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.