Libertarians and Climate Change Denial

I have recently enjoyed posts by Matt Bruenig and George Monbiot as they have both tried to identify exactly why the theory of anthropogenic climate change is met with such determined resistance from Libertarians. A discussion introduced by Monbiot portrayed the Libertarian position as an extention of the concept of negative liberty, and specifically the blind assertion of Libertarians that they should be free to pollute as they see fit without regulatory interference. Bruenig dismissed this line of reasoning out of hand (like Monbiot I think rather prematurely) but raised the important matter of property rights derived from procedural justice. Summarised, Bruenig argued that the whole philosophy of modern day Libertarianism is rooted in individual property rights based on procedural justice, and if one were to accept that global warming and pollution violate the property rights of others then one radically undermines adherence to the idea of procedural justice itself.

Both writers are, I think, largely correct in their assessment of the ideological underpinnings of climate change denial, but I believe it might also be helpful to stretch the argument and demonstrate why this problem is so specific to Libertarianism and not necessarily a problem shared with the rest of the political spectrum. I will do this with reference to a very interesting article published recently by Mark Lilla in the New York Review of Books in which the author strives to understand the new apocalyptic fervour gripping right-wing politics in the US.

Lilla neatly separates Conservatives from Libertarians through reference to two key writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill. He maintains that it is in these writers’ contrasting conceptions of the individual and society that we find the key difference in these two ingluential schools of thought. Burke, whom Lilla associates most closely with traditional Conservatism, defined himself through his vilification of the French revolutionaries whom, he claimed, were attempting to accomplish the impossible task of breaking entirely from France’s monarchical past. The slate of history, Burke maintained, could never be wiped clean no matter how fearsome the cleansing. Energy, therefore, is always better directed to maintaining and improving that which is pre-existing. To this end, the State has a responsibility to neutralise individual exuberance when it threatens to undermine the stability of society. 

In contrast, Mill’s Liberalism maintained that liberty, properly defined, was the preserve of the individual agent, and not contingent on his or her position within a group. In short, an individual should be utterly free to reach the fullness of his or her potential without the interference of social or political forces. In Mill’s world, government should only exist in order to ensure that individual autonomy is maintained and protected. This challenge to traditional conservative thinking, Lilla contends, lies at the heart of Libertarian philosophy and remains a defining attribute or all its various branches and institutions.

If we now take these two contrasting political traditions and apply them to a modern day discussion of climate change, we can see just how isolated Libertarians become from more moderate elements of the political right. If we accept the theory of man-made climate change, and acknowledge that we need both national and international regulation to combat it effectively, we are required to not only reasses our understanding of property rights but also to tacitly accept that the importance of individual liberty is outweighed, in this instance, by the need to conserve society, even if that means curbing individual activity. As this is a line of reasoning that the political predecessors of Libertarians denied more than 100 years ago, it is scarcely one they are prepared to accept now. To do so would entirely evaporate the founding principle of Libertarianism.*

Like Monbiot and Bruenig I agree that property rights are of considerable importance in this discussion, but whilst both Conservative and Libertarian traditions are united in their defence of private property, the two are more at odds when the question of individual liberty is raised. This is perhaps why we can see that climate change denial is most closely associated with the far-right than with more moderate Republican and Tory politicians. One can quite easily make the argument that Conservatives should be amongst the most vehement campaigners for environmental protection, but for Libertarians this would involve a direct challenge to their most basic political instincts.


* Incidentally, this argument perhaps helps to explain why those Libertarians that accept the scientific consensus on climate change argue for policies of adaptation, rather than mitigation. Adaptation leaves the polluter free to pollute, and the onus is placed on the market to provide technological solutions to our problems. The State only need play a minor role in this scenario.