April 2001

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

A Different Kind of Environmentalist

by Laura Jones

I am an environmentalist, which is to say that I enjoy and value nature and believe that it is important to identify and address serious pollution problems. But I am not a typical environmentalist. The assumptions I make about both the causes of environmental degradation and its solutions are fundamentally different from those of what I will call the standard environmentalist model. My beliefs are best characterized as free-market environmentalism. Simply stated, a free-market environmentalist believes that the incentives created by markets will usually do a better job of protecting the environment than government intervention. Standard environmentalists, on the other hand, believe that regulation is a necessary remedy for markets' failure to provide enough environmental amenity. They consider free-market environmentalism an oxymoron. This article outlines a few of the major differences in these two schools of thought.

Economic growth

A critical difference between standard environmentalists and free-market environmentalists is the view each group holds about economic growth. The standard view is that growth is destructive because producing more causes more pollution. In a static world, this is true. But the world is dynamic, and two strong forces counteract the produce-more-pollute-more effect. First, the increased income that is generated when more goods and services are produced drives a demand for more environmental quality. Once per-capita incomes cover basic food and shelter requirements, cleaner air and water become priorities. This explains why some of the richest countries in the world, like Canada and the US, are also the cleanest. Second, economic growth stimulates innovation. Since newer technology tends to be both more efficient and cleaner, it improves environmental quality.

Strong evidence supports the idea that the income and technological effects overwhelm the produce-more-pollute-more effect. According to the World Bank, pollution rates from particulate matter and sulphur dioxide begin to fall at per-capita incomes of US$3,280 and US$3,670 respectively (Goklany, p. 342). Access to safe drinking water and the availability of sanitation improve almost immediately as incomes rise. Another study done by economists Gene Grossman and Alan Krueger finds that most indicators of pollution start to fall before a country reaches a per capita income of US$8,000 (Grossman and Krueger, p. 370).

This explains why we North Americans enjoy the luxury of worrying about infinitesimal levels of pesticide residues on our vegetables while many people in poor countries do not have access to safe drinking water and have no option but to use extremely polluting charcoal or cow dung as cooking and heating fuel. To a free market environmentalist, economic growth is not the enemy of environmental progress, but rather the surest way to solve some of the world's worst remaining pollution problems.

A standard environmentalist will disagree with this line of logic. Instead of focusing on the big picture (higher income countries have less pollution), they call our attention to individual examples of the trade-off between development and environmental quality; logging, mining, housing developments, and new shopping malls all affect their local environments. Of course, they are correct; any human development will have some impact on the environment. But given that humans do populate the earth, the choice is not between a pristine environment if economic growth is halted and a polluted one if it is not. Capitalist economies, which have higher levels of private ownership (the importance of which is discussed below) and tend to experience higher levels of economic growth, will not deliver a pristine environmental utopia with no pollution, but they are capable of delivering more environmental amenity than socialist economies. This is the foundation of free-market environmentalism.

Free trade

As protests over the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle last year demonstrate, most standard environmentalists view free trade as part of the problem. This is partly because free trade increases specialization, which creates economic growth. But as discussed above, the criticism that growth causes environmental degradation is unwarranted. Growth leads to an increase in income which, in turn, creates a demand for more environmental quality. But free trade has another important environmental benefit. Trade forces industries to be more competitive than they otherwise might be, which accelerates the adoption of newer, cleaner technologies.

Another reason that some standard environmentalists oppose free trade is because they fear that trade will cause environmental standards to decline as countries are prevented from pursuing their own, higher levels of protection. But trade agreements do not prevent countries from protecting their environments. Article XX of the charter of the World Trade Organization clearly states that member countries may impose trade restrictions that are "necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health." The only qualification is that such restrictions must be based on sound scientific evidence and must apply to both importers and domestic producers. This qualification is necessary to prevent disguised protectionism.

Finally, standard environmentalists oppose trade because they believe that it allows rich countries to exploit poor ones. In their view, there is a fixed amount of wealth to be divided between countries. If one country gains, another one loses. But that is not how trade works. If it were, why would any developing country agree to trade? Countries that are open to trade, whether rich or poor, tend to grow faster than those who are not because exchanging goods and services allows for specialization. This, in turn, increases productivity and allows citizens to consume a wider variety and greater amount of goods and services than they could without trade. This positive effect of trade holds for rich and poor countries alike.

