In recent months, we have seen large-scale pollution drift from China to the USA (http://www.nature.com/news/emissions-from-asia-put-us-cities-over-the-ozone-limit-1.10161) and raise pollution levels in the USA.
Under Objectivist philosophy, there's no such thing as "public" land and therefore no "national pollution". The question I have is how Objectivists would think about the kind of pollution we clearly see from China drifting into the USA. Is there any remedy to this in an Objectivist world where the government would presumably have zero ability to influence Chinese industry to cease/modify their pollution?
If the prevailing winds move from West to East (as they do), why would the East Coast Chinese give a hoot about polluting the air since it blows away towards America anyway? This question is a small and concrete example of one I have asked many times before but received no satisfying answer to. While property rights talk about bits of the world being owned by people, I also see that all the little bits fit into a larger biosphere that is connected. What happens in one corner doesn't always stay in the corner. Sometimes it moves. When there is a clear injury (someone dumps paint thinner over the fence into your yard), there is clear reason to take up a court case against the polluter. But sometimes there is "diffuse injury" as in the case of the Chinese smog and it is far from clear what or even who to go to to remedy this ? I don't clearly understand how a more Objectvist society would help reducing this kind of "tragedy of the commons" type behavior and if so why?