Free Market
Environmentalism
By Terry L. Anderson
and
Donald R. Leal
What is Free Market
Environmentalism???
• It proposes a system of environmental
regulation based on private property rights
using positive incentives, and market
forces to encourage property owners to
conserve resources.
The line of reasoning
• People tend to act in a self-centered way.
• When a resource is freely available to a number
•
of people, the motive is to take as much as they
can before someone else does.
This causes the resource to be overused.
The line of reasoning
• When a resource is privately owned, the owner
•
can defend that resource legally from others.
Since the owner has the resource to his/her self
he/she has an incentive to make tat resource
last longer in order to make as much money as
possible.
• This leads to better conservation on the
part of resource owners, and reduces the
need for bureaucratic regulation, which
saves $$$.
Benefits
• Environmental Benefits
• Economic Benefits (i.e. money)
Real World Examples
of Free Market Environmentalism
• Lumber
• Wildlife
• Habitat
Real World Examples
of Free Market Environmentalism
Lumber
• Ravenna Park: Seattle, Washington.
First privately owned and then the city of
purchased it and it fell into public domain.
Environmental benefits when privately
owned.
Consequences of land falling into public
domain.
Real World Examples
of Free Market Environmentalism
Wildlife
• International Paper Company
Management of Wildlife on property for
additional revenue.
Real World Examples
of Free Market Environmentalism:
Habitat
• Ranching-for-Wildlife: improve habitat for
wildlife
• Planting trees, improving brush cover
• In turn for less stringent hunting
guidelines
The positive economic
effects of Free Market
Environmentalism
Limiting federal management saves
tax payers money
• Private parks would be controlled more
economically
– Less money wasted by bureaucracy
– Private parks would have an incentive to make
money, since they are a business
– National forests have no incentive to make smart
choices economically.
– National forests in Montana lost $42 million between
1988-1992
– Private property is taxable
National resources would be
managed economically
• Private ownership would stop much of the
waste of natural resources.
• Resources would not be taken to the point
of depletion
• Water and natural resources as well as
animals could be monitored carefully so
that problems could be fixed immediately
before it is too late
Production control=price
stabilization
• Production will be monitored and kept
stable according to current market value.
• There will be an even flow of product,
keeping prices even as opposed to highs
and lows depending on what new cache of
resources were found.
Upkeep
• Private parks would have better upkeep
because that park is somebody's business.
• New ideas about upkeep management.
• Tourism would rise causing a rise in cash
flow.
Ownership of animals
• Would be rationed same as national
resources.
– Would be bought and sold as a commodity
depending on highs and lows in population
– Would stop over hunting, and under hunting.
– Would also work for fisheries and recreational
lakes.
Free Market Environmentalist
Solutions to Existing Problems
• Air pollution
• Water pollution
Free Market Environmentalist
Solutions to Existing Problems:
Air Pollution
• Problem: Air is a commons. When we try to
reduce air pollution, everyone benefits, but only
a few (the producers of air pollution) bear the
greatest cost.
• Put a money value on clean air. Polluters would
be held responsible for the pollutants they
release; either by cleaning up after themselves
or paying citizens the difference
Free Market Environmentalist
Solutions to Existing Problems:
Water Pollution
• The main problem plaguing all types of
pollution is the “whose responsible?”
question
• If someone owned the water source that
was polluted, then it would be easier to
decipher who caused the pollution, and
who has to take responsibility to clean it
up. Easier to place blame on a party.
Criticisms of the Free Market
Environmentalist Approach
• Criticism: Free market environmentalism thinks
about problems only in terms of economics, and
many environmental issues are hard to quantify
in terms of dollar value.
• Response: If, say, land developers are willing to
pay more for land than environmental groups
are, then there is more economic value in selling
that land to developers.
Criticisms of the Free Market
Environmentalist Approach
• Criticism: Pays too little attention to
distribution of rights.
• They’re all rich white people in the
environmental movement anyway.
Criticisms of the Free Market
Environmentalist Approach
• Criticism: F.M.E. focuses too much on
politics and economics, ignoring other
institutions such as communities.
• Resp.: You’re just thinking about it the
wrong way.
Editorials
• Bla bla bla. Potato chips are stupid.