A Recent Envirnonmental Debate I Had...

[KevinDW78]

Ok I was discussing Objectivism recently with someone who was also familiar with it (but did not agree with it.) His belief was that Rand's ideas broke down when one dealt with environmentalism. His argument was that Objectivsm always rests on private property, but what about things that are owned by everyone such as air. And in the case of he, who owns a condo near an oil refinery that puts lots of pollution into the air near where he lives, whose rights are being violated? My counter-argument was basically common sense. The refinery was there decades before he bought his condo. Did he simply not see it there? If he knew it was there and could clearly observe the environmental effects, why would you buy a condo there, only to complain later that your property rights are being violated by lowering value and creating health risks. I would be interested to hear others' opinions on this argument.

[KendallJ]

Well, the things that are objectively harmful are covered under the idea of rights infringement.

Point source pollution that does some sort of objective damage to someone is certainly an infrignement of rights.

But that doesn't cover a whole bunch of other things that the environmental movement wants to control, and which should not be controlled.

Luckily your friend gave you an example that is covered by the first category.

[brian0918]

Ok I was discussing Objectivism recently with someone who was also familiar with it (but did not agree with it.) His belief was that Rand's ideas broke down when one dealt with environmentalism. His argument was that Objectivsm always rests on private property, but what about things that are owned by everyone such as air. And in the case of he, who owns a condo near an oil refinery that puts lots of pollution into the air near where he lives, whose rights are being violated? My counter-argument was basically common sense. The refinery was there decades before he bought his condo. Did he simply not see it there? If he knew it was there and could clearly observe the environmental effects, why would you buy a condo there, only to complain later that your property rights are being violated by lowering value and creating health risks. I would be interested to hear others' opinions on this argument.

This is related to the plague discussion I started a while ago. If a person who is infected with a deadly plague starts running around on your property coughing all over everything, GreedyCapitalist said "the law could presume that any such person is a danger per se, just like someone running around wearing an explosive vest". So unless that person has specific consent to be at a certain location (such as a hospital), the government can stop them from posing a danger to everyone else.

With that said, suppose that instead, the individual did not trespass onto your property, but stood immediately outside of your property, and started coughing all over your property, thereby knowingly and dramatically increasing the number of plague bugs that you would encounter and your likelihood of catching the plague. Is this a violation of your rights? Could such a person be prosecuted for these actions?

If instead of that, he lived in the house next-door, and was knowingly pumping pollution into the air around your property, without trespassing your property, and if it could be shown to be dramatically increase the number of pollutants you encounter daily and your likelihood of developing health problems as a result, could he be prosecuted for these actions, and could he be forced to stop? How is this scenarios different from the previous ones I mentioned, and how is it different from your original scenario?

Reply to KendallJ:

Well, the things that are objectively harmful are covered under the idea of rights infringement.

Anything at all can be harmful at a large enough dose, so that must be built into this idea of what is "objectively harmful". Where does one draw the line between what is harmful at a given dose and what isn't? Does it have to lead to death in some fraction of cases, or birth defects, or respiratory problems, or mental problems?

Edited February 21, 2008 by brian0918

[KendallJ]

Anything at all can be harmful at a large enough dose, so that must be built into this idea of what is "objectively harmful". Where does one draw the line between what is harmful at a given dose and what isn't? Does it have to lead to death in some fraction of cases, or birth defects, or respiratory problems, or mental problems?

Yes it must. Dose is a commonly obfuscated concept among environmentalists. One draws the line by assessing the risk of damage that such things pose relative to the aggregate risk one incurs by simply existing in this dangerous world we live in.

It is not enough to say that something doubles ones risk of a certain type of cancer, but to look at the relative risk of such cancer as weighed against the risk we take in our daily lives. Most "environmental" risks when measured that way are miniscule.

