There are many issues for libertarians. Who decides on issues such as the environment? Government? Politically motivated groups? Scientists that are looking for funding? What about coercion (force) imposed on others that disagree with what they see as politically motivated scientists like Al Gore? No freedom there. That's tyranny and not libertarian.

There are libertarian solutions. People that believe in something, like certain environmental concerned can use free market solutions that do not infringe on other's freedom. Moral persuasion works better than top heavy government solutions that lead to corruption and the inevitable evasion of laws or the movement away from the reach of government heavy fist-ed authority.

The problem for future generations is governments that "implement some sort of over-blown bureaucratic structure".

It's often not the issue itself but that the socialists use one issue or another to expand their reach. Don't get caught up in trying to solve the issue or an imagined issue. The socialists will always have a scare tactic or another exaggerated "crises" to demand more government. There is no end to their calls for more government so keep the focus on limiting government or ending it rather than play catch up with what ever story they are pushing today.

There is a case for regulations that are not contradictory to laissez-faire capitalism. Regulation on air pollution is a notable one. If you objectively pollute the air, it is inherently a violation of a person's rights.

But we're all kidding ourselves if we think regulations on air pollution will change anything. Smog is bad for humans, and toxic waste is bad for humans. This is a scientific problem, not a political one. Scientific problems should have scientific solutions.

Big government is bad for the environment. Here's why:

Overpopulation:

- Medicare, Social Security, and FICA - ponzi schemes that are inherently dependent on future generations being more populous than the one before it, thus, the government must encourage people to have children. People who shouldn't have children. More children to exhale C02, more children to consume the earth's natural resources, more children to overpopulate.

- Welfare - Welfare inherently rewards parents who have more kids. People who are not financially equipped to have children, shouldn't. They need to accept this and put their child up for adoption.

Public ownership:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html

- In Pennsylvania, a coal plant found a way to avoid polluting the air... at the expense of the waterways. They would clean the pipes by rinsing it out occasionally, and then dumping it in the waterways. The federal government fails miserably at punishing them, because of bureaucracy. If the waterways were privately owned, the owners of them would not crappity smack around. If a coal plant dumped the dirty water into the waterways, it would infringe on the private property rights of the person, and that person would be more militant about suing.

Keep Government to a minimum, basically:

- The Federal government is the biggest polluter, unfortunately. The Pentagon and the Environment Protection Agency are the worst.

This kind of stuff will get you lynched by liberals

Overpopulation is when the government encourages or forces people to populate, underpopulation is when the government encourages of forces people to refrain from it.

People should only reproduce if they are financially equipped to do so, or mature enough to do so. If they aren't, then they'll have to put it up for adoption. Any system with a social security system will inevitably result in the government socially engineering people to have sex. That's what happened in Soviet Russia and Communist China, they encouraged people to reproduce because their social ponzi schemes depended on it.

Leading climate expert admits global warming fraud

Why its necessary to keep government out of such issues. The government is as likely to be imposing freedom ending measures on a hoax as any other issue in question.