Comments (5)

• Karl Pfauth

• Dear Sir,

  In addition, the laws that have been passed by the lawmakers in the U.S. have also lowered property values of private citizens. The Wetlands Acts of the 1980s denied private own-
  ers of property the open market to use their land for profit. A person whose property was deemed "Protected" under the Act could not drain,
  fill in, or otherwise make use of his land for profit unless another tract of land the same size was purchased and then made into a "Wet-
  land". This of course made the land useless. The seller could receive market value from the buyer, however all profit would need to be used to purchase another tract of property and then kept as a wetland, this would be done at a mon-
  etary loss. The seller could also sell below market value whereas the buyer would then need to purchase another tract of land and maintain it as a wetland, also at a monetary loss. No one wins, the state however will continue to tax the wetland at market value. Thousands of U.S. property owners lost their investments in their property due to the environmentalists and law-
  makers who support them. The "Golden Rule of Washington" applies, "Do unto others". No Congressman or Senator has had their property "protected" under the provisions of the Acts they impose on the public. One day it will be your property, think about it this coming November.

  Karl Pfauth

• Published: May 11, 2006 11:36 AM

• TokyoTom

• Andrew, your heart might be in the right place, but you need to sharpen up your thinking and your pen.

  What you've given us here contains some useful aphorisms concerning the importance of personal property rights, but otherwise your piece is rife with puzzling non sequiturs, unsupported strawmen, overstatements and needless and unhelpful rhetoric.

  Fred Smith of the CEI does an excellent job of discussing some of the problems in existing environmental policy in his lengthy paper The Bankruptcy of Collectivist Environmental Policy, to which you may wish to refer. Smith does not paint with such a broad brush and notes that, supported by many Coaseans and other economists, the US has adopted expensive environmental policies that tend to increase the size of the government.

  In other words, the problem with environmental regulation is not so much that enviromentalists are leftist scoundrels, but that, consistence with public choice theory, governments like to adopt enviromental regulation simply to increase their power.

  It is no coincidence that this growth of enviromental regulation is occurring at the same time as the government role in the economy generally - for which rent-seeking by corporations is at least as responsible as those stupid, collectivist "enviros", many who of course have no training in economics or particular appreciation for the role that could be played by property rights.

  I do wish Miseans would drop the wearing screed against environmentalists, many of who actually do understand the institutional underpinnings of environmental problems (at least since Garrett Hardin wrote "The Tragedy of the Commons"), but must also confront corporations that are shamelessly engaged in rent-seeking from a government and politicians who are happy to engage in influence-peddling, with respect not only to environmental laws and regulations but also with respect to the vast "public" resources held by the state and federal government. Since public lands are not privately held, enviros cannot make their preferences felt by direct purchases or management of such resources, but only through political, regulatory and judicial processes (in precisely the same way as corporations that have their hands out). A little perspective, please.

  You are of course correct to focus on property rights, but you really address none of the thorny issues relating to them. Roy Cordato has provided a clear framework in his piece An">http://www.mises.org/story/1760">An Austrian Theory of Environmental Economics, including the following:

  "If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist. This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues …. This shifts the perspective on pollution from one of "market failure" where the free market is seen as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced property rights, is not in place." "The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute plans within the context of their goals. Furthermore, in all three approaches, social welfare or efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. For Rothbard such conflicts arise because of interferences with the voluntary use of one’s own property. This prevents a demonstration of true preferences, moving one to a lower level of utility than would otherwise be achieved. For Kirzner interpersonal conflict that cannot be resolved by entrepreneurship and the market process gives rise to a lack of plan coordination and therefore social inefficiency. And for Cordato, conflict, that similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being captured by prices. A theory of environmental economics and pollution that evolves from problems associated with human conflict then would be a natural implication of each of these welfare standards. In addition, these standards would argue that irresolvable inefficiencies, i.e., inefficiencies that cannot find a solution in the entrepreneurial workings of the market process, arise because of institutional defects associated with the lack of clearly defined or well enforced property rights. … In the absence of clearly defined and strictly enforced property rights this [exchange] process breaks down and the conflict becomes irresolvable through the market process. Under all three Austrian approaches to welfare economics, therefore, the solution to pollution problems, defined as a conflict over the use of resources, is to be found in either clearly defining or more diligently enforcing property rights."

  In other words, the solution to environmental problems is to be found in addressing the underlying property rights and enforcement issues, and in explaining it to all - not in attacking the environmentalists who are aware that a problem exists and can see that some aspect may involve rent-seeking by "greeedy" corporations, but have no market mechnisms to express their preferences.

  Your article doesn't really do the topic justice and wastes time creating false dichotomies. Our choice is not between "the environment, or civilization." We can have both, only better than we do now - it is unquestionable that the US and other nations are much better off after decades of environmental regulation. Environmentalists have not led the US or others to ruin, and they are right to be pointing to large, global problems.

  Miseans, on the other hands, are right to worry about statistism, rent-seeking, the further growth of government, influence-peddling and the erosion of individual freedom. Deniable of obvious environmental problems is more likely to lead to ill-considered governmental intervention than otherwise.

  Accordingly, I would suggest that your time is better spent in proposing Misean solutions to environmental problems, some of which are discussed by groups such as PERC, CEI and AEI.

• Published: May 12, 2006 9:01 AM

• Daniel M. Ryan

• Myself, I didn't mind Mr. Packer's pure-theory approach at all - I liked it. Environmental studies could very well benefit from an "Evenly Rotating Environment" thought-template.

• Published: May 12, 2006 1:50 PM

• TokyoTom

• Sorry, Daniel, but I strongly diagree. The thesis that "environmentalists hold the evenly rotating environmental economy (EREE)" is totally unsupported in this paper, and while such a notion may be held by some, the concept itself is of very little use to Miseans in understanding environmental problems or environmentalists.

  We know that environmental problems stem from inadequate propoerty rights, and that one of the chief motivators of environmentalists is to provide a check to corporate interests in fighting over governmental decisions relating to laws and "public resources".

  These liks from Field & Stream are example of how evironmentalists (hunters inthis case) see themselves as in a struggle over public resources.

  http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/conservation/article/0,13199,1180258,00.html

  http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/article/0,13199,725763,00.html#

  http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/conservation/article/0,13199,1171074,00.html

  http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/conservation/article/0,13199,489794,00.html

• Published: May 14, 2006 3:00 AM

• C. M.

• I follow your line of thinking somewhat. However, I am not particularly savvy in economics. This may not be the most important point that could be made on this issue, but could you explain this in terms of drilling in Alaska? How could one, who does not own any land in Alaska, argue for it's protection in this vein? From what I've heard, those who live in Alaska want the drilling because it means money in their pockets. I am not trying to be obtuse, this is truly a new idea to me and I am interested.

• Published: June 11, 2006 2:08 AM