Edited February 21, 2008 by KendallJ

[exaltron]

The oil refinery only has the right to degrade its own property. Just because it was there first doesn't give it the right to pollute neighboring tracts of land. Rand was against the form of environmentalism we see in contemporary society, namely the worship of nature that elevates it above what it is: an environment which humans can and must alter and exploit in order to survive and thrive. But that doesn't mean that clean air and water are not valuable, nor does it mean that anyone can harm you or your property with impunity.

If there is a demonstrable harm done to you or your property, your rights have been violated. Now granted, many environmental claims (eg, I lived next to a chemical plant, now I have cancer) are imminently specious (in fact cancer rates overall have never shown any increase with exposure to chemicals). But there are cases where industries pollute and do harm, and in those cases, any rational Objectivist would observe that rights have been violated.

I believe Capitalism the Unknown Ideal and For the New Intellectual both have essays that address this issue much more eloquently than I have.

[KendallJ]

If instead of that, he lived in the house next-door, and was knowingly pumping pollution into the air around your property, without trespassing your property, and if it could be shown to be dramatically increase the number of pollutants you encounter daily and your likelihood of developing health problems as a result, could he be prosecuted for these actions, and could he be forced to stop? How is this scenarios different from the previous ones I mentioned, and how is it different from your original scenario?

Here is the trick of most environmentalist, and your statement. Dramatically increasing hte number of pollutants is irrelevant. Dramatically increasing your risk, relative to the daily risks you encounter is relevant. That is the key to Kevin's example above.

Yes, that person could be prosecuted as an objective threat to you. Fact is, that is a much more rare occurence than we'd care to believe.

Now granted, many environmental claims (eg, I lived next to a chemical plant, now I have cancer) are imminently specious (in fact cancer rates overall have never shown any increase with exposure to chemicals).

Exaltron, the last is a vague statement and I'm not sure how you mean it. Certain chemicals are known to cause cancer and in fact significantly increase the rates of such, at certain dosages and exposure rates.

The problem is that because of dose response, such chemicals are quite safe at other level. The fact that this chemical exists in your groundwater is not enough to claim damage. Maybe that is what you mean by "overall."

Edited February 21, 2008 by KendallJ

[brian0918]

Yes it must. Dose is a commonly obfuscated concept among environmentalists. One draws the line by assessing the risk of damage that such things pose relative to the aggregate risk one incurs by simply existing in this dangerous world we live in.

This suggests that there is and always will be some finite non-zero amount of danger below which something will always be permissible.

<begin hypothetical>

If it can clearly be shown that a certain synthetic chemical, when inhaled, leads to a specific break-down in the lungs, could someone found to be releasing that chemical into the air be prosecuted for rights violations, no matter how small the dose?

Let's say that on average, that chemical, which has a clear link to the destruction of cells in the lung, in its smallest dose reduces a person's life expectancy by 1 day. Is that chemical permissible? What if instead there were 1,000 or 10,000 such synthetic chemicals, which, individually at their minimum dosage reduce life expectancy by just 1 day each. What would be the point at which a company that is releasing these 10,000 chemicals into the air could/couldn't be prosecuted for rights violations? Would the amount released have to be so low that a given individual in the surrounding community never is exposed to more than 10 or 100 or 1000 of these doses in their lifetime?

Edited February 21, 2008 by brian0918

[KendallJ]

This suggests that there is and always will be some finite non-zero amount of danger below which something will always be permissible. If it can clearly be shown that a certain synthetic chemical, when inhaled, leads to a specific break-down in the lungs, could that chemical be made illegal to release into the outside air, no matter how small the dose?

But you see, this enters the realm of the fantastic hypothetical, when you say, "no matter how small the dose." There is no such chemical. All show dose response. And since most of hte really nasty chemicals are natural and not synthetic, I'll guarantee you that you're already taking days off your life, just by living in the world.

There is some finite non-zero amount that is always permissible. It is relative to the risk we already assume for free.

