Let's start with an individual who lives in a more or less free market economy. That individual should do what is necessary to be prepared. This starts with getting an education, working or trading to build up savings and a credit history, and then being in a position to adapt. The adaptation could be subtle, such as buying electricity for more air-conditioning in the summer, or it could be more radical, such as moving away from a disadvantaged area to a better one. So far so good.
Now let's extend to communities of people. There are several choices a community could make. One would be to fight the elements, perhaps joining together to hold back the seas, just as the Dutch have done for centuries. Indeed the idea is not new, going back even to Ancient Egypt and irrigation along the Nile. Of course, when such work goes badly, you get New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But the point is, communities of free people may chose to associate address a common need.
Of course, being the good free trader and free marketer that I am, I would favor the wisdom of Adam Smith's invisible hand to make sound decisions on the way forward. Landowners in at-risk coastal areas could sell out to those willing to take the risk or make investments in shoreline conservation.
Now here's where it gets even more interesting. I'd further state that anyone should be able to immigrate to anywhere, so long as he or she is willing to adapt to the laws and norms of their new home. I already live in Japan, where I have a working visa, and where I must pay taxes (not much fun this week!) but those are choices that I made. I have been fortunate to have skills that are in demand in Japan that justify my visa status. The next step would be to allow even more immigration - all legal of course. For example the way people are allowed to move around within the EU (more or less) is a good model.
So what if human activity is actually putting the whole planet and the very survival of the species at risk? This is what the global-warming fearmongers would have you believe. But just for the moment, let's assume it is all true. To my mind the solution is NOT to craft huge international governing bodies to manage the selling of CO2 credits or some other fictitious commodity in the hopes of modifying behavior. Even worse would be a transnational government that simply tells you what energy you may or may not use, say like North Korea.
Cuba barely works now, and Zimbabwe is rolling downhill fast. Even Venezuela is on a dangerous path into not being able to feed its own people. So those aren't the right models.
What is the right model? The inescapable conclusion is more trade, more immigration, freer markets, and sound systems of property rights and rule of law. Any system that tries to do more will become ever more corrupt to the point where it becomes about power, and not about addressing the consequences of inevitable climate change.
Update (3/20/2008): There is more and more news that there has been no warming trend over the last 5 years. This article from NPR is just one of many citing hard evidence that contradicts the global warming hypothesis, but where the reporter and those quoted in the piece nevertheless try to find justifications for the trend that won't upset the global warming orthodoxy. Perhaps they should watch CSI and learn how to follow the evidence!
