1. Foundational Principles
- Live and Let Live (3L) is based on a truth we hold to be self-evident: only you can act according to your will.
- From this truth emerges a theory of ‘rights’. Specifically, that you are the rightful owner/steward and exclusive controller of you (the opposite of self-ownership being complete or partial slavery). It follows that, if your body is your legal property, the possessions you obtain in exchange for your work or from gifts are also your property, and so on. From this right of self-ownership stems the right to self-defence, and the accompanying right to a fair trial.
- It is possible for others to impose their will on you - we call this ‘aggressing’. Because no-one wants to be aggressed against, ‘not aggressing’ forms the common fundamental moral root that anchors a civilised society; it is the ‘least common denominator’ of what all reasonable people agree on.
- From this common fundamental moral root, the Live and Let Live Principle (AKA the Legal Principle) emerges: ‘don’t aggress’.
- It can be paraphrased as: ‘each of us is free to live our lives in any way we choose so long as we allow others that same freedom’.
- It applies equally to all individuals, groups, corporations and governments.
- The Legal Principle offers a formula to fairly resolve all commonly disputed topics.
- When all adhere to this basic principle, freedom will be achieved, but not peace. 3L’s mission is global peace, which is why we also add the voluntary Aspirational Values as the second half of the 3L philosophy.
2. Applied to Pollution
- Pollution is ‘unreasonable conduct causing harm’; a breach of the Legal Principle. Specifically, pollution is a tort law violation in which the pollutant is a form of trespass when it enters onto another person’s property without consent.
- There is no technical reason why tort law cannot resolve all material pollution incidents in a well functioning justice system, as it has precedent in effectively doing so for hundreds of years in countries with longstanding common law.
- The plaintiff (who claims to have suffered the unreasonable harm) must have ‘standing’, meaning they can demonstrate injury and a causal connection to the defendant’s conduct such that the court can provide a remedy.
- Tort remedies involve injunctions (to stop the pollution) and damages (compensation for the victim)
Minor trespasses
- When a minor trespass occurs, like faintly hearing a sound coming from another neighbour’s property, barely smelling their barbecue, or being able to see a neighbour’s small light, we employ the Latin expression “*de minimis”* to resolve such matters by concluding they are too small or insignificant to be legally actionable. Exactly where to set the de minimus threshold is a grey area that local communities can define.
- As it pertains to climate change, it should be assumed that mere exhalation of carbod dioxide (CO2) by individuals is de minimus. Competent adults remain free to contract otherwise.
3. Applied to Climate Change
- Given the magnitude of the potential harm that could occur if the preponderance of qualified experts are correct, the issue of climate change warrants our serious consideration.
- Like many factual disputes on complex issues, the best way to resolve whether anthropogenic climate change is indeed a violation of the Legal Principle is to subject the best experts and evidence from each side to a trial to decide.
- Use of ‘experts’
- The facts that are predominantly debated include: whether humanity is inducing climate change via polluting activities and whether this is causing material damage.
- ‘Experts’: The process of factual-finding must consider the position of subject-matter experts. Equally, honest fact-finding also takes into account that not all experts agree on certain data or observations, or on interpretation. Many qualified experts consider the Earth is warming, at least partially due to humans burning fossil fuels, at a rate which presents substantial concern. It is also true that these experts may be wrong. Courts with in a framework ensuring the fairl application of the Legal Principle is a preferred means to address climate change than only relying on subject-matter experts.
- Use of ‘experts’
- If a court fairly determines that anthropogenic climate change is not de minimus and indeed a causal link can be demonstrated between those who pollute with damage to another’s property without consent, it treated as any other trespass, meaning the trespasser must be stopped, punished or remedy the damage caused.
- In the context of climate change, trespassers must either stop burning fossil fuels altogether, or sequester the greenhouse gas emmissions in equal measure to those emitted. Sequestering is the obvious choice, and can be outsourced to solution providers in the free market.
- In local pollution instances, the trespasser can purchase the right, otherwise known as a license or an easement, to continue to use another’s property. Given that all eight billion people are potentially impacted by climate change, this ‘easements’ option will likely prove to be impractical.
- Common law has adapted from addressing medieval smoke disputes to modern toxic torts. As science and technology advances, courts can more easily establish proper causality for large-scale pollution issues with diffuse harm, like climate change.
- A free-market for carbon sequestration is the best and cheapest way to reverse climate change
- Context you already know
- Arbitrary tax and subsidies schemes continue to fail in addressing climate change, and have so over three decades (see, e.g., Hansen.
- There are many ways for CO2 to be sequestered safely and in a sustainable manner. For example, farmers can sequester CO2 in their soil via no-till agriculture, which is also better for biodiversity. The market-derived carbon price would incentivise entrepreneurs to keep devising better ways to solve this problem.
- By offering the trespasser the routine option to either stop trespassing or pay to durably sequester the carbon (essentially a “trespass fee” for the continued trespass), we can effectively resolve the climate change issue and all pollution-related issues without violating the Legal Principle.
- Under such a solution, as much fossil fuel energy may be used as to satiate demand. All the economic benefits in terms of improving quality of life may continue to be enjoyed and build upon. So long as all pollutants are mitigated, there is no aggressing against anyone. By entirely mitigating the pollution, all other energy or climate related taxes and subsidies can be removed.
- Live and Let Live holds that energy, like government or weapons, can be used in any way with the exception of of aggressing against others.
- Context you already know
- What about jurisdictions that do not adhere to the Legal Principle?
- This, along with all other existential threats, is a problem faced today, just as it would be faced by a free community.
- There are various carrots and sticks a free society may choose to implement in attempt to mitigate the threats, including trade related measures like tariffs or other foreign policy measures. Ultimately these may prove futile (especially while free communities are few in number), just as they are currently failing. The 3L Philosophy does not promise utopia.
- Likely the most effective approach will be to lead by example; demonstrate the superior benefits of freedom, peace and prosperity enjoyed from adhering to the 3L Philosophy, such that all eventually choose to emulate.
- What about historic emissions?
- There are many challenges with bringing cases against polluters of the past, including statutory limitations which many jurisdictions reasonably apply. Like with foreign polluters, this is an issue that is not easily resolved today, nor would it be easy for a free society.
- The Aspirational Values, including voluntary kindness, are well met by individuals choosing to sequester carbon in excess of their own emissions.
- As always, the question is not whether the 3L Philosophy is perfect in solving climate change or any other topic, but whether it offers an improvement.