Fundamental Environmentalism

1. Fundamental Environmentalism By Machan and Chesher

2. Two Opposing Views from the Start • Environment is a deterministic system. • Result of an evolutionary natural process. • Human’s actions are part of the system. • Human actions cannot change things. • Environment depends on human actions. • The popular ethical view. • Human actions do affect the environment.

3. Two General Approaches, Assuming We CAN Affect the Environment . . . • Collectivist • If human life is lived most successfully in collectivist terms, then this is best approach. • Government control of resources. • Individualist • If human life is lived most successfully in individualist terms, then this is best approach. • Individual property rights are key.

4. The Tragedy of the Commons • When resources are not owned privately, then there is an incentive to take the resource before others do. • In collectivist systems, individuals are not held responsible for how they use resources. • No moral guilt for wrongdoing because it is not clear whose property is being violated.

5. Two Versions of A Big Question • Is a reduction in pollution worth the costs? • Why is it so often simply assumed that it is? • How do we know whether the decrease in pollution caused by some action is valued greater than the decrease in the value of output caused by the same action? • This is a huge question that is often simply ignored.

6. When Resources are Privately Owned. . . • Pollution caused by others is a violation of property rights. • Owner feels the effect of his own degradation of his property. • Profit motive is an incentive for “wise” use.

7. Policy Suggestions • Privatize all land, resources, etc. • Institute strong trespassing laws. • Avoid collectivization of resources.

8. Is earning a profit at odds with a clean environment? • If resources are collectively “owned,” then yes, people will have incentives to use resources and pollute generally because they do not bear the full cost of doing so. • If resources are privately owned, then the answer is no, because profitability and a good environment are mutually reinforcing.

9. Should firms “pollute”? • If we are talking about one’s own property. . . • His resources should be used to the extent that it generates the most net value. • Each firm should weigh the benefits of using the resources in certain ways with the costs. • The private nature of the resources, coupled with the profit motive, assures that the benefits will outweigh the costs.

10. Should firms “pollute”? • If we are talking about collective property. . . • The profit motive and good “stewardship” are at odds, and so the firm must choose between one or the other. • So, there is no solid answer. • Morality is impossible under the collective assumption.

11. Summary • Our authors are, not-surprisingly, strong on the importance of property rights being the foundation for good “environmentalism.” • If everything were privatized, as our authors desire, what would happen to the very word “environment.”