Jeff Wartman

I’ve been outspoken about one fact in current political discourse — namely that Republicans should not give up ground to Democrats on some issues where the free market can solve problems but are traditionally liberal issues — issues like the environment, healthcare and education.

I want to focus on the evironment here.

Let’s be clear about one thing — if human activities are responsible for  global warming, then liberals should speak out against their own system.  After all, it was under the watch of the EPA that human caused global warming supposedly has occurred.  So if we are to become believers in the human caused global warming phenomenon, clearly the EPA has failed and we need to look to other solutions.

One of the most significant obstacles to having this discussion is a lack of understanding by some liberals about what the term ”free-market” actually means.  Hint:  If you point to China to use an an example of the free-market, you don’t understand the term.  If you think that “free-market” means unregulated capitalism and the rule of robber barons, you don’t understand the term.  If you think that “free market” means that market failures aren’t possible, you don’t understand the term.  Under a free market system, corporate welfare and corporatist laws are just as destructive as socialism.

So, hopefully we’ll be able to have a reasonable debate without people thinking that “free market” is anarchy or means a total lack of government, laws or regulations. 

Now, on to the master, John Stossel:

How might the free market — which relies on consent, not coercion — be better than government at addressing global warming? Policy analyst Gene Callahan points out that government is a big part of the problem because it encourages overuse of fossil fuels.

For example, use of highways is not subject to market pricing, so it appears to be free. The resulting traffic jams are bad for the environment.

We’d use less coal if the government didn’t create regulatory obstructions to nuclear power.

The creative market process — if unburdened by state subsidies and regulations — would discover alternative fuels that bureaucrats can’t even dream of.

Today, an energy maverick is likely to be punished by the government, as Bob Teixeira learned when he had the audacity to run his Mercedes on soybean oil. If climate danger is real, the profit motive will drive entrepreneurs to find technologies to reduce CO2.

Markets outshine governments in innovation and flexibility. Those virtues would come into play if global warming does become a problem. “For example, the financial industry, by creating new securities and derivative markets, could crystallize the ‘dispersed knowledge’ that many different experts held in order to coordinate and mobilize mankind’s total response to global warming,” writes Callahan.

“Weather futures can serve to spread the risk of bad weather beyond the local area affected. Perhaps there could arise a market betting on the areas most likely to be permanently flooded. That may seem ghoulish, but by betting on their own area, inhabitants could offset the cost of relocating should the flooding occur.”

A less-regulated insurance industry would have a strong profit motive to anticipate problems from any warming and set prices for property coverage appropriately.

Insurance companies would rely on the best scientific information because, unlike government, if they make a mistake, they face bankruptcy.

The most important thing we can do is not to impede production of wealth.

As the late Aaron Wildavsky said in his wonderful book Searching for Safety, “Wealthier is healthier.” A rich society is resilient and able to respond to unforeseen threats.

People in the developing world desperately need prosperity. Blocking their development on the flimsy promise of climate “fixes” will only make hard lives harder. Their primitive environments are killing them.

The question then becomes, what specific proposals can we as free-market Republicans provide to the issues of environmentalism?  Many are outlined above.  What do you think?