I believe this answers your question, it is a short read: https://mises.org/wire/rothbard-explains-proper-response-climate-changeSo who’s property rights are the upper atmosphere? How do pollutants get priced in?What about long term effects or run off into a neighbouring property?
Do we need the NZ approach? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...iver-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being
Then joe can gagf because the land owns itself.
Joes rights’ in your example are an artificial construct anyway we created for our own purposes. They are very useful and clearly have many pros but weren’t set up to protect the environment or social goods. We’ve seen the market fail to deliver in this space multiple times because the market by its nature finds any way to exploit a free or low cost resource.
Long term effects or run off could constitute a property right violation and the transgressed party has cause for damages.
Sort of, but it follows a logical chain of reasoning that allows the problem "how do we deal with the problem of scarcity" to be addressed. It's certainly up for discussion on the finer points, but in the main, it is property rights that allow for disputes concerning these issues to be resolved. It doesn't matter what resources are in question, they are covered by property rights be they environmental or social. People that claim market failures are often people that don't like the choices other people make and so they seek government coercion to direct things towards an outcome they prefer. Market outcomes to the extent they are unimpeded by governments should by and large reflect the preferences of the majority of people.