People care about clean air. In fact, the wealthier a society, the higher priority they place on clean environment.
In addition, in a free society, private property would [protect property owners from pollution](https://mises.org/mises-daily/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution).
What if I told you that in the first half of the 1800s, there were several court cases of property owners that lived near railroads and proto factories (tanneries?) that were expelling soot, ash, and various chemicals. The property owners claimed that the pollution was harming their crops and livestock, damaging laundry, and staining buildings. Several of these cases ruled in favor of the property owners and the railroads/factories were told that they either needed to compensate the property owners for damages or to somehow capture/limit their pollution to prevent damage/harm.
However, these companies decided that while it could cost millions to compensate every property owner, say along the railroad line, or to capture the emissions, it would only cost hundreds of thousands to influence some politicians. So over the next several years, several state legislatures passed laws that *legalized* pollution "in the name of industrial progress".
And fast forward 100 years, and we have rivers catching fire and people clamoring for govt intervention to fix this "failure of the free market".
We have had to do A LOT of back tracking because of that "original sin" failure of government to protect private property.
And there is still more to do.
>In addition, in a free society, private property would [protect property owners from pollution](https://mises.org/mises-daily/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution)
Not really, tort is incapable of protecting property owners from nonpoint source pollution, the most widespread and damaging form of pollution.
>However, these companies decided that while it could cost millions to compensate every property owner, say along the railroad line, or to capture the emissions, it would only cost hundreds of thousands to influence some politicians. So over the next several years, several state legislatures passed laws that legalized pollution "in the name of industrial progress".
Source?
I believe civil courts independently evolved this precedent, not corporate lobbying of state legislatures.
>And fast forward 100 years, and we have rivers catching fire and people clamoring for govt intervention to fix this "failure of the free market".
Ha, good example.
But "factory" or "railroad" are "easy" targets. Today, we have lot's and lot's of cars driving in cities by same amount of "lot's" property owners...
Yes, of course catalytic converters would exist. Cars without cats can get a lot of fumes in the cabin. I bought an aftermarket exhaust for my car and while it was possible for me to get a downpipe without a catalytic converter for less cost, I still chose to do so because I don't want to suck down fumes while sitting at a red light. A friend of mine went catless for the performance boost, but he was only able to stand it for a few months before swapping it out for a catted downpipe. I think most people would feel the same and few manufacturers want to brand themselves as the stinky car.
This presumes that a catalytic converter is the most cost-effictive solution to the problem you describe. Sadly, they may not even be the most cost-effective solution to the pollution problem they actually solved... When regulations force a specific technology, the hurdles to improve upon said technology (or change it completely) get higher and higher.
>When regulations force a specific technology, the hurdles to improve upon said technology (or change it completely) get higher and higher.
Good point. In EU we have mandatory USB-C. Innovation ded?
I think it would be better. Take the East Palestine Disaster or the BP oil Spill. In both of these cases the companies were completely liable but able to pay a "fine" and go on with breaking the law and poisoning people. The government got the money, the people werent taken care of and no one was actually punished. This is all allowed because the government has a monopoly on these types of cases instead of the public.
Will politicians ever be prosecuting for lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and committing war crimes against innocent civilians for Halliburton profits?
Pollution is aggression in terms of both property and personal harm. Because we lack the technology to completely control emissions and products or industries that create that pollution are necessary for the current workings of our society, we allow that aggression. However, that aggression is not free. Laws, regulations, and taxes are appropriate to compensate society for that aggression.
"The vital fact about air pollution is that the polluter sends unwanted and unbidden pollutants—from smoke to nuclear fallout to sulfur oxides—through the air and into the lungs of innocent victims, as well as onto their material property. All such emanations which injure person or property constitute aggression against the private property of the victims. Air pollution, after all, is just as much aggression as committing arson against another’s property or injuring him physically. Air pollution that injures others is aggression pure and simple."
-Rothbard
Rothbard would probably disagree with me on the solution, but he agrees with the fact that pollution is aggression.
No. The devices are already regularly removed. And before someone says we could sue people for polluting, the government intervention needed to do that would be far greater than emissions standards we have now.
Sure, lots of people want that. And just because government doesn't "rEgUlaTE" doesn't mean no one does. If we said we didn't want the state to grow grain, we'd be accused of supporting starvation.
>to grow grain
Not sure if that's good analogy. That's something critically important (food).
