Environnement

[Freeman]

Que pensez-vous de ces propositions trouvées sur le site du LP ?

____________________________________

Thirty years of competition between undue alarmism and unthinking skepticism have confused environmental issues in the minds of most Americans.

On one hand, some are convinced, despite the evidence, that environmental catastrophe is imminent and, without a drastic change of human lifestyle, unavoidable.

On the other hand, some are convinced, also despite the evidence, that human life has no discernible impact on the ecosystems within which it thrives.

Neither group's views reflect reality. It's time for clear thinking on environmental policy, and it's time for the federal government to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

The first thing that we have to realize is that property rights and free markets are essential protectors of, not detriments to, a clean, sustainable environment.

The phenomenon was most pronounced in Eastern Europe during the heyday of the Soviet Union, but it's also discernible in America: Government is the biggest polluter, and the biggest facilitator of pollution.

If we're going to preserve and redeem our environment, we must understand that pollution isn't mitigated by policies which legitimize it and even facilitate the trade of "pollution credits"—a quantified, qualified "right to pollute." Pollution, properly understood, is an offense against the property rights of those whom it affects, and should be treated as an actionable tort to be adjudicated by the legal system.

Secondly, we must do away with corporate welfare and its kissing cousin, "public property." When we vest control of our wild lands in government, why are we surprised when politicians turn around and sell timber and mining "rights" -- at below-market prices, with taxpayer-subsidized roads to facilitate exploitation thrown in—to the corporate interests which support their political aspirations?

When an individual or business owns property, there's a built-in incentive to steward that property. When "the public" owns property, the only incentive is for everyone to "get theirs"—and the corporations wield more influence in deciding how much is "theirs" than you or I do.

As President, one of my first priorities will be ending corporate welfare and federal regulation that facilitates, rather than fights, pollution.

In tandem with those measures, I'll work to ensure a justice system that addresses the real damage that real pollution does to real people and their property.

Finally, I'll work to get "public" lands into private hands. Our environment has been harmed, not helped, by the movement to keep environmentally significant lands under the control of politicians.

If organizations like the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club are serious about preserving wilderness areas, I want to give them the opportunity—by selling those areas to them. It is my considered opinion that Americans value these lands—from Yosemite to Yellowstone, from Allegheny to Winema—enough to care for them rather than trusting them to a government which has failed to do so.

One objection I've heard to this idea is that these lands are "priceless." But that's just not true. Everything has a price, and our politicians have sold our environment out from under us at bargain-basement rates.

The real question is whether those who care about the environment are willing to put their money where their mouths are—to pay the price—or whether they want to continue playing the losing game of trusting politicians not to act like politicians. The latter is a really bad bet—and the stakes are too high to make it a worthwhile one.

[Coldstar]

Il aurait fallu développer un peu plus ce point:

In tandem with those measures, I'll work to ensure a justice system that addresses the real damage that real pollution does to real people and their property.

Comment le déterminer?

Sinon c'est OK, cohérent.

[Librekom]

Il aurait fallu développer un peu plus ce point:

Comment le déterminer?

Sinon c'est OK, cohérent.

Moi quand c'est en anglais j'abandonne direct, trop dure pour moi.

Mais sur le sujet de l'environnement, ma solution c'est l'intériorisation des externalités.

Tout le monde c'est ce que c'est ou j'explique ?

[Salatomatonion]

Moi quand c'est en anglais j'abandonne direct, trop dure pour moi.

Mais sur le sujet de l'environnement, ma solution c'est l'intériorisation des externalités.

Tout le monde c'est ce que c'est ou j'explique ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Moi quand c'est en Français des fois, j'abandonne direct.

[Librekom]

Moi quand c'est en Français des fois, j'abandonne direct.

lol

il est tard j'expliquerai demain, mais LOOOOOOOOl

[Evildeus]

Internalisation est le mot. Maintenant, je pense que pour intégrer les externalités, il faut des DP et que en soit ce n'est pas un problème d'internalisation mais de DP.

Plusieurs liens:

http://herve.dequengo.free.fr/index1.htm

http://www.institutmolinari.org/environnement.htm

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf

http://www.mises.org/asc/2003/asc9simpson.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_1_1.pdf

Un bouquin: