An Open Letter to Libertarian Candidates … (Part 5)

Part 5. Playing fair. Or, “ … with liberty and justice for all.”  So suppose we are a small island nation that has contributed almost nothing to the world’s carbon emissions, but stands to lose everything to rising sea levels. If the science is right, and if climate change is to blame. Say with a 65 to 95% certainty (hypothetically, where the real range would be based on an assessment by the insurance industry).

      But suppose this is the case. A case in case law. The proposal, so far, would do almost nothing to offer compensation. If the country itself were to impose a carbon fee, almost nothing would be collected, so almost nothing would be paid out, and residents (the ones most likely to lose everything) would get nothing.

      What do we do about that?

      One thing we might do, as an incentive for such countries to join the settlement, is apply the proposed solution across national borders. There would be just one pool of money collected from carbon fees. And the citizens of every country that agreed to the carbon-fee-and-dividend approach (joined the settlement) would be paid dividends from the fees collected world-wide.

      So I can just imagine the horror with which you might be taking this in. A world-wide fund? Everyone shares equally? Sounds pretty socialist (should I say communist?) to me.

      But, the truth is, in this case, the proposal precisely matches the problem. If we were not dealing with a world-wide resource (the air), we would not have a world-wide pool of money, that’s all. And would not have the need to compensate someone in America for emissions put into the air by some factory in China. But we do. And this neatly handles the problem going forward.

      As for compensation (if any) for past emissions (old carbon is just as dangerous as new carbon when it comes to climate risk, until it is pulled from the atmosphere), this is something that could be negotiated as each nation joined the settlement. In the case of our island nation, the cost of resettlement (at a minimum) would be at stake.

      All such special cases (cases where a people is disproportionately at risk through no fault of their own), however, would be dealt with once, and up front.

      Going forward, it would be every man and woman for him/herself.

      May the smartest (and wisest) adapt, survive, and thrive.

      Given, of course, a fair shake and an equal opportunity.