Societies should use private property rights to control pollution

Societies should use private property rights to control pollution
Subjects
Governance	Pollution
Property rights
Linking arguments
The enforcement of private property rights can effectively adjudicate externalities Governments should regulate trade

Supporting arguments

If a private party pollutes private property, its owners can assert a legal right to prevent the pollution even if they don't prove that it is harmful. This can effectively prevent pollution.  Related argument: Allowing private property owners to prevent potential pollution without proving harm is feasible.

The enforcement of property rights against polluters would incentivize the invention of a science of forensic pollution analysis, which would be able to prove which pollutants did or did not come from particular sources.

In the early 19th century United States, people sued factory owners and railroads for various kinds of pollution and won frequently. Thus, we can conclude that property right enforcement is able to effectively control pollution.

Opposing arguments

It is less costly for everyone involved to create a government-run regulatory agency that can prevent and regulate pollution.  Related argument: The cost of controlling pollution is lower if it is done through through regulatory agencies instead of private legal action over property rights.

It is not possible for victims of pollution to compel possible polluters to cooperate in the investigation of evidence, making it impossible to prove that any particular pollutant came from a particular source.  Related argument: Private parties should be compelled to cooperate with investigations into allegations of civil violations on their part.

The effects of pollution are often felt far away in time or space from the source, making it almost impossible for victims to prove that the pollutants that affected them came from a particular source.