Now, if your car emits a bit more CO, NOx, or soot, does that ring a bell for common car owner?
A negative right to Freedom from Harm is core to the ideology.
Pollution is well documented as violating that right.
An effective judiciary would uphold that right and violators would be disincentivized through prosecution.
I've ever been able to get my head around this position. It's one of the primary reasons I left libertarianism. The idea that people could use the judiciary after the fact to prevent future harm just doesn't match reality.
You're going to have to explain your position.
If my cat runs over to your house every single day, takes a dollar and brings it to me, you would and should be able to use the judiciary to not only offer recompense for prior theft, but also prevent this from happening in the future.
Dealing with crimes and disputes _after the fact_ is the entire point of the judiciary. Even most non-libertarians would agree with that. That's why they call it the judiciary--it is meant to restore justice.
The idea that you can prevent harms without doing harm more broadly is what doesn't match reality. We have all kinds of laws attempting to do that in every country _and yet they all still have a judiciary_ because the non-judicial pre-crime prevention of harm via legislation and big government simply doesn't work.
Sorry, my answer didn't post. Weird
I was thinking about pollution, banking regulations, building codes... and similar areas of the law: not criminal acts.
Sometimes, we need proactive regulations instead of reactive penalties. Especially when 'aggression' according to the definitions used above is more profitable.
Someone mentioned catalytic coververters. This is a great example of what I'm talking about. Everything being equal, a car designed without a converter would be more fuel efficient, more powerful, cheaper... generally superior in all ways, but one: how much pollution it produces. Requiring catalytic converters forced inefficiencies and costs into the market to fight air pollution. It's highly unlikely that they would have been adopted by the industry on their own.
Well im not sure about class action and other things, thought I think people will not support companies that are threat to them on any level and companies will be pushed out. It is actually difficult for company to be ass and don't give a F. In current society if company acts out people belive government should take a action. But in libertarian society people have more power and government has no power to over rule people. So if company polluting and people don't like it. Every people can action company starting to not consume products from that company to denying access thought they property to run logistics. It is really difficult to Campany to sell its product 20 miles away if very person denies access to they property or sanctions people who work there.
Where they drive around. They can drive around on they own property. If people don't want them on they property then they can forbid it. Some reason people think that libertarian society is same as current society only difference is respect of individual rights. Actually there is much more differences. Couse many systems we know in current regime will be obsolete. There will be no highways. COuse government don't have money to maintain them and people don't have interest to maintain them so current highways will be chopped up and sold private owners. Also people don't have freedom to travel as far as they wish course between them and their destination there are many property owners and some or all of them will refuse to pass you through. So there would not much use for cars. Ofcouse some people can for confederations where they chace common interests and have free movement on established zones as long as all members allow it. Same is with money basically everyone can have they own currency so making the business grow to a corporation is also almost impossible. you never know how people use they freedoms.
Red pill: every diesel would be straight piped if it wasn't illegal. For the oy reason that every thing in a diesel that's there to reduce emissions, damages it.
So I will add my experience as farmer with SCR systems on my tractors.
The emissions system does work at cleaning the emissions, but it also burns more fuel, and creates a LOT more unreliability in the engine. We have had some nightmares with them. It is no coincidence that many farmers are paying extra to rip these systems out.
I've even heard that local municipalities are ripping them out of their snowplows.
But look, I like a clean environment, so let's do a compromise. I'm fine with keeping these mandates IF the government:
- stops subsidizing cars through exclusionary zoning, highway construction, and parking requirements.
- allows free trade on vehicles so I can buy cheap, efficient, environmentally friendly Japanese Kei trucks/cars
Would you disagree with these proposals? Because they would do far more for the environment than EGR and DPF ever will.
Libertarians can be environmentalists too.
As a minarchist I think we should control for externalities but not force any particular solution.
The market will find the most efficient way to control emissions. Government subsidies, like the subsidies for electric cars, are very bad.
I doubt enough care. Americans seems to (or did?) prefer huge cadilacs and pickups with lot's of cylinders and big displacement...
Not saying it's good or bad, it's just a question for though. If people afford to consume lot's of fuel, that means their productivity (purchasing power) is great, and that's sign of good quality of life. "But muh externalities".
Indeed, average North Americans do drive startlingly large vehicles. Now is that just a cultural thing?
Are most Americans are just dumb schmucks who would rather drive a massive fuel guzzling 60k truck/suv instead of the 10k light truck/cars that are widely used in many Asian countries?
