One is monopolies, hence antitrust laws.

Another is an unfortunate tendency towards extreme wealth distribution, hence progressive tax rates and other such policies.

A third is environmental concerns in which the airborne waste production of one factory affects everyone in the world (to some degree.) Hence environmental legislation.

Now there has to be some balance–and even when government is necessary it ought to be treated with extreme distrust–but that’s why, in general, I don’t have any problems with the principal of environmental legislation.

As far as the climate change and adaptation, here’s the deal:

As a race, we always acclimate ourself to environmental changes, and the fact of the matter is that changes bring good as well as bad. Global warming is no different, though scientists will go crazy arguing which is more prevalent (and many seem to prefer pessimism.)

As individuals, however, at any given moment we tend to occupy the situation that works best with the current climate environment. If we live somewhere where it is cold, we’ll probably have heat rather than air conditioning. If we live somewhere on the coast with little historical erosion, we’ll probably build along the coast without expectations of further erosion. If we live on a tropical island whose climate supported its native floura and fauna, we’ll probably assume we can always get such a bounty.

When things change, the rich can always adapt. Is Las Vegas a desert? Build a dam and put in lots of casinos and shows. Is your private island no longer growing mangos? Ship in the hardiest breed of pomegranites, which grow well in the new climate. Money has power, and power (generally speaking) means adaptability.

The poor don’t have such adaptability. If the one breed of rice that grows on a subsistence farmer’s land no longer grows, he and his family starve to death. If a poor villager’s coastal cottage collapses due to erosion, he sleeps in a friend’s house, at a mission, or under the nearest bridge–because he lacks the funds for materials to rebuild his house. (Or, for that matter, to reinforce his foundations in accordance with the latest scientific research before his house collapses.)

So basically, climate change may offer good and bad (and it’s an ill wind indeed that blows nobody any good), but by and large it is only the relatively wealthy who have the power to take advantage of the good and escape from the bad. And since mankind is generally clever enough to be in the ideal situation for his current climate, any significant change in climate will overall have an immediate average negative effect. Especially on the poor, who lack the resources for expensive alterations.

Also, has there been a correlation in the past with global temperatures going up or down and many people suffering? Why would this time be different? (I don’t know the answer to these questions, by the way) We have always acclimated to our current conditions and I think we will continue to do so.

If those worried about global warming are right, and we ignore their advice, we risk some pretty horrific results, especially for those living in poverty on costal areas.

If those worried about global warming are right, and we follow their advice, we risk loosing a bit of money but living in a world with less smog and more trees.

So as long as the evidence remains controversial, I’m all for mild pro-environment measures.