The Free Market and Protecting the Environment

[UncleBeer]

@Digital Stimulus

OK, so evidently I did misunderstand what you were saying, at least to some extent. Which is good; I felt that must be the case, but had to check first.

No problem. Glad to see we do understand each other.

Now granted, one might claim that regulation of the sort you are asserting may have only taken place recently, but first of all, that’s not the issue to which I’m referring and second of all, it’s irrelevant to that which I am referring.

Okaaaay, but this isn’t in question. It is only in relatively recent history that governments have been capable of exercising a highly centralized command and control policy. If rapid communications across large distances couldn’t be realized, and if the means of recording and retrieving dicta were inefficient, centralized control wouldn’t be practical, nor would it be implemented or enforced with efficacy. The rise of technology is what’s made this level of environmental control possible. And that doesn’t even address the advancement of science necessary to measure and evaluate such huge phenomena. But as you wish, we’ll leave all that aside.

The issue is, at least in my mind, that we are currently in a position to screw the environment up on a global scale, which we have never been able to before. More below…

Again, I can’t disagree. Local environments have been rendered lifeless by humans in the more distant past, but it is only the widespread deployment of technological inventions that has made it possible to fuck up on a global scale - and quite rapidly, too. Obviously, mother nature has it in her capacity to hose us completely (google up ‘“super volcano” + Yellowstone’ for some truly chilling information) in a matter of moments, too. But again, that’s not at issue here. It’s entirely out of our control.

In fact, market approaches may very well provide the best methods in some cases. What I take issue with is the assertion that market forces are best for protecting the environment, no ifs, ands, or buts. That is, treating the whole of the environment as a commodity. And this is the crux of my original question. I can lay it all out again if you wish, but I don’t think you require me to do so.

No, I don’t think I need you to lay out your original premise again, but . . . we’ve moved past that, have we not? There isn’t anyone, including me, who believes that market forces and market forces alone, will provide the best tools for “optimizing” the environment in all cases. As I noted earlier, even the highly Libertarian Cato.org believes government has a role to play in managing the environment. Managing the environment strictly through commoditizing it, isn’t something I’m prepared to defend since it is not something I advocate.

Now, I believe that (at least part of) elucidator’s point is that by subjecting “the environment” wholly to market forces, we allow anyone with enough money who puts a higher value on something other than protecting the environment to damage it irreparably. Furthermore, due to the nature of corporations (whose sole function is to maximize profit), even if no one entity does this, we will end up dying a death of a thousand cuts by allowing it.

I congratulate you for teasing that position out of elucidator’s words, because truly, I don’t see him making that point - or indeed any point. However, if that is his position, and it may well be, it is still the strawman off to see the wizard. See my paragraph above; nobody is advocating subjection of enviromental controls “wholly” to market forces.

Which I believe is also the position taken by some objecting to “pollution credits”; by setting a level of pollution, it is folly to think that pollution will ever be below that level. In essence, it’s the problem of budgets; it is common wisdom that, when allotted a given amount of money, a department should spend at least its limit, if not make attempts to exceed that limit.

Others have addressed pollution credits. I see no faults in their explanations and believe they can work much as described. In evidence of this, I would submit the record of various “free-market” environmental groups who’re buying up environmentally critical and ecologically sensitive tracts of land - in large chunks worldwide - and setting them aside for protection. I see nothing which makes me believe the programs run by these types of organizations won’t be expanded to purchasing pollution credits and logging/mining/grazing rights on public land if they were made available. Your opinion obviously differs. I see no way to resolve this basic difference in our beliefs without some empirical data. And we can’t really have that at this time.

In essence, it’s the problem of budgets; it is common wisdom that, when allotted a given amount of money, a department should spend at least its limit, if not make attempts to exceed that limit.

I’m not so sure this is a good analogy, but that may be my own fault. In any case I can’t find a problem with it directly, so let instead attempt to counter it. With an idea proposed by both the Nature Conservancy and the Thoreau Institute - Run the federal parks and land management bureau like a business. [url="http://www.ti.org/business.html"The Thoreau Institute sums it up thusly:

@Thoreau Institute

A revised budgetary process would be more like a business: rewarding managers for making money and for emphasizing the combinations of uses that are most valuable. This would encourage decentralization, bottom-up planning, production of the most valuable resources, profits for the landowners, and all the other hallmarks of the free-market system. At the same time, without imposing huge costs on taxpayers or private landowners, basic safeguards can protect those few resources that are not marketable.

Congress can produce these results with four basic changes:

1. Allow the managers of forests, parks, and BLM districts to charge fair market value for all uses, including timber, grazing, recreation, hunting, fishing, and minerals.

2. Establish and maintain a formula that funds individual forests, parks, and districts exclusively out of a fixed share of the net income they earn each year.

3. Allow federal land managers to sell conservation easements to people who want to protect special areas. Rules that require holders of federal timber, grazing, or other permits to use it or lose it must be changed to allow them to use it or conserve it. This would allow people to protect resources by purchasing such easements.

4. Dedicate a fixed share of public land receipts to biodiversity, historic, and wilderness trust funds. Boards appointed by the Secretary of Interior or elected by wilderness users would use such funds to give managers incentives to protect resources that user fees might not cover.