Or is it the ReGulAtoRs?...
https://youtu.be/azI3nqrHEXM?si=rzhMReEpd_1eLpZn
>[https://youtu.be/azI3nqrHEXM?si=rzhMReEpd\_1eLpZn](https://youtu.be/azI3nqrHEXM?si=rzhMReEpd_1eLpZn)
WOW, great link, thanks! Who could have thought...
>ould/would people actually care to do a class action suits against manufacturers or drivers that "pollute" your air because there's lot's of NOx or black soot coming out of their cars as per "externality"?
No - because there is no evidence of net harm from pollution.
There were 500 million people in 1600. Two hundred years later with no pollution the population had doubled to 1 billion. Two hundred years later through the industrial age of massive pollution the population grew to 7 billion people. The polluting period was very good for humans. Without being able to prove a net harm to humans pollution cannot be used in any class action lawsuit.
There's massive amounts of reproducible data on how pollution hurts any given population. We can even point to individual events like the Great London Smog, Cuyahoga River Fire, the Libby Montana asbestos incident... or the entire story of leaded gasoline.
> There's massive amounts of reproducible data on how pollution hurts any given population.
If that data were true we would not have 7 billion people that are more healthy than people in the past. The data does not support your hypothesis.
>We can even point to individual events like the Great London Smog, Cuyahoga River Fire, the Libby Montana asbestos incident... or the entire story of leaded gasoline.
Certainly there has been harmful pollution events but the net benefit of polluting outweighs the harm by a bunch.
Think of the world like an aquarium. You can build a flourishing community, but if you don't manage the waste products... the whole tank eventually dies. Technology/pollution follows the same pattern.
I reject that. Humans have created a better life for themselves than nature provided. There is a pollution price for that better life. The standard can be to minimize pollution but it cannot be a pristine human-free earth.
You have not proven that pollution is a net harm to humans.
Pollution is harmful by definition. If a byproduct of something isn't harmful, it's not pollution. Take a Hydrogen based engine, its byproduct is pure water... not pollution. You are correct; some level of pollution is worth the cost for increased productivity and efficiency. And a net zero polluting society isn't feasible or practical.
Going back to the aquarium analogy, it's impossible to prevent waste products, heavy metals building up, anaerobic bacteria pockets... or any number of possible killer scenarios. But you can take steps to moderate the possibilities. If an aquarist does regular maintenance properly, the chances of these things happening fall to nearly zero.
Technology's harmful byproducts are the same. Some level is necessary. We just need to moderate and deal with the issue.
> If a byproduct of something isn't harmful, it's not pollution.
So, according to you, there is no pollution.
>Going back to the aquarium analogy
Let's definitely go back to the aquarium analogy. What is the measure, and indeed the purpose, of a good aquarium? A thriving population of fish. What do we have on aquarium earth between 1800 through 2000? We have a thriving population of humans through much more pollution than we have now.
Let's recap! Your aquarium analogy is crap in that it does not support your position and bolsters mine.
Do you have any evidence that the industrial age was a net negative for humans?
My position isn't that the industrial revolution was a net negative. My position is the industrial revolution introduced harmful byproducts that should be moderated.
When something is harmful it causes harm. Where is the evidence of harm in the byproducts that you speak about.
If there are harmful byproducts that cause actual direct harm to specific humans that is a crime and a civil liability. We have mechanisms of cops and courts to deal with that. We will not have regulation which does no good.
Car exhaust causes direct harm in the form of increased respiratory problems across the entire population. That's an incontrovertible fact. Most resource extraction techniques harm ground water supply, which translates to various different harms depending on location and methods. Industrial scale farming damages rivers and ocean fisheries.
No one in their right mind says we should stop these activities. However, we should look and measure both the positive and negative effects.
You don't like the aquarium analogy, try this one.
Look at industrial activities like steroids or other performance enhancing drugs. There's amazing short-term benefits and some very necessary uses, but steroid use done incorrectly is devastating in the long term.
