The fundamental problem with BB coalitions is that although they may result in laws which improve environmental quality, they (i) have a strong tendency to be used to restrict free trade or competition, or provide some kind of Government favour to certain companies’ products. They rarely achieve/act to do the opposite, ie (ii) increase free trade and competition. It would be interesting to assess the numbers of cases where (i) versus instances of (ii). I believe that instances of (i) would far out-number those of (ii). (This would make an interesting area of research!)

I can see no reason why an improved environmental outcome should necessitate decreased competition/decreased free-trade (except that it was driven by the BB coalition). In fact, decreased competition/decreased free-trade (such as resulting from BB coalitions) generally act as negative forces on prosperity. Lower prosperity will in the long term tend to result in poorer environmental out-comes.

That’s the perverse environmental outcome of BB coalitions. Plus, there are adverse socio-economic outcomes because of restrictions on competition/trade.

“But JMF, you’re a Libertarian. Regulations in a free market are an oxymoron.” Nope. This is like saying that laws in a free society are an oxymoron. We have laws that make it illegal to murder and steal to protect my right to life and own property and that’s why we have laws that make it illegal to pollute. To paraphrase Oliver Holmes, “One man’s right to pollute ends where the other man’s lungs begin.”

The good news is that not only am I a Libertarian, I am also a realist so I understand that energy without pollution is not practical. It would be nice if we could generate infinite power without polluting but we have not developed that technology – yet. The emphasis being on the word – yet.

By setting up regulations that reward companies that produce products that forward technology we are investing in our future. By setting standards that push the development of cleaner energy and renewable fuels we are simply admitting the obvious, that fossil fuels pollute and they are finite.

It seems to me that companies that whine about tougher regulations favoring companies with more competent technologies are as absurd as shamans and bleeders whining about vaccination and doctors putting them out of business.

Adam Smith 101: Adapt or die.

What BB coalition brought us the perversion of the common law safeguards against pollution in favor of industry (that Walter Block has summarized), that led to horrendous pollution and fuelled calls for federal regulatory intervention – and has left us with the ongoing sruggle for control over government?

What BB coalition gave us the corporate form that severs shareholders from liability? That gave us unlimited life & purposes, and 14 ad. “equal protection” jurisprudence?

Are there any international/global externalities to fossil fuel use that may warrant local, state and federal action, and international coordination?

Are the industry leaders who support federal cap and trade schemes all concerned with using government to gain competitive advantage, or might some of them believe what they say?

Might Exxon CE Rex Tillerman actually believe that a carbon tax is in our collective best interest?

Is there a B&B coalition that OPPOSES climate regulation, and seeks to protect the regulatory advantages they secured (including licenses to pollute) many decades ago (by bashing evil enviros)?

While you say that the “US Chamber of Commerce” opposes Waxman-Markey, while nuclear-powered utilities favored it, surely you did not miss the fact that decisions by the Chamber on climate issues have been led by a narrow clique of coal producers and transporters?
Sincerely,

Tom

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/03/a-libertarian-immodestly-makes-a-few-modest-climate-policy-proposals.aspx