Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:00:51 -0600 From: Craig Green Subject: Free Market Environmentalism eb@financier.com wrote: > One answer I've never found is how to balance "making money" and "quality > of life." Given full freedom, the timber companies, for instance, would > have already stripped every redwood in existence. How completely silly and untrue. There are more acres in forest today than every before, and the increase is primarily due to selfish timber companies planting new trees so their profits won't run out by cutting them all down. > As it is, they've > destroyed about 90% of them. It was only the intervention of government > which prevented the other 10% from going. There are countless other such > examples. Can you imagine thousands of different toll road > operators...and/or builders? I have a lot of problems with that. Open to > answers and suggestions. Boy, are you on the wrong list. But, assuming you might be a little bit open minded, I suggest you read "Free Market Environmentalism" by Donald Leal and Terry Anderson (no, not the journalist that was kidnapped in Lebanon). Since I don't like people answering my simple questions with a book recommendation, here's an excerpt from a little book my alter ego wrote once upon a time: I didn't take time to re-format, so lines may be a bit long for e-mail. --------------------------------- Grievance #11 - Natural Resources "11. By forcing over 40 percent of the land in the United States into public ownership, this government has subsidized and encouraged the mismanagement and degradation of natural resources. Public ownership of property, as the fundamental idea behind all forms of socialism, has restricted or eliminated the natural market mechanisms which encourage humans to take care of things they own. By reducing the liability of some property owners for their adverse effects on others, this government has created the false impression that markets, and not this government, are responsible for most environmental problems today. This persistent lie must not remain unchallenged." Many people who generally favor free markets nevertheless believe that markets encourage, or at least allow, the wholesale destruction and misuse of wildlife and other natural resources. This common attitude largely results from a misunderstanding of the nature of public and private property. Public property separates action from consequences. Private property does not, so long as the private interest is not subsidized by public funds. A private owner of a farm, factory or forest is motivated to preserve the value of the resource by taking care of it. If the owner makes bad decisions, the resource value declines. If the owner makes wise decisions, the resource is maintained or enhanced. These gains or losses accrue directly to the property owner. Public property, however, forces inefficient political solutions to environmental and other natural resource problems. This inevitably leads to mismanagement, overuse and wasteful legal battles, because those making decisions do not gain or lose based on the wisdom of their decisions. Taxpayers, the supposed "owners" of the resource, have an apparent legal claim on public property, but no taxpayer has any specific control over its use, sale or disposition. A few brief examples will serve to illustrate this. In 1887, privately-owned Ravena Park was created by the Beck family near Seattle, Washington. With giant fir trees reaching 400 feet in height in addition to man-made amenities, up to 10,000 visitors per day paid an entrance fee to enjoy the private park. In 1911, the City of Seattle exercised its legal authority of eminent domain and condemned the park for public purchase. By 1925, all the giant fir trees were gone, mostly cut for firewood and sold by City employees. This example, discussed in Free Market Environmentalism by Terry Anderson and Donald Leal, illustrates how wise stewardship of resources is more likely under private ownership than public ownership. In his book, For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard explains the history of coercive government courts rejecting property rights and trespass arguments against factory pollution in the late 1800's. When farmers sued adjacent factories for damages to livestock from air pollution and noise, judges began to apply "public interest" and "greater good" arguments to dismiss the farmers' claims. Reasoning that the jobs in the factories were more important to the community than the rural farmer and his few cows, these court decisions provided legal precedents rejecting property and trespass claims for resolving pollution problems. Ironically, many environmentalists today use the same public interest arguments against private companies they accuse of environmental damage, without realizing that to a large extent the same doctrine created the problem in the first place. The Rainey Preserve is a private wildlife sanctuary owned by the Audubon Society in Louisiana. Although Audubon normally does not condone private oil or gas exploration in wilderness areas, it made an exception for this property, for two reasons. First, because it owns the property, Audubon can impose extremely strict rules of operation to prevent damage. Second, Audubon can use the royalties paid by Consolidated Oil and Gas to purchase and protect other properties from development. Oil and gas operations on the Rainey Preserve take place only during those times and in places where they will not adversely impact wildlife. Because Audubon owns the property, Consolidated is held to a much stricter standard than it would be on public land. Consolidated has no right to drill and explore for oil and gas, except under the conditions established by the private property owner - the Audubon Society. The U.S. Forest Service subsidizes the timber industry by spending more to build roads in remote areas than the value of the timber harvested. No private company could sustain this practice for very long, but the Forest Service has an incentive to continue these uneconomic practices to justify, preserve and enhance their budgets. Needless to say, these budgets are maintained by taxpayers, rather than consumers who would have freedom of choice in a market setting. The seven national forests surrounding Yellowstone National Park lost over $7 million in 1988, much of which resulted from uneconomic timber sales. Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York, is one of the most famous cases of industrial pollution and damage from hazardous waste disposal. Most people have heard of the severe health problems and destruction of homes at Love Canal, caused by Hooker Chemical Company's disposal practices in the 1940's and 1950's. There's only one problem - It wasn't true. Hooker Chemical did dispose of hazardous waste materials in the abandoned canal (then a rural area), using the best technology available to them at the time. However, it was the city government of Niagara Falls that caused the ultimate problem. Despite written warnings by Hooker Chemical describing the potential danger of building on the land, the City of Niagara Falls condemned the property owned by Hooker, and subsidized its development into a residential area. Once the City-subsidized developers cut into the clay lining covering the hazardous waste drums to construct foundations and utilities, the damage was essentially done. Biased reporters and writers more interested in a sensational story of industrial pollution rather than the truth fanned the flames of hysteria, blamed Hooker Chemical exclusively, and the rest is history. In fact, one of the most famous examples of market failure is actually an example of coercive government failure. Bureaucratic management of public property doesn't work any better than bureaucratic management of welfare programs, the economy, or communist governments. Readers interested in natural resources issues are encouraged to learn more about the outstanding scholarship in free market environmentalism that has been produced in recent years. A few excellent sources are listed below. References: For a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. New York: McMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1978. Bureaucracy Vs. The Environment, by John Baden and Richard L. Stroup. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981. "Love Canal: The Truth Seeps Out," by Eric Zuesse. Reason Magazine, February 1981. Free Market Environmentalism, by Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal. Boulder: Westview Press, 1991. Excerpt from: "A Personal Declaration of Independence" by Paine's Torch. You can buy an online (html) version for $4.95 at: http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/ZENO_Press -- Craig Green--------craiggreen@mail.com (student of all - disciple of none) "The POWER in LIFE is CHOICE" http://www.netcom.com/~zeno7/main.html