What follows is very much off the cuff, incomplete and subject to revision or deletion.

Kate O’ over at High Holy Mass of Contradiction asks an interesting question about libertarians:

Why does it seem that so many of the people who get most passionate when it comes to matters of personal financial responsibility and conservation of fiscal resources are not equally passionate when it comes to environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources?

I haven’t really given this a great deal of thought before, but must also confess that I’m not much of a tree hugger. My initial thought is – free markets. Libertarians are free market believers. As something becomes scarce, it become more valuable. It’s high cost cuts down on consumption and generates incentives to either protect the remaining portion of that resource, increase the available supply or find suitable substitutes, see, e.g. oil.

One problem I see with that is it does not account for certain resources not traded in the free market. For example, the market can create little incentive to protect or foster the growth of a rare, endangered species of plant or animal. A small plant that lives only in an isolated corner of the Kansas prairie may have little or no resale value. Limited supply is met with limited demand leading to limited market value. A person living under a strict market view would not care about the lose of a rare endangered species under these circumstances. But that ignores two things.

First, this free market approach ignores potential undiscovered value in now extinct organism. Extracts from that plant might have held the key to a fantastic medical break through, have been a phenomenal new energy source or a potential miracle food that could cheaply nourish millions. The market cannot appreciate what it does not know.

Second, libertarians are fond of saying that “Your rights end where my nose begins” or some formulation thereof. I don’t throw trash out my car window because I recognize that I share this earth with everyone else. I don’t have the right to pollute their earth any more than they have the right to pollute mine. But, following that line of thought to its logical conclusion would lead to utter paralysis. Nearly every action I take has an impact on someone else in some way. A compromise is necessary.

A possible corollary to number two, is that somethings have value just by being. That endangered plant or animal may be completely worthless in the commercial market place. But, it’s part of our natural treasure. If I destroy the last snail darter, no future generation will ever be able to enjoy seeing one. Once lost, it is lost forever.