HOME / DONATE / ONE LEVEL UP / ABOUT NCPA / CONTACT
Progressive Environmentalism: A Pro-Human, Pro-Science, Pro-Free Enterprise Agenda For Change
National Center for Policy Analysis
Progressive Environmentalism
The vast majority of environmentalists are progressive. They are pro-human, pro-science and pro-free enterprise. They not only differ with the reactionaries on tactics and style, they also hold fundamentally different values. The following is a brief summary.
A Realistic View of the Past. Progressives are under no illusion that American Indian communities were Gardens of Eden or that the Indians lived "at one with nature." Alston Chase has described how Indian tribes set fires in order to drive herds of frightened buffalo over cliffs, killing far more than the Indians could ever consume. So extensive was the Indians' use of fire that they virtually created the treeless prairies of the Midwest long before the white man arrived, and their zeal for hunting often decimated the quarry they depended upon to survive.50 For example, once Indian tribes acquired horses and rifles, they almost wiped out the buffalo herds in some parts of western America.51 Some tribes were more environmentally responsible than others, but on the whole Indians, like other people, appear to have used nature to their own ends - constrained only by the technology available to them.
Nor are progressives under the illusion that medieval communities were good for the environment or for humans. The use of livestock in agriculture and of animal power in agriculture, trade and transportation led to increased animal waste and significant water pollution, contributing to the high rate of human mortality from infectious diseases. In the 13th and 14th centuries, navigation on the Thames was greatly impeded by human, horse and industrial wastes. Air pollution was so bad that England made coal burning for home heating punishable by death.52 The replacement of the horse by the automobile was universally and correctly viewed as a major environmental improvement. The modern city has different forms of pollution. But it is "certainly ... an improvement on the relatively tiny, but incredibly filthy, streets and waterways of medieval and Renaissance cities." 53
Unlike the reactionaries, progressive environmentalists look to the future. They hope to use human intelligence, creativity and technological prowess to solve problems that have never been solved before.
A Realistic View of Man and Nature. Progressive environmentalists recognize that nature is not all good or all bad - from a human point of view. Nature produces marvelous wonders, such as the Grand Canyon and the tropical rain forests. But it also produces earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and hurricanes. For the future, nature almost certainly has another ice age in store for us and very probably a cataclysmic collision with a large meteorite - unless we can figure out ways to avoid these catastrophes. The challenge is to use science and technology to preserve the good and avoid the bad.
Unlike the reactionaries, the progressives know that we do not have the ability to turn the earth into a "lifeless planet." We do have the ability to destroy ourselves and most animals and plants with which we currently share the planet, however.
Suppose the worst happened. Suppose a nuclear war wiped out all human life and most animal and plant life as well. What would the world look like beyond that point? According to Harvard scientist Stephen Jay Gould, we don't have the ability to kill all insects and bacteria. So the process of evolution would begin again. Fifty million years from now (a short period on the geological scale), the earth would be teeming with life. Perhaps a new species of dinosaur would ultimately appear. Or perhaps other life forms would emerge that are beyond our ability to imagine.54 Progressive environmentalists prefer the current state of the world not because it's the best, but because it's the one in which we happen to live. Progressives want to preserve the current environment precisely because they are pro-human as well as pro-nature.
The Benefits of Technology. Far from being enemies of technology and the industrial base that produces it, progressives realize that technology is the single most important weapon environmentalists have. Technology has allowed us to clean up rivers and lakes, improve the quality of air in our cities [see Figure I], and reduce the impact of oil spills. For the future, reliance on technology, not its avoidance, will allow us to meet the challenge of global warming - if that really does turn out to be a serious problem.
To progressives, the development of cold fusion (a cheap, nonpolluting source of energy) would be a welcome event - as would any other technological breakthrough that allows us to meet human needs with less environmental harm. To the Green question, "Industry or a Livable World?", progressives respond that industry is what makes a livable world possible.
