‘Liberalism’ presupposes that individuals are capable of taking decisions that make them and mankind in general better off. It assumes that individuals are fully capable of understanding, or at least valuing, things the way they should. There is a deep distrust towards governments and the actions taken by them. I can fully support this distrust. To put it in one simple one-liner: power corrupts. I am pretty convinced it does. Power attracts individuals and groups that try to work politicians and civil servants. There is a high reward for both parties involved. Eventually, power corrupts so much, it (partly) destroys itself.

Unfortunately, the aforementioned assumptions of liberals (that individuals knows what is best for them and the planet) does not hold forever. Do you always know what decision is best? Remember the last time you thought: “When they will do it, I will also do it”. Or to put it differently: “When they will contribute to paying for the expenses, I will contribute as well”. If you were to turn this around, and always take a lead, how much would you lose (gain) in the end? How many individuals can say of themselves that they have successfully avoided all the temptations of free riding in their lives? How many people (if any) do know what is best for mankind?

It takes me to the discussion on climate change. This week the European Commission introduced a plan that should substantially reduce carbon emissions by 2020. The measures include: a.) a cap on emission per country and a trading scheme that puts a tax on ‘high-emission’ industries and countries, b.) a minimum percentage of energy should be produced using ‘durable’ means and z.) a tax for importing goods from countries that do not have this kind of regulation. The latter is rather important, if the Europeans want to keep working. You have noticed the z.): it was not announced as a measure, but it definitely needs following up.

Some liberals (including a flat mate) think that the topic of climate change is hijacked by leftish, who are guided by feelings in their stomachs, and who rely on some doubtful facts*. I must admit there is a point. But, I do not think it justifies denying its existence. Waste is a by-product of our wealth-creation. We take materials from the earth, transform it using energy (another transformation of resources) and then put it back in the ground, being composed differently. What do we want the earth to do with this? How does it affect the equilibrium(s) in nature? Next time you see a garbage truck… think of where it is going… and then ask yourself why it is going there in the first place.

I doubt if there is going to be any ‘liberal’ answer to the topic of climate change. Well, yes, their knee jerk reaction typically includes the words “nuclear” and “technology”. Both are probably no definite solutions, for nuclear power presents a huge intergenerational risk, as it requires very long term safe storage (and possible abuse by aggressors) and technology only leads to improvements in efficiency. One cannot have a free lunch: when we produce, there must be waste. We cannot trust this topic to those in favour of public intervention either: they abuse environmental policy in order to reduce income differentials. They tax the things that their grassroots are not affected by, and thus only have a minor impact on stopping possible climate change.

I have been contemplating this for a time and I cannot really think of a solution. Waste and climate change are a by-product of consumption. They are in effect a by-product of the liberal society we have been living in. There is just one earth, with a fixed surface and amount of raw materials. There is only one atmosphere with a fixed size. Increasing populations and growing piles of waste take a bigger part of the world. The closer we get to our limits, the more difficult it will become to survive. When we decide on producing (and consuming) less, who will take the burden? Along which lines and rules? Who will control the rules? How do we fight its corruption? How will we keep the economic individuality that has brought us our welfare in the first place?

* How can one trust a failed politician, as Al gore is, who is probably in need of public rehabilitation? I think the IPCC’s authority has been severely damaged. They should have refused the Nobel prize. Now they appear to be serving a political agenda.