Green Libertarianism: The Freedom Based Alternative to The Green New Deal
One of the hottest political topics currently in the zeitgeist is the “Green New Deal” that first year Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fancifully proposed and most of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are supporting. For a variety of reasons, this proposal has received a great deal of criticism. Incorrectly, Representative Ocasio-Cortez seems to think no one else has ever tried to address the issue of Climate Change, at least not in any worthwhile way.
What would a liberty based version of the Green New Deal look like? The boldly honest yet seemingly flippant answer is there wouldn’t be one. However that doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be any effort to protect the environment. “Green New Deal” implies big government programs similar to FDR’s “New Deal”, but a freedom oriented solution would have little to no government involvement. A liberty based Green New Deal would simply be liberty based environmentalism also known as Green Libertarianism.
The Good Neighbour Policy
Libertarianism is often summed up with the pithy but cute phrase “don’t hurt people, and don’t take their stuff”. This is a summation of the Non-Aggression Principle or NAP. Mary Ruwart has a more philosophical and complete definition of the NAP though that she refers to as the “Good Neighbour Policy”. She writes extensively of the Good Neighbour Policy in her book Healing Our World: The Compassion of Libertarianism. In this book, she defines the Good Neighbour Policy in two parts: “…(O)ur program for peace had two parts: (1) honesty, tolerance, and respect towards others and their property (i.e. refraining from threatening first-strike force, theft, or fraud); and (2) repairing any damage we caused by violating the first part.”
This Good Neighbor Policy is exactly the foundation Green Libertarianism should be based on. At the core of a Green Libertarianism should be the idea that if anyone pollutes or does anything that causes harm to others, they should be responsible to make it right.
Furthermore, where there is responsibility and accountability, laws and regulation are unnecessary. If someone dumps garbage onto their neighbour’s property, they are responsible to make it right. In other words, they clean up their mess. If they choose not to, then there may have to be a third party involved such as a mediator or a court. The only law that may be necessary would be that if someone harms another person or their property, they have to make it right. It should be just that simple.
Instead, we have all sorts of laws, rules, and regulations. Over time, the State encroaches more and more. Under rules proposed during the Obama administration, the EPA could arguably regulate even a puddle on your property. The more the State encroaches, the less freedom the individual has. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would be a drastic, exponential expansion of the State. Among the most overbearing proposals are:
- Upgrading or replacing every single building in the U.S. for increased energy efficiency
- Banning nuclear power and fossil fuel within 10 years
- Transitioning to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years
- Building intra- and inter- continental high speed rail
- Ending air travel
- Mandating that all jobs related to the Green New Deal are union jobs
- Planting trees instead of investing in Carbon Capture and Storage technology
- Implementing, potentially, Cap and Trade and a Carbon Tax
Choice Versus Control
With Green Libertarianism, individuals, families, and communities would be able to do their own thing regarding power generation and environmental protection. For example, several years ago it was announced that nuclear technology was progressing towards being able to have buried neighbourhood nuclear reactors that would generate power for a community and only have to be serviced every 7-10 years. If a community wanted to have their power generation from a neighbourhood reactor, that’s great! If a community wanted to use solar and wind generated power, that’s great! If a community wanted to use hydroelectric power or geothermal power, those are great options too! If a community is on hydroelectric power and a family decides they want their home to be powered by solar power, that’s great too. Let each household or community do their own thing undisturbed by others and without harming others.
This hands off approach would also include the cessation of subsidies. Subsidies distort the market. If we are going to trust and rely on the market to fix things, then we must not distort the market through subsidies or regulation.
Monopolistic public-private collusion must also come to an end. California’s wildfires of the last few years are a very illustrative example of why this must be. In the case of several of the fires, it has been demonstrated that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) was in one way or another responsible for the fires. However, because of the monopolistic nature of PG&E, their culpability is limited. They carried a certain amount of insurance to help cover losses, and beyond that, either the State of California will cover the losses or the losses will not be covered. If the State of California is covering the losses that means the people of California are really the ones covering the losses.
Sometimes it may not be possible to fully restore that which is lost, but those cases are the exception, not the rule. If a loss is significant enough that it cannot be covered, perhaps that means the business goes out of business. While in many ways businesses having to close their doors is an unfortunate thing, this is a part of the business cycle. Businesses rise and fall, just like nations and people. After a rise, stagnation often occurs. Change usually comes when the fall happens. Sometimes the fall is a result of the change, sometimes the change comes because of the fall, but the two are usually connected one way or another.
These changes are a part of innovation and entrepreneurship. The market will encourage entrepreneurs and innovators to find better, more cost effective ways to provide a product or service.
The last key part of Green Libertarianism is the removal of the sovereign immunity of the State. The United States Government is one of the largest polluters in the world, but because it has decided to eschew responsibility, there is little recourse. When the State is held responsible, just like a person, there is likely to be improvement and accountability.
Rights and Responsibilities
Liberty is strongly connected to property rights. A person or business that wants to be successful in the long term will use their property and resources responsibly. When people have ownership and responsibility they take better care of things. They will engage in conservation and environmental protection which will allow them to enjoy their property and resources, and the fruits that come from them, long into the future.
Whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not, surely the need to be good environmental stewards is something everyone should be able to agree on. The political left has doubled down on governmental solutions which would result in more government and less personal freedom, more regulation and cronyism, and less free markets. Individuals concerned about liberty and the environment must start doing a better job of taking care of the environment and sharing the message of Green Libertarianism.
Many outside the liberty movement view libertarianism as a very selfish philosophy, to the point of being immoral and selfish. This needs to be addressed. Those inside and outside the liberty movement need to work together to address issues of common concern where common ground can be found. Sooner or later, something more drastic will have to be done in regards to environmental protection unless we tackle the issue head on. If we don’t want the Green New Deal to be the way we address these issues, the must be better advocates for, and better exemplars of the freedom based way of protecting the environment. Everyone must take responsibility for their stewardships and their actions. Otherwise, the State will continue to grow in size and power. When responsibility is given up, freedom goes with it, and we cannot let that happen. We can protect our environment and our freedom at the same time. The question is, will we do so, or will we let people like Representative Ocasio-Cortez take charge, and take our freedoms in the name of protecting what we refused to protect ourselves?
Garrett Leeds is the founder of the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness Project
