Banning things, generally

I wrote before that I wasn't that persuaded by the case against banning incandescent lights, as Labour had wanted to do. Udayan criticsed me for a lack of analysis. This is my 'how do you like me now' post.
Here is a very simplified, non-paternalistic argument for banning certain things in the face of climate change.

People tend to operate with an implicit social discount rate. Although they may be aware that their actions are harming future generations, they tend to value their own economic security and well-being over that of future generations. Left to their own devices, most people won't radically adjust their behaviour until they are faced with tangible negative consequences. The nature of global warming may be such that by this point, it is irreversible (I have little idea as to whether this is true, but it doesn't seem outrageous). So we are essentially saving future generations from the excesses of modern ones, or stopping temporal externalities.
Whether or not we should place moral importance on future generations is an interesting question, and you may think that we should not. Here is a good intro to the topic.

But we can avoid this issue. There are many people in the world that have little in the way of a carbon footprint. They are for the most part destitutely poor. Yet the externalities from carbon emitting processes are global. So we are saving the poor from the emissions of the rich, so to speak.

If you're still reading, it should be clear that the case is not at all paternalistic, as many would have it. But you may still ask, why not just tax the externalities? Why ban the process completely?

Here we have to be case by case. We obviously can't ban things that have little in the way of feasible substitutes available in the short term, like cars. But as the philosopher Robert Nozick argues, it is frequently not morally acceptable to injure someone and then subsequently grant compensation. You can't rape someone and get out of prison simply by paying them off. Some acts actually should be prohibited. And if you think you can contribute to flooding and suffering in the third world and get off by chucking them some aid, you are wrong.


Disclaimer: I should note that I am not completely persuaded by the case I have just put forward. But I wanted to show that this is not a case of cut and dried paternalism, nor necessarily a case of Right vs. Left, although it may seem so on the surface.

I have a feeling many of my friends will disagree with me, I encourage you guys to say why.