"Libertarian" and "tax" in the same sentence. How does that even work?
Because no one can own the air and you do not have a right to pollute something you do not own... further more if you pollute on land you do own you cannot guarantee the pollution will go to land owned by other people. And if you can guarantee that it will stay on your property, win win, we solved global warming!
This would be the argument for creating more of a structured market approach to assigning the costs of these externalities: courts are inefficient and plagued with problems when there's a power difference between the parties, so creating a market structure allows those externalities to be compensated in a more efficient way, while still allowing market pricing to incentivize industry to resolve the externality in the most efficient way available.
The libertarian's argument against this (I imagine) is that any government market scheme will screw it up more, though I don't know why so much faith is placed in the court system as a magically efficient system that resolves property disputes fairly and cost effectively in cases like diffused externalities.
In reality that's not the case, and there is no overarching principle any sect of libertarians hold (as far as I know) that harm can only be addressed via lawsuits. Since the overhead of lawsuits grows ridiculously large when the number of plaintiffs is equal to the population of the country (or even world), the far more practical solution is to just directly apply a Carbon Tax. This is pretty much equivalent to a lawsuit without the overhead of the courts. The biggest difference is while after a lawsuit the wealth is distributed directly, here the wealth is distributed by lowering taxes.
On the other hand I've seen Gary Johnson quotes like this one
> In 2016, as a candidate, Johnson talks about balancing the budget but lacks the zeal of libertarians who think the state could be cut in half without consequence. He’d keep Social Security for current retirees. He wouldn’t abolish the EPA, after learning in New Mexico how the government policed bad actors.
> “In the libertarian view, without the EPA, you as an individual could sue under the law,” said Johnson. “But not really. You don’t have deep pockets to go up against Chevron.”
From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-libertarian-gary-...
Either way, good point.
But with that said too: the government itself can sue, it doesn't have to be people.
Under the issue of Environment:
"Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required."
And under Government Finance and Spending:
"All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a 'Balanced Budget Amendment' to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes."
So, unless it is shown to be constitutionally mandated a carvon tax is not endorsed by their platform.
If I read correctly, it would not be endorsed under their Crime and Justice section either.
Interesting aside, the Libertarian Party doesn't seem to be aware that all (100%) of U.S. currency is based on debt. The Treasury issues a bond, the Fed lrints money to buy it, and then all that goes into circulation. It's not magic, it's explicitly fiat, but I guess they missed that, or want to go back to something like the gold standard, which totally makes sense if you believe in the intrinsic value of gold rather than simply inderstanding it as a convenient means to mark a currency against if you want to limit inflation as only so much gold production per year is possible.
My very informal and unreliable impression is that most libertarian writers ( who are worth reading ) embrace a Pigou regime as a pallative for managing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Some libertarians espouse land taxation. This exploits the symmetry between the role of government as protector of land ownership and how this is to be paid for. Tax land rents.
And I think there's an argument to be made that income taxation is both a poor proxy for rents and very invasive.
Libertarians are anti-income and sometimes property tax but not anti-consumption tax. Basically the government cannot take "by force" the money that an individual earned or forcefully levy a tax on property they own. But taxing someone for polluting the atmosphere? Sure.
Carbon tax is actually very Libertarian. Greenhouse gasses pollute the commons which deprives other's of their right to quality air. I think many Libertarians would be for the government stepping in to end pollution of the commons and making companies pay for their own pollution is a fair way to do it.