The Benefits of Economic Growth. In response to the development of reactionary environmentalism in the 1950s, C. P. Snow wrote:
In addition to the fact that economic growth is the only antipoverty program that works, progressive environmentalists have another reason for favoring it. They know that economic growth is what makes environmentalism possible. People who are struggling to meet basic needs rarely show much concern about the environment. Only when their basic needs are met can people become environmentalists."It is all very well for us, sitting pretty, to think that material standards of living don't matter all that much. It is all very well for one, as a personal choice, to reject industrialization - do a modern Walden, if you like, and if you go without much food, see most of your children die in infancy, despise the comforts of literacy, accept twenty years off your own life, then I respect you for the strength of your aesthetic revulsion. But I don't respect you in the slightest if, even passively, you try to impose the same choice on others who are not free to choose. In fact, we know what their choice would be. For, with singular unanimity, in any country where they have had the chance, the poor have walked off the land into the factories as fast as the factories could take them."55
The Benefits of Free Enterprise. With the opening of the communist countries to the Western media, we have been treated to a litany of environmental horror stories from behind the iron curtain. Mikhail Bernstam has shown that these are not isolated cases of misdirected policies. Higher levels of pollution are inherent in all socialist economies. Because they are so inefficient, socialist economies necessarily use more resources and emit more pollutants than market economies to produce a given amount of goods and services. Take energy use, for example:56
- The per capita use of energy in socialist economies is at least as
high as, if not higher than, in market economies, even though their per
capita GNP (the amount of goods and services produced) is only 40 percent
as high.
- Per dollar of GNP, socialist economies use almost three times as much energy as market economies. [See Figure II.]
- North Korea consumes 70 percent more energy per person and three times
as much energy per dollar of GNP as South Korea.
- What was formerly East Germany consumes 40 percent more energy per person and 3.5 times as much energy per dollar of GNP as West Germany.
- Discharges of air pollutants per capita in socialist economies are
as much as 2.3 times as high as in Western market economies.
- Per dollar of GNP, socialist economies produce from three to six times as much air pollution.59
In the 20th century, a remarkable divergence took place between socialist and market economies. Bernstam calls it "the most important reversal in economic and environmental history since the Industrial Revolution."61 In market economies a steady decline in the resources needed to produce a given level of goods and services led to a decline in resource use per person (even though the economy kept growing) and to a decline in total resource use (even though the population kept growing.) For example:62
- In the United States, the amount of energy needed to produce a dollar
of GNP (in real terms) has been declining steadily at a rate of 1 percent
per year since 1929.
- By 1989, the amount of energy needed to produce a dollar of GNP was
almost half of what it was 60 years earlier.
- Moreover, since the 1970s there has been a steady decline in the amount of energy used per person. [See Figure III.]
- During the 1970s and 1980s, the annual pollutant discharges from fuel
combustion and industrial processes fell between 12 and 37 percent, depending
on the country.
- By 1986, annual emissions in the United States were 13 percent lower
than in 1940, although the U.S. population rose by 82 percent and real GNP
rose by 380 percent over the time period.
- These reductions were so significant that the total concentration of pollutants in the air over U.S. cities began to decline after 1977. [See Figure I.]
Socialist economies use ever more resources just trying to maintain the status quo, giving little thought to the environmental consequences. For example, when East and West Germany merged, it was discovered that half the towns and villages in the former communist country either lacked sewage treatment plants or had ones that did not work properly. To bring East German sewage treatment up to West German standards will cost an estimated $36.3 billion - about $2,420 for every East German resident. 66
In market economies, an "environmental invisible hand" is at work: competitive pressures to reduce costs cause a reduction in the use of resources and a reduction in pollution. For example, in the 1960s, 164 pounds of aluminum were needed to make 1,000 soda cans. Today it takes only 35 pounds.67 Bernstam has accumulated a wealth of data showing that developed countries cannot continue to grow unless they continue to economize on resources - thus contributing to environmental improvement. [See Figure IV.]