Property rights versus regulation

Free-market environmentalists believe that well-defined property rights are a powerful tool for protecting the environment for two reasons. Ownership creates stewardship incentives and gives individuals the power to fight polluters. As free-market environmentalist Jonathan Adler explains: "Even someone indifferent or hostile to environmental protection has an incentive to take environmental concerns into account, because despoiling the resource may reduce its value in the eyes of potential buyers" (Adler, p. 15). Private property makes it possible for environmental groups such as the Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited to protect habitat by purchasing land and establishing wildlife preserves.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand the power of property rights is to look at what happens when they are absent. Many fisheries, for example, are treated like common property—fish do not belong to anyone until they are caught. This leads to overfishing. Although each fisherman would like the fishery to be healthy in the future, their short term incentives are at odds with this desire. They know that fish they do not catch today will be caught by someone else, so they catch as many as they can. Not surprisingly, this has led to the collapse of many fisheries around the world.

The second important feature of ownership is that, under common law, trespass, nuisance, and riparian rights give people the ability to fight polluters. Where governments have not usurped these rights with statutes and regulations, they are powerful tools for protecting the environment. In just one of many examples, the Pride of Derby, an English Fishing Club, successfully sued upstream polluters for trespassing against private property (Smith, p. 35-6).

In contrast to this approach, standard environmentalists put their faith in government regulations and seldom argue that stronger property rights constitute an environmental solution. Their approach is widely criticized by free market environmentalists. As Elizabeth Brubaker explains in her book Property Rights in The Defence of Nature,

Many environmental groups prefer regulatory solutions to environmental problems. But regulations are made by remote governments who, driven by the need to create jobs or some undefined "public good," are often the least responsible stewards of natural resources. Governments of all political stripes have given us thousands of reasons not to trust them to protect the environment: they've licensed—and bankrolled—polluters, turned forests into wastelands, emptied oceans of fish, and dammed rivers that were once magnificent. (Brubaker, pp. 19-20)

This is not to say that free market environmentalists do not believe in any regulations. While critics of the free market environmental approach often accuse them of this extreme view, free market environmentalists recognize that governments have a critical role to play in the definition and enforcement of property rights. Regulations may also have a role to play when property rights are as yet difficult or impossible to assign—for example, in the case of air quality.

But beyond the definition and enforcement of property rights, free-market environmentalists view regulations with much suspicion. This is in part because well-intentioned regulations often have unintended effects that undermine the original intent of the regulation. For example, the laws passed in the United States, designed to protect species, inadvertently created the perverse incentive for landowners to view them as a liability. In extreme circumstances, this has led landowners who would have otherwise happily co-existed or even protected endangered species to take measures to eliminate endangered species from their property in order to protect their property values.

The future of environmentalism

The debate about how best to protect the environment is only just beginning. As incomes around the world continue to increase, so too will the demand for environmental protection. To date, standard environmental thinking has dominated the debate. But free-market environmentalism is gaining ground. People are beginning to understand that while markets are not perfect, neither are governments. They are beginning to recognize that markets can provide incentives for stewardship. As in other areas, the competition between these two ideologies need not be feared. It can help generate thoughtful debate about how best to protect the environment.

References

Anderson, Terry, and Donald Leal (2001). Free Market Environmentalism. Palgrave.

Adler, Jonathan, ed. (1990). Ecology, Liberty and Property: A Free Market Environmental Reader. The Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Brubaker, Elizabeth (1995). Property Rights in the Defense of Nature. Earthscan.

Goklany, Indur (1995). "Richer is Cleaner." The True State of the Planet. Washington: The Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Grossman, Gene and Alan Krueger (1995). "Economic Growth and The Environment." The Quarterly Journal of Economics. (May).

Grosvenor, Peter (2000). "Excessive Claims for the Market." Perc Reports (September), pp. 6-7.

Kwong, Jo Ann (1990). Market Environmentalism: Lessons for Hong Kong. Chinese University Press.

Smith, Fred (1990). "The Market and Nature." In Ecology, Liberty and Property: A Free Market Environmental Reader.

Stroup, Richard (2000). "The Merits of Market Solutions." Perc Reports (September) pp. 8-9.

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580

You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.