 |
 |
|
|
|
| Montreal, March 16, 2002 / No 100 |
|
by
Edward W.Younkins
Without free markets, nature would be left to the mercy of the state. Central planning is made impossible by the nature of the universe. Government just does not have the means to acquire the detailed information dispersed throughout the world that is essential for efficiency, technological change, and care of the environment. The socialist world suffers from the worst pollution on earth. Natural resources fare much worse in the hands of the government than they do under private control. |
| Overused
resources
Environmental plundering in the socialist world is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons. When property is governmentally or communally owned and treated as a free good, natural resources will be overused with little or no regard for future consequences. The American government also has a record for environmental mismanagement. In its efforts to protect ecology, government has prohibited development along seashores, limited the use of private property that is home to allegedly endangered species such as the spotted owl, prevented the development of land because of potential damage to a government-designated wetlands, etc. In addition, it has been government's violation of property rights through subsidies, regulation, zoning, and eminent domain that has resulted in misuse of the environment. Certainly, pollution and toxic waste disposal, overuse of some resources, etc., are legitimate concerns. However, we need to recognize that resources that have been privately protected have fared better than their politically managed counterparts. Private property and free markets create powerful incentives which lead to more effective and more efficient environmental protection and stewardship. People have natural incentives to care for their own property. This eliminates or reduces the need for collective ownership and control of resources. Free-market environmentalism seeks ways of placing resources in the hands of individuals or groups concerned about the well-being of the resources and of themselves. In a free market, entrepreneurs compete to develop effective low-cost ways to solve environmental problems. Their incentives flow from their estimates of future potential profits and the freedom to pursue their ideas. The free market permits individuals to discover new opportunities for improving environmental quality and to produce it in the private sector.
Creativity is encouraged if individuals are free to use their minds and have adequate incentives to do so. Entrepreneurs care about the future because they care about their short-term and long-term profits. A person who owns resources will earn the rewards of good stewardship and bear the consequences of poor stewardship. When an owner cares for and protects his resources, their value tends to increase or at least be maintained. Business tools put to good use Entrepreneurs can use business tools to save endangered species, develop wildlife habitat, preserve open space, etc. For example, there is a large demand for quality recreation, hunting, and fishing experiences by consumers willing to pay user fees for such experiences. The income earned would justify the costs of improving conditions for wildlife, monitoring land use, limiting hunting pressure on various species, leasing water to increase instream flows, etc. Arbitrary destruction of animals takes place mainly because no one owns wildlife. There would be accountability if wildlife were private property. Some entrepreneurs might believe that the value of certain endangered species in the future would be greater than the cost of preserving land instead of cultivating it. Others who predict that forests will have greater value in the future have incentives to protect them. Then there is the fact that the free market discourages waste. Given that air pollution is frequently made up of unburnt fuel, profit-making companies have an incentive to save fuel by reducing pollution. Likewise, firms can save money by conserving costly chemicals or metals instead of losing them in the waste stream. Free markets, science, and technology can lead to processes that minimize pollution at the lowest cost. Economic prosperity does not conflict with a healthful environment.
|
| << retour au sommaire |
|