Progressive environmentalists favor free markets not only because markets deliver the goods and meet human wants, but also because market economies are much better for the environment. It is increasingly clear that environmental improvement, economic growth and market economies go hand in hand. But having a market economy isn't enough. Within the context of a market economy, we need intelligent public policies to help us reach specific environmental goals.68
The Tragedy of the Commons
The Tragedy of the Commons
In a classic article published in 1968, Garrett Hardin argued that most environmental problems stem from a single cause: the misuse of resources that are owned in common.69 Since the air, the water, most species of mammals and fish and public lands have no private owners, they have no protectors or defenders. The use of these resources creates private benefits. But their misuse results in costs that are borne collectively - which means by no one in particular. As a result, people who use the "commons" bear only a small portion of the social costs of their own actions.
The problem is not new. It has been around for as long as human beings have occupied the planet. Take the case of commonly owned grazing land. If a single cattle herder conserves some grass for the coming year, the odds are small that he will derive any benefit from that action - since the grass is then available for consumption by all of the other herders. With commonly owned grazing land, no single herder can reap the full benefits of his "good" behavior. Nor does he bear the full costs of his "bad" behavior. Thus all herders find it in their self-interest to overgraze the land, even though in the long run all are worse off as a result.
Hardin's analysis can easily be extended to other environmental problems. Most of us wouldn't even consider dumping trash in our neighbor's privately owned backyard. But since air and water are commonly owned resources to which we have free access, we find it in our self-interest to use them as dumping grounds for all manner of waste. Private timber companies are often exemplary environmental stewards of their own land. Indeed, much of what we know about forest management comes from pioneering discoveries by private companies.70 By contrast, some of these same companies have caused environmental harm in the federally owned commons of the U.S. forests. The lessons can also be applied to endangered species:
- One hundred years ago, there were three billion passenger pigeons
and very few chickens. But because chickens were privately owned, whereas
pigeons were common property, today there are three billion chickens and
the passenger pigeon is extinct.71
- Two hundred years ago, buffalo greatly outnumbered cattle in America.
Today, privately owned cattle flourish, while the buffalo is almost extinct.72
- In those African countries where elephants are owned in common, their numbers are dwindling rapidly - the victims of poachers in search of ivory. But in India, where elephants are owned by villagers, they are almost never killed for their tusks.73
Why Government Solutions Often Don't Work. Most environmentalists, regardless of other differences, agree on one thing: U.S. government agencies charged with protecting the environment have done a poor job. And this is a judgment about the most environmentally conscious country in the world. In every other country, government management is even worse.
- In an internal study at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
staffers were asked to rank EPA programs in order of their environmental
importance.
- When this ranking was compared to a ranking of programs based on the amount of money the EPA spends, the findings were almost the reverse of each other.
Studies of other government agencies also have documented a poor environmental record. These include the U.S. Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Highway Administration and the World Bank. The results of some of these studies will be discussed below.
The problems of government mismanagement of environmental resources do not arise because government has too little power. As noted above, even worse problems exist in the Soviet Union, where government power has been enormous. In 1921, Lenin signed a decree prohibiting any development of natural resources in Soviet national parks. Yet under the pressure of five-year plans, bureaucrats increasingly saw protected resources as raw material for economic growth. Only Lenin's personal interest prevented complete surrender to the development-at-any-cost mentality. Once the Stalinists came to power, Lenin's concerns were totally ignored.77
The principal reason why government solutions usually don't work is that the political process is itself a "commons."78 People who support bad policies bear only a small part of the costs of those policies. The vast bulk of the costs are borne by others. On the other hand, people who support good policies reap only a small portion of the benefits. As a result, the pursuit of political self-interest all too often results in environmental harm.
Progressive environmentalists know that we cannot successfully reach environmental goals by substituting a "political commons" for an "economic commons." In fact, trying to achieve environmental goals by simply turning the problem over to government often creates even more environmental destruction.
