Not to my understanding. Libertarian protections are from my understanding all about the quantifiable damages that were done by any given action. They don't usually go beyond that.

That's why most libertarians would be in favor of blowing asbestos insulation with the thought that "well, eventually the mesothelioma victims will sue which will stop the practice". You couldn't preemptively sue, however, as you don't have any damage you could demonstrate until after the cancer starts.

There might be flavors of libertarians that aren't that way but it's my understanding that environmental protections is one of the weaker aspects of the libertarian mindset. Especially since it simply doesn't account for "all the damage is done and the people that did the damage are now gone".

▲

JoshTriplett an hour ago | parent [-]

(Most) libertarians still support addressing externalities.

One common libertarian solution for something unproven would be "it's your job to purchase insurance for this new way of doing things, and convince an actuary that it's safe; the insurance premiums will stop you from taking risks with unproven technologies without appropriate precautions/testing/etc".

▲

cogman10 an hour ago | parent [-]

> (Most) libertarians still support addressing externalities.

Not really. They support it in terms of individual responsibility and not as a government role.

> The standard libertarian solution for something unproven would be "it's your job to purchase insurance for this new way of doing things"

No libertarian I'm aware of would force someone to purchase insurance. But it also does not address the externalities problem. We have in this thread an example of an externality that doesn't have a solution. Rolling coal does small amounts of damage. An insurance agent would be happy to insure someone with a modded car that rolls coal because there isn't going to be a claim related to it.

The same is true for any CO2 emitting activity. The damage is an externality that builds up with very small individual acts. I know of no way this would be addressed with libertarian philosophy (grant for me that man-made climate change is real and a problem if you want to argue against this).

▲

JoshTriplett an hour ago | parent [-]

> Not really. They support it in terms of individual responsibility and not as a government role.

To a libertarian, a major part of the government's job is to enforce contracts and property rights. Externalities are mass infringements on other people's property rights, that need to either be avoided or appropriately compensated. Emitting CO2 does damage to a common good everyone has an interest in.

> No libertarian I'm aware of would force someone to purchase insurance.

I didn't say the government would force them to. (Though some smaller-scale voluntary association might well do so.)

▲

cogman10 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

The problem you'll have in a libertarian framework is who can bring a claim against who for CO2 emissions and for how much?

Like, let's say I have a slam dunk case that my $1000 tree died due to climate change. I have the receipts, documentation, everything (unrealistic as it is). How would I go around recovering the damages I'm owed? Who would figure out that "Ted there who drove to work for the last 20 years contributed $0.0001 of your damages. The concrete plant over there contributed $0.001. The coal plant $0.01".

I'll also point out you did not address the rolling coal problem.

	▲	JoshTriplett 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It is not impossible, in a libertarian framework, to have appropriate court cases to establish standard collective rates and trading frameworks for CO2 emission limits. And that does solve the problem of individual vehicle emissions, as well.