Ultimately, it seems to me as though those espousing “the market is the best tool for protecting the environment” set nothing outside the reach of the market, willfully ignoring the fact that yes, there are some things (but certainly not all!) that should be simply forbidden.

Well, I look forward to reading any threads discussing issues you find problematic with his position.

Once again, this - the portion of that quote you have placed inside quotation marks - isn’t something that I, nor anyone (that I’m aware of) is advocating. If you wish to adhere rigidly to this, your original proposition, then I’m afraid there’s precious little to discuss. If you want to debate the pros and cons of any particular program endorsed by the various “free-market” environmental groups, then fire away. I’ll do my best.

[modernhamlet]

Every country in the world regularly makes decisions based not on economic efficiency, but other criteria that don’t always directly translate to a monetary value. What is good for the market is not always good for the people. When the political will of the population is such that our leaders decide that X level of pollution is unacceptable, even though it results in a net negative economically, why should the market trump that? Since when did capitalism trump democracy?

I guess in a way it comes down to whether or not you believe the market is capable of seeing the “big picture”. Many (here and in Congress) would argue that the market is remarkably short-sighted. One of the roles of government is to recognize this short-sightedness and pass laws like environmental regulation (and labor laws, various juvenile protection laws, etc.) to prevent the most extreme imbalances.

Pollution credits and other “market-based” solutions are a useful tool, since they are something the market inherently understands, but at some point you have to be able to say “this is the line you can’t buy your way across”.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@UncleBeer

There isn’t anyone, including me, who believes that market forces and market forces alone, will provide the best tools for “optimizing” the environment in all cases.

OK, that’s what I wanted to hear. Free market advocates seem to dance around it and never admit it so honestly. Or perhaps it’s my own fault for being obtuse. Thank you.

If you want to debate the pros and cons of any particular program endorsed by the various “free-market” environmental groups, then fire away.

I don’t, for two reasons: 1. I’m satisfied with the understanding that no one (at least here) claims an unrestricted market is desirable (or even possible) and 2. for anything I’d want to argue, it would concern placing things outside the purview of the market and not the pros and cons of things in the market. It would be educational, but I have not the time to do the proper legwork or provide sustained argument at this point in time.

It’s number 1 that I’m really satisfied with; thank you again for your time and effort in responding.

[UncleBeer]

@modernhamlet

What is good for the market is not always good for the people. When the political will of the population is such that our leaders decide that X level of pollution is unacceptable, even though it results in a net negative economically, why should the market trump that? Since when did capitalism trump democracy?

That’s true enough, I s’pose. Except it isn’t really relevant to this discussion, since we’re talking about how market forces can be used to advance conservation efforts. We most definitely are not concerned with the heatlh of “the marketplace.” It is implicit to this argument that the government, or the people, (by by some undefined means) has already set some acceptable level of pollution. We’re not letting the marketplace make that determination.

Here’s an example that may explain how this has to wrk. You spoke of pollution credits. It is requisite that before such a thing can be offered to the market, a level of acceptable pollution must be set. Else the credits to be marketed, are valueless.

@Digital Stimulus

OK, that’s what I wanted to hear. Free market advocates seem to dance around it and never admit it so honestly. Or perhaps it’s my own fault for being obtuse. Thank you.

I think the root cause of the misunderstanding is that “free market,” as used by these types of environmental groups, is a misnomer. Just as in my own very first post in this thread, the rhetorical shorthand “free market environmentalism” is not only a poor descriptor, but too emotionally charged.

I don’t, for two reasons: 1. I’m satisfied with the understanding that no one (at least here) claims an unrestricted market is desirable (or even possible) and 2. for anything I’d want to argue, it would concern placing things outside the purview of the market and not the pros and cons of things in the market. It would be educational, but I have not the time to do the proper legwork or provide sustained argument at this point in time.

It’s number 1 that I’m really satisfied with; thank you again for your time and effort in responding.

S’cool. Thanks to you, too. It was a pleasurable exchange and offered me an opportunity to review some of the policies and efforts of these organizations, something I haven’t done for a while.

[msmith537]

@elucidator

America must lead! So far, we have done a dismal job of it. We could have put into place some of the mildest of reforms, such as demanding greater gas efficiency, but as soon as moneyed interests squeel with porcine outrage…poof! gone! The dreadful truth is this: that there are people who would rather make money than breathe. (Your author recognizes that this is a dramatic simplification, and makes it anyway, in recognition that truth sometimes exceeds mere fact.)

If you can come up with a series of minor tweaks and band-aids that will erase The Problem, you will find me all ears, save for that part taken up by skepticism.

Well the “problem” is that there are six billion people on this planet and they all want the same standard of living as those of us here in the West. And there isn’t any particular reason that they don’t deserve to have it.

The feeding, clothing and housing of six billion people, even under the best, most fuel efficient circumstances leaves a massive footprint on the environment. It’s all well and good to criticize people for driving cars that are too big or using too much energy, but it still doesn’t solve the problem that those people still need jobs to do, houses to live in, transportation to and from work and probably a little energy for leisure as well.
I like trees and forests as much as the next guy. I don’t want to live in them though.