Solving Problems Through Market-Based Institutions. A primary reason why private property came into existence was to solve the "commons" problems. For example, in the early West, cattle ranchers established private property rights on the open range. Cattle management associations were formed to enforce these rights and to arrange for compensation when one rancher's cattle grazed on another's land. They also protected ranchers' rights in the cattle by warding off cattle thieves. To help enforce grazing rights, branding was introduced and cowboys were hired as human fences. And because the costs of enforcing these arrangements were so high, innovators had strong incentives to find a cheaper solution - thus leading to the invention of barbed wire.79
Today, the solution to the problems of the open range seems quite simple. But in an earlier era it was comparable to some of our most difficult "commons" problems today. The problem of the open range was solved because it was in people's self-interest to find solutions and because they had the freedom to implement those solutions.
Can the lessons of cattle ranching be applied to modern-day environmental problems? Progressive environmentalists believe that in many cases they can. The message coming to our shores from virtually every country on every continent is: markets work far better than government bureaucracies. Cognizant of that message, progressive environmentalists seek ways of creating market-based institutions within which people will find it in their self-interest to solve environmental problems.
Empowering Individuals vs.
Empowering Bureaucracies
Empowering Individuals vs.
Empowering Bureaucracies
The world's 150 governments often have great difficulty accomplishing very basic tasks, such as protecting people from crime. By contrast, its five billion people have shown that they can be incredibly resourceful and innovative in pursuing their own interests.
Yet environmental legislation over the last two decades has tended to empower governments rather than people. With the full backing of the reactionary environmentalists, governments around the world pass laws which people find in their self-interest to evade or distort in order to satisfy some private purpose. Progressive environmentalism, by contrast, seeks to empower people - recognizing that environmental goals will always be unreachable unless the attainment of those goals in their individual self-interest.
Private Success, Government Failure. One reason for empowering individuals rather than governments is that people are often right when government is wrong. For example:
- At a time when state governments awarded bounties for killing birds
of prey (and when many people regarded the sport as patriotic because it
gave young boys practice shooting live targets, thus preparing them for
war), a concerned citizen helped found the private Hawk Mountain Sanctuary
in eastern Pennsylvania to prevent the slaughter of thousands of hawks,
falcons, ospreys, eagles, owls and other endangered birds.80
- At a time when state governments awarded bounties for killing seals
and sea lions, a for-profit corporation protected the only mainland breeding
area for the endangered Steller sea lion. 81
- While the federal government owns only 4.7 million acres of wetlands
and has encouraged the destruction of private wetlands, about 11,000 private
duck clubs have managed to protect from five to seven million acres of wetlands
from destruction.82
- At a time when the federal government was encouraging environmental
destruction on the Barrier Islands, the commercial interests at Hilton Head
Island discovered that conservation was good business.83
- While the federal government has subsidized environmental destruction in our national forests, companies such as International Paper have discovered that good conservation pays on private forestland.84
How Government Policy Penalizes Individual Environmental Accomplishments. One of the most surprising developments in environmental policy is the degree to which government penalizes and punishes environmental stewards in the private sector.
- After a farmer in Florida discovered a bald eagle nesting in one of
his trees, federal bureaucrats ordered him not to operate his tractor within
one-half mile of the tree. The message to other farmers was: don't attract
eagles.85
- After a rancher in southern Oregon turned one of his fields into a
marshland for wildlife, the state of Oregon declared his artificial marsh
a "wetland" and prohibited him from altering it. The message to
other farmers and ranchers was: don't create wetlands or other wildlife
habitats.86
- After a group of investors established a sea turtle farm in the Cayman Islands, the U.S. government banned the importation of sea turtle products, causing the venture to fail. As a result, there are now fewer sea turtles and the message to others is: don't find profitable ways of protecting endangered species.87
Finding Progressive Solutions
To Environmental Problems
Finding Progressive Solutions
To Environmental Problems
Progressive environmentalism is very skeptical about the ability of the world's governments to solve environmental problems. The progressive agenda, therefore, includes finding ways to assure that achieving environmental goals is in the self-interest of individuals. This means that individuals, in their role as individuals, should derive personal gain from environmentally good behavior and bear personal costs for environmentally bad behavior. The following brief discussion applies this progressive approach to some of our most serious environmental problems.
Next Section Endangered Species Back to Policy Issues Environment