Can a libertarian also be an environmentalist, i.e., an advocate for environmental protection? The public probably thinks not. My experience has been that when people are offered thoughts on a libertarian approach to environmental issues, the common reaction is horror, accompanied by condemnation of free markets and, for good measure, human nature itself.
Of course, there is nothing inconsistent with treasuring liberty as well as the natural environment. If anything, one concerned with preserving and restoring human freedom would naturally gravitate to also protecting and reclaiming the environment.
Libertarianism offers an approach to environmental issues that is generally different from that of the mainstream. It seeks to limit unnecessary governmental exercise of power, and looks for private and market solutions. One of the powers of libertarianism is its skepticism of common wisdom. When this skepticism is applied to any issue, it can lead to ideas that are more effective than those in the mainstream.
Fortunately, scholars have done, and continue to do, extensive analysis concerning environmental issues from a libertarian viewpoint. Through examination of some common myths, we can highlight some principles of the libertarian approach.
Myth: Government Can be Trusted to do What is Right
“Public choice theory” tells us that government officials will do what is in their own self-interest. Politicians are interested in being reelected, and bureaucrats in advancing their careers. The effect is that government almost always favors special interests, to the detriment of the public. Special interests have the incentive to influence government, since benefits, or avoidance of negatives, to the special interests are concentrated. Individuals in the public lack the incentive to get involved, since the costs of policies are diffused.
This means that skepticism of government solutions is always warranted. As applied to environmental issues, public choice theory leads to the result that government usually favors special interests, whether ideological or economic, when it determines environmental policy.
We see this in subsidies to alternative energy programs, which typically are economically unsound (hence the subsidies) and often environmentally destructive. An example of a program that is economically and environmentally foolish is the promotion of ethanol. See “More Maize Ethanol May Boost Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” ScienceDaily, March 12, 2010, and “Ethanol Makes Gasoline Costlier, Dirtier,” by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Cato Institute, published in Chicago Sun-Times, January 27, 2007.
The fact is that we cannot trust government even to decide what is really “green,” as reflected by the experience with ethanol policies. Nor can we trust government to create policies that rationally address even legitimate problems. Instead, government’s solutions often entail expensive, inefficient approaches that benefit special interests. See, e.g., “The Climate-Industrial Complex–Some businesses see nothing but profits in the green movement,” by Bjorn Lomborg, Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2009.
Libertarians accept that “externalities,” e.g., air pollution, may require governmental attention. We also know to be skeptical of government’s good faith and competence in recognizing and dealing with externalities.
Myth: Capitalism is Bad for the Environment
Capitalism involves private property and free markets. As discussed in “Happy Earth Day? Thank Capitalism,” by Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute, published in the New York Sun, April 22, 2003, capitalism is good for the environment. It creates the prosperity that allows a society to afford environmental improvements and encourages efficiency and discourages waste. Further, property rights give individuals the incentive to conserve resources.
Free speech is an important component of capitalism. It allows for the exchange of ideas and information necessary for progress. Governments that limit speech not only hinder prosperity, but also inhibit the communication that forces environmental problems to be addressed.
Throughout the world, where markets are not free, property rights are weak, and the right to speech is curtailed, we see environmental devastation. Capitalism would not only free the people of these countries, it also would lead to better care for the environment.
Myth: Government Ownership of Resources is Best
When government owns land or other resources, it lacks an incentive to responsibly care for or utilize the resources. We see this in the well-known example of overgrazing on federal land. Private ownership leads to the stewardship of resources, while government ownership leads to waste.
Private owners are better stewards of resources because they have economic reasons to invest in, preserve, and utilize their property. See, e.g., “Save the forests – sell the trees – return of state forestlands to private landowners in Ontario,” American Forests, Jan.-Feb. 1990.
Whether the private owners of land are for-profit timber companies, or non-profit organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, they will be better stewards than government. Where we wish to limit the use of land that is privatized, we can utilize conservation easements or trusts.
We can not only privatize property, but also create property rights in resources in order to foster stewardship. For instance, the communal ownership of the oceans results on overfishing and the depletion of fish. Creating fishing rights encourages sustainable harvesting. See, e.g., “Pick Your Poissons–Economic and ecological diversity for fisheries,” by Ronald Bailey, Reason Magazine, August 25, 2006.
Myth: EPA Will Get the Job Done
Some scholars have become critical of the power of the Environmental Protection Agency. This is natural, since the EPA is simply another federal bureaucracy, with the same issues of competence, self-interest, and political motivation found in all such agencies.
New York Law School Professor David Schoenbrod advocates for Congress taking responsibility for establishing specific environmental requirements, rather than delegating the responsibility to the Environmental Protection Agency. He observes that the delegation leads EPA to delay taking action to avoid political risk. Professor Schoenbrod also favors returning some responsibility for environmental regulation to state and local government, which he believes are more effective.
For more information on Professor Schoenbrod’s views, watch the video or listen to the audio for the April 22, 2005, Cato Institute Book Forum on Professor Schoenbrod’s, Saving Our Environment from Washington: How Congress Grabs Power, Shirks Responsibility, and Shortchanges the People, Yale University Press, 2005).
Myth: Economics Does Not Matter
When politicians and the media discuss environmental issues, they often ignore any economic aspects. The assumption seems to be that, if there is an environmental problem, the cost of any planned solution is not relevant. Of course, this is folly. Absent economic analysis, we do not know whether a plan makes sense, whether an alternative plan would make more sense, and whether money should be spent on different priorities.
We see this phenomenon in the realm of mandatory recycling. If recycling makes economic sense, it happens without coercion. When government requires recycling, it ignores a major cost, the value of individuals’ time. People squander time preparing, sorting, bundling, and transporting the trash required to be recycled. If the material has any value, it would be better to have those obtaining the value do centralized sorting.
Another current example relates to the issue of global warming. Leaving aside the poor science behind claims of human-caused warming, the proponents of government intervention almost never consider the economics of the plans. Addressing any environmental problem requires a cost-benefit analysis, as well as a determination of priorities.
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg argues against massive government intervention to address (alleged) climate change, in favor of cost-effective approaches. See “Bjorn Lomborg: Let’s Spend Smarter to Save the World,” Wall Street Journal (Environmental Capital WSJ Blog), March 5. 2009.
Dr. Lomborg also advocates for deploying any funds to smarter, more cost-effective priorities, such as preventing malaria. See his article, “Climate Change and Malaria in Africa–Limiting carbon emissions won’t do much to stop disease in Zambia,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 1, 2009.
……
Earth Day can remind us to be good stewards of the environment. And we can remember also to be good stewards of liberty. We environmentalists do best when we are free people with free minds, skeptical of common wisdom.
