Since it’s basically a way of protecting property rights, environmental protection is a legitimate function of government.
That’s the easy part. It gets a lot harder when calculating costs and benefits.
Everyone surely agrees that a chemical company shouldn’t be able to dump toxic waste in a town’s reservoir because the costs would out-weigh the benefits. And presumably everyone also would concur that banning private automobiles would be crazy because this would be another example of costs being greater than benefits.
But there’s a lot of stuff in between those extreme examples where agreement is elusive.
And I’ll admit my bias. I don’t trust the modern environmental movement,
particularly the climate alarmists. There are just too many cases where green advocates act like their real goal is statism.
Moreover, the hypocrisy of some environmental dilettantes is downright staggering.
And they also seem to be waging a regulatory war
View original post 807 more words
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments