This is the second part of a two-part essay by Jason Scorse, Assistant Professor of International Policy Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Go here to read an introduction and part one.
-----
Does this mean private property rights solve everything? Of course not; however, the worst forms of environmental abuse generally occur in areas where property rights and markets are non-existent, or where the market is distorted by perverse subsidies that encourage over-exploitation. Even with enforceable property rights and a solid system of environmental accounting, markets are not perfect and are subject to unintended consequences.
Global warming presents a particularly difficult challenge. The atmosphere is the world's preeminent open access resource, and exclusion is impossible. Some of the solutions currently being discussed for long-term climate management are enforceable limits on greenhouse gas emissions through a system of tradable atmospheric pollution permits. While some environmentalists oppose pollution permits on the grounds that they establish a "right to pollute," all industrial activities require some level of greenhouse-gas pollution and tradable permits may provide both the cheapest and most equitable way of achieving targeted reductions (big greenhouse polluters like the U.S. would likely end up buying credits from less-polluting nations).
One concern many people express regarding private property is that resources that typically were free or available at little cost to almost everyone are now being "commodified." Common examples include water and botanical genetic resources. While we can all agree that everyone should have access to clean drinking water, the fact is that billions of people, for a variety of reasons, do not. Sometimes the water has been contaminated, the aquifers have been depleted, regions have suffered droughts, or the public agency in charge is corrupt. In addition, water purification and delivery are extremely expensive and entail complex systems of infrastructure and maintenance. Privatization of water systems in many instances can bring much needed capital into areas that lack infrastructure and actually improve people's access to clean water, including the poor. There are other instances where privatization has led to large rate increases and lower levels of access. The appropriate response is to ask why privatization has worked well in some areas and not in others, not to condemn it across the board. (Consider: food is also necessary for life, but no one is waging a battle against farmers who happen to be in the private business of bringing food to your table.)
Regarding botanical genetic resources, there is a worldwide system of international gene banks to which virtually all nations have free access. In addition, patents provide a legal system whereby individuals or corporations can gain exclusive rights to modified organisms. This can bring much needed research money into plant development, with the potential of improving nutrition and productivity in poor regions of the world. Granted, there is also an underlying danger that patents can be abused when they are issued for relatively minor modifications to staple crops. Again, the key question to ask is: How do we establish a patent system that is equitable and efficient?
People often forget that privately-owned does not mean unregulated.
Many environmentalists claim that the world's resources are priceless. Priceless to whom? And if they are priceless, who will protect them? And who will pay for this protection? Who is liable if they aren't protected? There are some resources that most of us can agree are so unique and spectacular that they should be protected forever. Yosemite and the Great Barrier Reef are two that come to mind, and efforts have been undertaken to protect these resources in perpetuity. However, even here we are faced with tough questions, as the high demand to view these natural wonders has created strains that threaten their long-term viability. How do we determine who gets entry or what areas should be off-limits to the public? More generally, when thinking about environmental preservation, how do we prioritize areas? Although biological richness is a key indicator of preservation value, what about the opportunity cost for lost development, or the costs of monitoring, or public access? Is every last species equally valuable? What level of contaminants indicates a pristine environment?
Environmentalists should also recognize that attempts to assign monetary values to the environment are often used in circumstances where the default value is zero. This is not to say that monetizing the environment doesn't have its limitations or that it can't be abused, only that rejecting it as immoral is poor policy. Think about it: Every time one of us gets into a plane to go on vacation, we have decided that the hundreds or thousands of dollars we're spending on leisure is more important than saving another acre of trees or giving money to the poor (alternative uses of our money); so, through our actions, we implicitly put values on all types of supposedly priceless things all the time.
In summary, economic reasoning, property rights, and well-functioning markets may not provide all the answers to our environmental problems, but there are many situations in which economic principles, applied rigorously and thoughtfully, offer the best hope for environmental improvement and preservation, as well as improvement in living standards. If environmentalists spent more time learning about economic policy, they would likely become some of its most ardent supporters.
