For the Children! Still!

Over at Reason, Ron Bailey responds to the oft-employed environmentalist argument that whatever expensive, restrictive regulation they’re arguing for at a given time is justified because "we owe it to future generations." That sounds nice, but the reality of the argument is far less pleasant.  As Bailey says:

Really? Perhaps intergenerational ethics tells us that poor people (us) should not sacrfice their livelihoods, health and welfare for rich people (future generations). Reducing current incomes will certainly be deadly for some people now alive.

Should people making an average of $7000 per year be forced to lower their incomes in order to boost the incomes of future generations that some scenarios project will have incomes in 2100 over $107,000 per capita in developed countries and over $66,000 in developing countries? Also keep in mind that not only will future generations be much richer, they will have access to better technologies with which to address any problems caused by man-made climate change, nuclear waste and geo-engineering projects.

This follows a lot of the same arguments that have been made by Jim Manzi, whose opposition to a carbon tax stems largely from his assessment that greater wealth and technology will, in the long run, be far more suited to responding to environmental challenges than burdensome regulatory non-solutions now.