absolutely ready to sit down and work with Niskanen Center staff to debate paths forward and find arenas of common ground for collaboration.  

While long aware of Niskanen Center work, this post is spark by news that hit the inbox yesterday. Around the world, there are a growing number of legal challenges about climate change, lawsuits seeking faster government action, government prosecution of Corporations for misleading the public (critically, for legal reasons, their shareholders and investors), and against companies (primarily fossil fuel firms) for their share of climate damage. These include, in the United States alone, lawsuits against “big oil” by cities and counties (San Mateo, Marin, Imperial Beach, San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, City of Richmond, New York City, City of Boulder, Boulder, San Miguel) and youth lawsuits in multiple states (AK CO FL ME MA NM NC WA).

Yesterday’s Niskanen announcement, it is providing free legal counsel and support to one set of these suits:

Today, the city of Boulder, Boulder Co., and San Miguel Co. filed suit against ExxonMobil and Suncor in Colorado state court seeking compensation for climate damages. The Niskanen Center will be co-representing the plaintiffs pro-bono. Here's why. https://t.co/7DhFZXuNzY

— Jerry Taylor (@jerry_jtaylor) April 17, 2018

The full discussion as to why Niskanen is doing this is well worth a read. In terms of being honest to their ideology and perspective as to how best deal with ‘externalities’, this might be the key paragraph:

conservative and libertarian intellectuals who embrace what is known as “free market environmentalism” have long argued that pollution is a trespass on private property that is best dealt with whenever possible by common law action—not by legislators acting to referee such trespasses via sweeping environmental laws with (heavily politicized) utilitarian calculations in mind. By representing the interests of their constituents in this case, that’s exactly what these municipalities are trying to do.

The Niskanen discussion makes clear allegiance to honest evaluation of data and scientific analysis

There is little factual dispute about the fundamentals. Despite the omnipresent drumbeat of climate denialism from some corners of the right, the oil industry concedes that climate change is real, that it is largely if not entirely driven by the industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, and that the products they manufacture are the source of much of those emissions.

Addresses inadequacies in the U.S. political response

Even the most limited, half-hearted policy measures are now being rolled back by the Trump administration. Sorry Boulder and San Miguel, say ExxonMobil and Suncor, but the politicians have decided that we get to destroy property and impose costs on taxpayers without consequence or complaint.

And, provides a thoughtful examination of why industry (oil producers and refiners) should bear responsibility, not consumers;

But aren’t oil consumers, rather than oil producers, really the responsible parties here? No. Courts have repeatedly ruled that manufacturers are liable for the damages their products cause, especially when they know in advance that their products, if used as intended, will cause that harm. And that’s exactly the case here. The oil industry has known since a least 1957 that burning fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet to dangerous levels, and that the cost of that warming would prove monumental. Rather than alert the public and engage in good-faith conversation about how society should respond, the oil industry sought to mislead and deny what they knew about the risks of fossil fuel consumption until very recently.

The Niskanen Center’s Climate Unplugged project, their active involvement in these climate lawsuits, and their well argued announcement of that involvement make clear that there is ground for commonality and actual ‘bipartisan’ (across the political spectrum) collaboration and cooperation when honest and truthful engagement exist across the parties.

The Niskanen announcement — along with much of their other work — is well worth a read across that political spectrum.

Note: For an indication as to some ‘rejection’ of/reaction to Niskanen Center’s moves among their ideological peers, see this twitter interaction.