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 ârightsâ. 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-defense, and the accompanying right to a fair trial.
It is possible for others to impose their will on you - we call this âaggressingâ. Because no one wants to be aggressed against, ânot aggressingâ forms the common fundamental moral root that anchors a civilized society; it is the âleast common denominatorâ of what all reasonable people agree on.
From this common fundamental moral root, the 3L Legal Principle emerges: âdonât aggressâ.
- It can be paraphrased as: âeach of us is free to live our lives in any way we choose so long as we allow others that same freedomâ.
- 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. 3Lâs 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 âunreasonable conduct causing harmâ; 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 personâs 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 âstandingâ, meaning they can demonstrate injury and a causal connection to the defendantâs 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 neighborâs property, barely smelling their barbecue, or being able to see a neighborâs small light, we employ the Latin expression â*de minimisâ* to resolve such matters by concluding they are too small or insignificant to be legally actionable. Exactly where to set the de minimis threshold is a gray area that local communities can define.
As it pertains to climate change, it should be assumed that mere exhalation of carbon dioxide (CO2) by individuals is de minimis. Competent adults remain free to contract otherwise.
3. Applied to Climate Change
Climate change warrants our serious consideration. This is because of the magnitude of the potential harm that could occur if the preponderance of qualified experts are correct.
A court trial is needed to determine whether climate change is caused by pollution. Like many factual disputes on complex issues, the best way to resolve whether anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions do constitute ‘unreasonable conduct causing harm’ (i.e. a violation of the Legal Principle) is to subject the best experts and evidence from each side to a trial to decide.
- Subject-matter âexpertsâ should be considered as part of the factual-finding process. 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 within a framework ensuring the fair application of the Legal Principle is a preferred means to address climate change than only relying on subject-matter experts. The facts being debated include whether humanity is inducing climate change via polluting activities and whether this is causing material damage.
If pollution is causing material harm, legal consequences must ensue. Specifically, if a court fairly determines that anthropogenic climate change is not de minimis, and indeed a causal link can be demonstrated between the pollution and subsequent non-consensual property damage, the pollution is treated as trespass. The trespasser must be stopped, must remedy the damage caused, or punished.
The trespasser can either stop burning fossil fuels altogether, or sequester the greenhouse gas emissions in equal measure to those emitted. Sequestration 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 anotherâs property. Given that all eight billion people are potentially impacted by climate change, this âeasementsâ 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
Arbitrary tax and subsidies schemes have failed as a solution to climate change for over three decades since Hansen testified to the US Congress on this issue.
Many effective CO2 sequestration methods exist. Some of these have positive impacts on biodiversity. For example, farmers can sequester CO2 in their soil via no-till agriculture, which improves the soil microbiome.
The market-derived carbon price would incentivize innovation. Entrepreneurs can be free to continually devise more efficient ways of harnessing energy, and better ways to sequester any emissions to mitigate any pollution.
We can resolve the climate change issue without violating the Legal Principle by offering the trespasser the routine option to either stop trespassing or pay to durably sequester the carbon (essentially a âtrespass feeâ for the continued trespass). Any amount of fossil fuels can be used to the extent that they do not cause pollution. Any economic benefits and quality of life improvements can continue to be enjoyed, so the issue of iniquity for developing counties is resolved.
The result: all energy becomes ‘clean’ (i.e. no pollution, even if fossil-fuel derived) and energy may even become cheaper as all 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 aggressing against others.
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 to mitigate the threats. One example could be to apply penalty fees on imports from polluting nations, or other foreign policy measures. Ultimately these may prove futile (especially while free communities are few in number), but at least domestic emissions would be mitigated. The 3L Philosophy does not promise utopia. The correct assessment of the merits of 3L is to compare it to the status quo, not to perfection.
- Likely the most effective approach will be to lead by example and demonstrate the superior benefits environmental stewardship 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.