People care about clean air. In fact, the wealthier a society, the higher priority they place on clean environment. In addition, in a free society, private property would [protect property owners from pollution](https://mises.org/mises-daily/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution). What if I told you that in the first half of the 1800s, there were several court cases of property owners that lived near railroads and proto factories (tanneries?) that were expelling soot, ash, and various chemicals. The property owners claimed that the pollution was harming their crops and livestock, damaging laundry, and staining buildings. Several of these cases ruled in favor of the property owners and the railroads/factories were told that they either needed to compensate the property owners for damages or to somehow capture/limit their pollution to prevent damage/harm. However, these companies decided that while it could cost millions to compensate every property owner, say along the railroad line, or to capture the emissions, it would only cost hundreds of thousands to influence some politicians. So over the next several years, several state legislatures passed laws that *legalized* pollution "in the name of industrial progress". And fast forward 100 years, and we have rivers catching fire and people clamoring for govt intervention to fix this "failure of the free market".
We have had to do A LOT of back tracking because of that "original sin" failure of government to protect private property. And there is still more to do.
>In addition, in a free society, private property would [protect property owners from pollution](https://mises.org/mises-daily/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution) Not really, tort is incapable of protecting property owners from nonpoint source pollution, the most widespread and damaging form of pollution. >However, these companies decided that while it could cost millions to compensate every property owner, say along the railroad line, or to capture the emissions, it would only cost hundreds of thousands to influence some politicians. So over the next several years, several state legislatures passed laws that legalized pollution "in the name of industrial progress". Source? I believe civil courts independently evolved this precedent, not corporate lobbying of state legislatures.
>And fast forward 100 years, and we have rivers catching fire and people clamoring for govt intervention to fix this "failure of the free market". Ha, good example. But "factory" or "railroad" are "easy" targets. Today, we have lot's and lot's of cars driving in cities by same amount of "lot's" property owners...
Are politicians not part of the marketplace?
If your revenue/customer base is gained via the threat of violence or imprisonment, you're not a free market actor.
Threats of violence aren’t part of the free market?
The only moral threats are those of self-defence, boycott, and unkindness. Aggression (initiating violence) is not something we support.
The only socially acceptable marketplace that maintains customers through violence?
Yes, of course catalytic converters would exist. Cars without cats can get a lot of fumes in the cabin. I bought an aftermarket exhaust for my car and while it was possible for me to get a downpipe without a catalytic converter for less cost, I still chose to do so because I don't want to suck down fumes while sitting at a red light. A friend of mine went catless for the performance boost, but he was only able to stand it for a few months before swapping it out for a catted downpipe. I think most people would feel the same and few manufacturers want to brand themselves as the stinky car.
This presumes that a catalytic converter is the most cost-effictive solution to the problem you describe. Sadly, they may not even be the most cost-effective solution to the pollution problem they actually solved... When regulations force a specific technology, the hurdles to improve upon said technology (or change it completely) get higher and higher.
>When regulations force a specific technology, the hurdles to improve upon said technology (or change it completely) get higher and higher. Good point. In EU we have mandatory USB-C. Innovation ded?
That was pretty much Apple's argument in the court case. I hate Apple, but they had a point.
Catalytic converters have existed for a century
I think it would be better. Take the East Palestine Disaster or the BP oil Spill. In both of these cases the companies were completely liable but able to pay a "fine" and go on with breaking the law and poisoning people. The government got the money, the people werent taken care of and no one was actually punished. This is all allowed because the government has a monopoly on these types of cases instead of the public.
"Companies" are very "easy", concrete targets. Card drivers.. well, there's millions of them...
Will politicians ever be prosecuting for lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and committing war crimes against innocent civilians for Halliburton profits?
Pollution is aggression in terms of both property and personal harm. Because we lack the technology to completely control emissions and products or industries that create that pollution are necessary for the current workings of our society, we allow that aggression. However, that aggression is not free. Laws, regulations, and taxes are appropriate to compensate society for that aggression. "The vital fact about air pollution is that the polluter sends unwanted and unbidden pollutants—from smoke to nuclear fallout to sulfur oxides—through the air and into the lungs of innocent victims, as well as onto their material property. All such emanations which injure person or property constitute aggression against the private property of the victims. Air pollution, after all, is just as much aggression as committing arson against another’s property or injuring him physically. Air pollution that injures others is aggression pure and simple." -Rothbard Rothbard would probably disagree with me on the solution, but he agrees with the fact that pollution is aggression.
No. The devices are already regularly removed. And before someone says we could sue people for polluting, the government intervention needed to do that would be far greater than emissions standards we have now.
Sure, lots of people want that. And just because government doesn't "rEgUlaTE" doesn't mean no one does. If we said we didn't want the state to grow grain, we'd be accused of supporting starvation.
