Extreme Environmentalists
My chief goal as an environmentalist is to see that my children and grandchildren are raised in a healthy, safe, and clean environment. I think that is a common goal for many of us in the environmental movement. But some extremists in the movement are pushing policies that will result in a less healthy, safe, and clean environment.
The first type of extremist is one who will not permit any pollution whatsoever. As idealistic as this policy may seem, it is impossible to achieve without either eliminating the human race or blasting all of us off into outer space. The second law of thermodynamics simply stated is that no process can be 100% efficient. This means that there are no perpetual motion machines and that every process must have some sort of waste. So those who propose a system of “zero waste period” are faced with a scientific impossibility.
The second type of extremist is one who jumps on a policy and mandates it for all without considering any side effects. When I worked at the capitol for a short time, one of the representatives told me that the Supreme Law of the land is the Law of Unintended Consequences. Basically, this means that legislators, attempting to solve one problem, created several others in the process. An example in environmental extremism is a proposed ban on some very mildly carcinogenic pesticides. A consequence of this ban would be a higher price for fruits and vegetables, since less food would be able to be produced. This results in less fruit and vegetables being eaten, especially by the poor, and therefore causes poorer nutrition and increased health problems, not less. Legislation like this could turn a relatively minor risk into a major health crisis! My current financial position allows me to afford the higher price of organic fruits and vegetables, but I’ve been in the position where it was regular fruit or no fruit at all. Our current markets, through people freely cooperating with each other, allow individuals to make their own choice on what risks they are willing to undertake.
There is one common thread for both extremists: the inability to think marginally. Thinking marginally is weighing the benefits against the costs of an action for one more unit instead of an all or none attitude. Consider a major oil spill; cleaning up the first bit of an oil spill by simply throwing a bucket in the water is fairly simple and cheap. But at what point is that oil spill effectively clean? Are we to work until the last atomic molecule of oil is out of the water? By no means! At some point, the costs of continuing are going to outweigh the benefits and that is the signal to stop. One of the largest areas where marginal thinking is needed today is the debate over global warming. Assuming that it is something man can control, should we? Once again, we need to consider the costs of certain actions against the benefits. To say that we must stop global warming at all costs is no different than the people who shout “zero pollution period.” And diving headfirst into a problem of this nature without considering the full benefits and costs can make bad policies that amplify the problem. For instance, some people argue that we need to switch from carbon based emissions to water based, but water vapor is eight times more significant as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide!
Mandating certain actions always carry the risk of unintended consequences as mentioned above. But when people are allowed to work without the heavy hand of regulation, more often than not, they function automatically to produce a better product. The latest example is the new energy saving fluorescent light bulbs. These bulbs do save energy over their lifetime. However, they also increase the risk of mercury pollution and require a higher initial investment. Now personally, the increased risk and cost are worth the savings. And as we look at the market, many people are deciding the same thing! People are voluntarily choosing to reduce their energy consumption by switching bulbs without government order, so there is no need to risk an involuntary mandate. But what is it was a larger product, say energy efficient refrigerators? The markets are still working, but slower because of a significant increase in initial investment. Once again, the poorest individuals in our society may not have the money for such a large investment, but to refuse them an inferior refrigerator can mean increased food costs, since leftovers are not able to be kept, or even worse, food poisoning. But as the rich continue to purchase newer and efficient refrigerators, not only do their older yet more efficient refrigerators enter the market at lower prices, but the manufacturers also tend to get better at making refrigerators so that the cost of new refrigerators are driven downwards. Then the efficient products will be available to the poor families as well!
From these examples, a trend develops between prosperity and cleaner environments. Simply stated, a person is more likely to surrender income for cleaner air when he is not starving. A 1992 World Bank Development Report concluded that it is not true that pollution increases with growth; it follows an inverted “U” shaped curve. One of the main components to this successful cleaner growth and towards a prosperous nation is clearly defined property rights. When a person clearly owns his property, he is more likely to care and develop the land. Additionally, clearly defined property rights are able to assign fines to the person who did the environmental damage. It is no wonder that the worst environmental tragedies happen under centrally planned markets where private property is a crime!
Sometimes the market results can be improved by government action, but that doesn’t mean the government always improves situations where markets fail. It is always prudent to weigh the costs and benefits and to think marginally. Otherwise we may just end up with the worst of all worlds.
