Supporting my point, Hayek states:
Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation.
In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the substitution of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created, does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.
His position on the idea that one can indeed create a price mechanism to mitigate the increasing threat of climate change’s repercussions goes extremely contrary to the American right's opposition of carbon pricing. In a world where pollution is at the top of the political spectrum, I think we owe the world to come to a conclusion - that actions need to be taken.
Insofar as to the power the political elites are able to muster to move forward with planned undertakings, I am very sorry to say that the outlook is very much despairing and I have come to harbor a pessimistic view . It might just be plain ignorance or better said the industrial complex massive amounts of cash that they are willing to front delusively in the name of Hayek's sake.
To quote Peter Thiel: "In the face of these realities, one would despair if one limited one’s horizon to the world of politics... The critical question then becomes one of means, of how to escape not via politics but beyond it."