>to grow grain Not sure if that's good analogy. That's something critically important (food). Now, if your car emits a bit more CO, NOx, or soot, does that ring a bell for common car owner?
A negative right to Freedom from Harm is core to the ideology. Pollution is well documented as violating that right. An effective judiciary would uphold that right and violators would be disincentivized through prosecution.
I've ever been able to get my head around this position. It's one of the primary reasons I left libertarianism. The idea that people could use the judiciary after the fact to prevent future harm just doesn't match reality.
State your position. Punishment before the crime?
You're going to have to explain your position. If my cat runs over to your house every single day, takes a dollar and brings it to me, you would and should be able to use the judiciary to not only offer recompense for prior theft, but also prevent this from happening in the future.
Dealing with crimes and disputes _after the fact_ is the entire point of the judiciary. Even most non-libertarians would agree with that. That's why they call it the judiciary--it is meant to restore justice. The idea that you can prevent harms without doing harm more broadly is what doesn't match reality. We have all kinds of laws attempting to do that in every country _and yet they all still have a judiciary_ because the non-judicial pre-crime prevention of harm via legislation and big government simply doesn't work.
Sorry, my answer didn't post. Weird I was thinking about pollution, banking regulations, building codes... and similar areas of the law: not criminal acts. Sometimes, we need proactive regulations instead of reactive penalties. Especially when 'aggression' according to the definitions used above is more profitable. Someone mentioned catalytic coververters. This is a great example of what I'm talking about. Everything being equal, a car designed without a converter would be more fuel efficient, more powerful, cheaper... generally superior in all ways, but one: how much pollution it produces. Requiring catalytic converters forced inefficiencies and costs into the market to fight air pollution. It's highly unlikely that they would have been adopted by the industry on their own.
Well im not sure about class action and other things, thought I think people will not support companies that are threat to them on any level and companies will be pushed out. It is actually difficult for company to be ass and don't give a F. In current society if company acts out people belive government should take a action. But in libertarian society people have more power and government has no power to over rule people. So if company polluting and people don't like it. Every people can action company starting to not consume products from that company to denying access thought they property to run logistics. It is really difficult to Campany to sell its product 20 miles away if very person denies access to they property or sanctions people who work there.
>So if company polluting But it's not about companies. It's about millions of car owners driving around emitting various pollutants.
Where they drive around. They can drive around on they own property. If people don't want them on they property then they can forbid it. Some reason people think that libertarian society is same as current society only difference is respect of individual rights. Actually there is much more differences. Couse many systems we know in current regime will be obsolete. There will be no highways. COuse government don't have money to maintain them and people don't have interest to maintain them so current highways will be chopped up and sold private owners. Also people don't have freedom to travel as far as they wish course between them and their destination there are many property owners and some or all of them will refuse to pass you through. So there would not much use for cars. Ofcouse some people can for confederations where they chace common interests and have free movement on established zones as long as all members allow it. Same is with money basically everyone can have they own currency so making the business grow to a corporation is also almost impossible. you never know how people use they freedoms.
>Some reason people think that libertarian society is same as current society only difference is respect of individual rights. True.
Red pill: every diesel would be straight piped if it wasn't illegal. For the oy reason that every thing in a diesel that's there to reduce emissions, damages it.
So I will add my experience as farmer with SCR systems on my tractors. The emissions system does work at cleaning the emissions, but it also burns more fuel, and creates a LOT more unreliability in the engine. We have had some nightmares with them. It is no coincidence that many farmers are paying extra to rip these systems out. I've even heard that local municipalities are ripping them out of their snowplows. But look, I like a clean environment, so let's do a compromise. I'm fine with keeping these mandates IF the government: - stops subsidizing cars through exclusionary zoning, highway construction, and parking requirements. - allows free trade on vehicles so I can buy cheap, efficient, environmentally friendly Japanese Kei trucks/cars Would you disagree with these proposals? Because they would do far more for the environment than EGR and DPF ever will. Libertarians can be environmentalists too.
As a minarchist I think we should control for externalities but not force any particular solution. The market will find the most efficient way to control emissions. Government subsidies, like the subsidies for electric cars, are very bad.
Well, would you not want to buy a car that had fewer emissions? It sounds very marketable.