Here's the logic. If you choose to assume a known risk such as driving your car, for as little as the cost of the insurance you buy in case of an accident, how on earth can you hold a chemical company responsible to the tune of millions of dollars for increasing your risk of dying of cancer by some factor that is 1/1000 of the one you'll already take? If you take a day off your life simply by smoking a cigarette and even pay 50 cents for the pleasure of it, then you've already planted a stake in the ground as to what one day is worth to you.

Risk has a magnitude and it has a value. Ignoring that fact is what the environmentalists would have you do.

Edited February 21, 2008 by KendallJ

[exaltron]

Exaltron, the last is a vague statement and I'm not sure how you mean it. Certain chemicals are known to cause cancer and in fact significantly increase the rates of such, at certain dosages and exposure rates.

The problem is that because of dose response, such chemicals are quite safe at other level. The fact that this chemical exists in your groundwater is not enough to claim damage. Maybe that is what you mean by "overall."

Yeah, that was a bit sloppy. I was referring to a statement which I believe comes from the book Junk Science Judo, which indicates that cancer rates overall have not gone up at all with the increase in industrialization and chemical production over the last 200 years. Basically if routine exposure to chemicals caused cancer, generally speaking, we should expect to see an increase in cancer rates overall, which has not been observed. I think chemicals are much more likely to be blamed for health problems because of junk science smears (cf, the alar scare, the banning of DDT, etc), than are actually going to found at such high concentrations as to cause real health problems. Also is it not the general consensus that just about any substance at a high enough dosage can be shown to cause cancer (eg, aspartame)?

That definitely was vague though, should have been more clear, thanks for pointing that out.

[Gary Brenner]

The oil refinery only has the right to degrade its own property. Just because it was there first doesn't give it the right to pollute neighboring tracts of land.

Actually, there is a sound legal and ethical basis for arguing that early users of an area have homesteaded the right to certain levels of pollution there. A good example is an airport. Most big city airports were originally built in sparsely populated areas, making noise pollution a non-existent issue at the time. Later, as the cities expanded, houses and apartment buildings were located closer and closer to the runways and to the sound of planes landing and taking off. These newcomers would not have a valid complaint against the airport because they have “come to the nuisance.” By the same principle, the airport could not substantially raise its noise level (its nuisance) after its new neighbors were settled in. See Law and Property: The Best Hope for Liberty?by Norman Barry.

[brian0918]

But you see, this enters the realm of the fantastic hypothetical, when you say, "no matter how small the dose." There is no such chemical. All show dose response. And since most of hte really nasty chemicals are natural and not synthetic, I'll guarantee you that you're already taking days off your life, just by living in the world.

There is some finite non-zero amount that is always permissible. It is relative to the risk we already assume for free.

Here's the logic. If you choose to assume a known risk such as driving your car, for as little as the cost of the insurance you buy in case of an accident, how on earth can you hold a chemical company responsible to the tune of millions of dollars for increasing your risk of dying of cancer by some factor that is 1/1000 of the one you'll already take? If you take a day off your life simply by smoking a cigarette and even pay 50 cents for the pleasure of it, then you've already planted a stake in the ground as to what one day is worth to you.

Risk has a magnitude and it has a value. Ignoring that fact is what the environmentalists would have you do.

I know that you're tiring of the hypotheticals, but stick with me. I understand what you are saying, however you seem to have left room for exceptions. If a person purposely goes to the trouble of removing every large risk from his life, by not leaving his house, and even installing a lightning rod to channel any lightning strikes out of harms way, would he have a case if his neighbor released chemicals into the air that increased his risk of dying of cancer by some factor that is 100x what he normally experiences, even though that same risk is 1/1000th of what a normal person in society experiences?

Edited February 21, 2008 by brian0918

[KendallJ]

I know that you're tiring of the hypotheticals, but stick with me. I understand what you are saying, however you seem to have left room for exceptions. If a person purposely goes to the trouble of removing every large risk from his life, by not leaving his house, and even installing a lightning rod to channel any lightning strikes out of harms way, would he have a case if his neighbor released chemicals into the air that increased his risk of dying of cancer by some factor that is 100x what he normally experiences, even though that same risk is 1/1000th of what a normal person in society experiences?

