I've never seen a libertarian answer to how that philosophy would solve global climate change so I very much doubt it.
Does anyone have an answer to this question?
> libertarian answer
Property rights in the land, air, and water.
Libertarian approach would be simply adopt to the new situation, as I realistically see many people just don't care or believe.
So I would (and do) still try to act as ethical as possible and go all for green technologies, but I doubt it can be forced up on people and do much good in the end, if people are not convinced of it.
Forcing developing nations to adopt the policies of the wealthy creates an understandable tension and incentive for cheating the regs.
Libertarianism is simply a political framework which we can use to see and interpret the world. It can be combined with other frameworks to help us reach even deeper levels of understand (or perhaps not).
The right-libertarian could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels.
A left-libertarian, maybe someone with a strong civil libertarian persuasion, could argue that the non-aggression principle is being violated by the emissions of greenhouse gasses. They would then establish an "emissions rights" framework, and perhaps a marketplace to address the issue.
Or ween of dependence on climate. All these green arguments start from a false premise that human interference is the only threat to the stability of our ecosystem, ignoring extinction events and natural catastrophes that we know can be as impactful as global warming (and more). Instead of being conservative and hoping for the best if we stop burning stuff we should be discussing how to deal with a more volatile climate in general.