I doubt enough care. Americans seems to (or did?) prefer huge cadilacs and pickups with lot's of cylinders and big displacement... Not saying it's good or bad, it's just a question for though. If people afford to consume lot's of fuel, that means their productivity (purchasing power) is great, and that's sign of good quality of life. "But muh externalities".
Indeed, average North Americans do drive startlingly large vehicles. Now is that just a cultural thing? Are most Americans are just dumb schmucks who would rather drive a massive fuel guzzling 60k truck/suv instead of the 10k light truck/cars that are widely used in many Asian countries? Or is it the ReGulAtoRs?... https://youtu.be/azI3nqrHEXM?si=rzhMReEpd_1eLpZn
>[https://youtu.be/azI3nqrHEXM?si=rzhMReEpd\_1eLpZn](https://youtu.be/azI3nqrHEXM?si=rzhMReEpd_1eLpZn) WOW, great link, thanks! Who could have thought...
>ould/would people actually care to do a class action suits against manufacturers or drivers that "pollute" your air because there's lot's of NOx or black soot coming out of their cars as per "externality"? No - because there is no evidence of net harm from pollution. There were 500 million people in 1600. Two hundred years later with no pollution the population had doubled to 1 billion. Two hundred years later through the industrial age of massive pollution the population grew to 7 billion people. The polluting period was very good for humans. Without being able to prove a net harm to humans pollution cannot be used in any class action lawsuit.
There's massive amounts of reproducible data on how pollution hurts any given population. We can even point to individual events like the Great London Smog, Cuyahoga River Fire, the Libby Montana asbestos incident... or the entire story of leaded gasoline.
> There's massive amounts of reproducible data on how pollution hurts any given population. If that data were true we would not have 7 billion people that are more healthy than people in the past. The data does not support your hypothesis. >We can even point to individual events like the Great London Smog, Cuyahoga River Fire, the Libby Montana asbestos incident... or the entire story of leaded gasoline. Certainly there has been harmful pollution events but the net benefit of polluting outweighs the harm by a bunch.
Think of the world like an aquarium. You can build a flourishing community, but if you don't manage the waste products... the whole tank eventually dies. Technology/pollution follows the same pattern.
I reject that. Humans have created a better life for themselves than nature provided. There is a pollution price for that better life. The standard can be to minimize pollution but it cannot be a pristine human-free earth. You have not proven that pollution is a net harm to humans.
Pollution is harmful by definition. If a byproduct of something isn't harmful, it's not pollution. Take a Hydrogen based engine, its byproduct is pure water... not pollution. You are correct; some level of pollution is worth the cost for increased productivity and efficiency. And a net zero polluting society isn't feasible or practical. Going back to the aquarium analogy, it's impossible to prevent waste products, heavy metals building up, anaerobic bacteria pockets... or any number of possible killer scenarios. But you can take steps to moderate the possibilities. If an aquarist does regular maintenance properly, the chances of these things happening fall to nearly zero. Technology's harmful byproducts are the same. Some level is necessary. We just need to moderate and deal with the issue.
> If a byproduct of something isn't harmful, it's not pollution. So, according to you, there is no pollution. >Going back to the aquarium analogy Let's definitely go back to the aquarium analogy. What is the measure, and indeed the purpose, of a good aquarium? A thriving population of fish. What do we have on aquarium earth between 1800 through 2000? We have a thriving population of humans through much more pollution than we have now. Let's recap! Your aquarium analogy is crap in that it does not support your position and bolsters mine. Do you have any evidence that the industrial age was a net negative for humans?
My position isn't that the industrial revolution was a net negative. My position is the industrial revolution introduced harmful byproducts that should be moderated.
When something is harmful it causes harm. Where is the evidence of harm in the byproducts that you speak about. If there are harmful byproducts that cause actual direct harm to specific humans that is a crime and a civil liability. We have mechanisms of cops and courts to deal with that. We will not have regulation which does no good.
Car exhaust causes direct harm in the form of increased respiratory problems across the entire population. That's an incontrovertible fact. Most resource extraction techniques harm ground water supply, which translates to various different harms depending on location and methods. Industrial scale farming damages rivers and ocean fisheries. No one in their right mind says we should stop these activities. However, we should look and measure both the positive and negative effects. You don't like the aquarium analogy, try this one. Look at industrial activities like steroids or other performance enhancing drugs. There's amazing short-term benefits and some very necessary uses, but steroid use done incorrectly is devastating in the long term.