Comments
View as Flat
cian Posted 9:02 am
08 Nov 2005
Well there is I guess some truth to this, but then plenty of other environmental abuse occur in areas where this is not the case. The destruction of mangroves in Thailand for exmaple - or the massive degredation of top soil due to american agriculture. Similarly, it may not always be obvious until it is too late, what the damage is. Often the problem is change that is too rapid, and not properly studied. How does one protect the rights of the future? What price on sustainability (how do my grandchildren bid in the market?).
Similarly, what you call property rights, could be more properly considered as self-determination - the right of people affected by something to have a say about what should be done about it. Markets, where one party has a lot of money and the other party has little, will tend to replicate existing power relationships - and it is those power relationships that cause the problems in the first place. The destruction of fishing stocks by farmed prawns in the far east is a good example. Who is going to defend the market rights of the fishermen?
"While some environmentalists oppose pollution permits on the grounds that they establish a "right to pollute," all industrial activities require some level of greenhouse-gas pollution and tradable permits may provide both the cheapest and most equitable way of achieving targeted reductions. "
It may, but then again it may not. This is really nothing more than a philosophical position. It might prove to be like the energy markets in California - a good way to scam the system.
"Privatization of water systems in many instances can bring much needed capital into areas that lack infrastructure and actually improve people's access to clean water, including the poor. "
Well this is largely theoretical, given that its been disastrous everywhere its been tried. The appropriate response is to ask why it has failed AND NOT TO PUSH IT AS THE SOLUTION until we know. Economics as an analytical discipline aware of its limitations is one thing. Economics as a technocratic discipline, pushing "solutions" onto the world on the basis of inadequate data and theories is quite another.
"Consider: food is also necessary for life, but no one is waging a battle against farmers who happen to be in the private business of bringing food to your table."
Neither is it a monopoly, making this a curious choice of comparison.
"This can bring much needed research money into plant development, with the potential of improving nutrition and productivity in poor regions of the world."
Except that companies are uninterested in this. The research has been conducted using public funds. Corporations are interested in ways they can control the production of food, or produce food which is better suited for industrial processes (stays fresh longer on supermarket shelves, for example).
"People often forget that privately-owned does not mean unregulated. "
Well given that the patent system is regulation... the problem is who creates the regulations. Back to power relations I'm afraid.
"How do we determine who gets entry or what areas should be off-limits to the public?"
By using measures of sustainability?
"Every time one of us gets into a plane to go on vacation, we have decided that the hundreds or thousands of dollars we're spending on leisure is more important than saving another acre of trees or giving money to the poor "
Except we haven't actually made that decision. We haven't considered those factors. Humans don't work that way.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:21 am
09 Nov 2005
This time, I'd like to say something positive.
Jason's is a serious intellectual effort. I'd like to see more articles like his which discuss important issues in a non-trivial way. The Sierra Club magazine is really more of a popular magazine, which I confess I only skim; not really much to sink your teeth into. I wish there were some venue for articles such as his.
Jason's proposals are tailored for a capitalist framework. Whether one likes capitalism or not, it is the only game in town for the time being. Coming to this same conclusion is Sir Jonathon Porritt, formerly with the Green Party and Friends of the Earth and now advisor to Prince Charles.
(See recent interview at http://society.guardian.co.uk/interview/story/0,14090,1636871,00.html )
Jason has chosen an issue, The Commons, which is at the center of many important problems -- global warming, fisheries, water, etc. Agree with him or not, he has identified the right issue.
I think the proposals similar to Jason's are part of the answer -- IF there is a democratic government to oversee and police the process. If the proposals are enacted under our present business-dominated governments, then they will be just a smokescreen for the usual appropriation of the Commons.
Jason made an effort to reach out to people with whom he disagreed. If he and people with similar proposals can LISTEN AND ABSORB the many valid criticisms, then we can make some progress.
It would be too bad if any of us walk away in a huff. Developing ideas like these is a long-term process.
Personally, I would like to see a more complete treatment of the problem of the Commons, describing the different approaches, giving examples, and objectively summarizing the points of controversy.
Permalink
Jacobo Posted 11:42 am
10 Nov 2005
Permalink
John Whitehead Posted 11:54 pm
10 Nov 2005
Permalink