I'm sticking with you, don't worry.

I think the standard would have to be based on a reasonable person. The fact that you value something more than others does not change its replacement cost. That is a common legal device.

The other thing to consider is that one doesn't change risk by orders of magnitude (i.e. multpile factors of 10) without significant cost and in some cases, such as cancer, the knowledge to remove the risk isn't even known so the cost is infinite. That is why I used 1000's as an example. This again is fantastic hypothetical. That is why you buy insurance instead.

[KevinDW78]

The oil refinery only has the right to degrade its own property. Just because it was there first doesn't give it the right to pollute neighboring tracts of land.

I actually did make this agrument as well in my conversation. I probably should have included that in my original post. It actually came about because it was a political conversation and I was pointing out that this was Ron Paul's stance on environmental issues. (that it should be addressed in the context of property rights)

[brian0918]

I'm sticking with you, don't worry.

I think the standard would have to be based on a reasonable person. The fact that you value something more than others does not change its replacement cost. That is a common legal device.

And that makes sense. Thanks!

orders of magnitude (i.e. multiple factors of 10)

I think you mean powers of 10.

That is why you buy insurance instead.

It seems that the simplest statement is that a person is free to reduce his risk factors as far below normal as possible, as long as it doesn't require other individuals to reduce their risk levels below normal. Now if those other individuals purposely elevate their risk levels substantially above normal, and those risk levels spill over onto surrounding properties, then there would be a basis for prosecution. Does that sound right?

Edited February 21, 2008 by brian0918

[KendallJ]

And then you have to get into what constitutes "normal" and "substantially above"...

[Galileo Blogs]

There is some finite non-zero amount that is always permissible. It is relative to the risk we already assume for free.

Here's the logic. If you choose to assume a known risk such as driving your car, for as little as the cost of the insurance you buy in case of an accident, how on earth can you hold a chemical company responsible to the tune of millions of dollars for increasing your risk of dying of cancer by some factor that is 1/1000 of the one you'll already take?

Kendall, this is quite insightful, and the key, in my opinion, to understanding the debate over pollution. Your first sentence, in fact, summarizes what should be the guiding principle for torts involving all forms of pollution.

Incidentally, this principle already is used widely in other contexts in everyday life. Consider when you can legally claim that someone has harmed you, i.e., where you could ask a policeman to arrest that person or sue him for damages.

Can you say that a person has legally harmed you if he stabs you? Of course.

Can you say that a person has legally harmed you if he verbally assaults you in an egregious and threatening manner? Yes.

Finally, can you say that person has legally harmed you if he unintentionally bumps into you, speaks to you with noticeably bad breath, or is simply rude? No.

In those last instances, you have been harmed, but the level of harm does not rise to a level that merits legal action. Certainly, identifying permissible levels of pollution must involve a similar principle, which Kendall has identified.

Just by going out and living my life, I voluntarily assume the risks of people bumping into me, being rude, or having bad breath, yet none of those things are cause for legal action. In the same manner, in the act of living I voluntarily assume various risks. When I drive a car, get on a bus, eat foods and simply live, I assume various risks. If a polluter causes pollution of similar magnitude as these de minimus risks I voluntarily assume every day, then there can be no proper legal basis for taking action against the polluter.

Incidentally, an entertaining book called The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear by the engineer Petr Beckmann stated that the legal limit for emission of nuclear radiation that applies to nuclear power plants is so stringent that if you stood naked on the property line of a nuclear power plant for 20 years, you would receive less radiation from that plant than you receive in one year from radioactive isotopes in your own blood!! Assuming Beckmann's example is accurate, it is a terrible indictment of safety regulation that is guided by an irrational standard.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Galileo Blogs