NationStates Jolt Archive

I often meet people on the right-side of the economic spectrum who disagree with environmental regulation, sometimes to a point that seems silly. I don't know what causes this to be common, or even if it truly is common. Perhaps it is a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that most environmentalism is connected to leftists? No matter.
I'm going to try to reframe the issue of environmental regulations in a different light. Maybe you've all heard this before, and have some reason for disagreeing with it, I don't know, but here goes nothing:

Say a man owns a bit of land on the banks of a river, and that I own a farm downriver. This man, for some reason, puts toxic chemicals into the water. This causes my crops to go bad. Surely this is an issue of one person damaging another's property, and should be illegal if other property damage is illegal?

Now, let's say that instead of one man owning land upstream from me, let's say that it is a car factory, and that this factory pours some sort of oil-sludge into the river, killing off my crops. Isn't this the same issue, of someone or some group of people damaging another's property?

It seems to me that environmental concern results rationally from holding concern for property rights. All that you have to do to show this is tack on a certain conclusion to the typical argument "You can't do this because it hurts the environment", which is "and that causes harm to the property of others against their will".

And causes health costs to go up.

No, environmental regulation makes sense. It's only when it causes economic damage disproportionate to its benefits that I have a problem with it. Hell, regulation in itself can be beneficial because it encourages investments in green sectors of the economy.

It seems to me that environmental concern results rationally from holding concern for property rights. All that you have to do to show this is tack on a certain conclusion to the typical argument "You can't do this because it hurts the environment", which is "and that causes harm to the property of others against their will".


One of the big problems some conservatives (not nearly enough, theres too much of the knee jerk reaction out there) is that enviornmental regulation tends to go too far sometimes. There are basically two classes of enviornmental regulation. The first is regulation which restricts harm done by buisness. These are the kinds of laws you brought up: you can't dump chemical x at all and only y amount of chemical z per year. These laws are necessary, but you need to have a devil's advocate on the other side, because there must be a ballance between regulation and exonomic freedom. In other words, a sensible conservative will always look for the least restrictive course of action for a given problem, whereas a lot of proposed enviornmental regulation is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to kill a cockroach.

The second form of enviornmental regulation that you see is the kind that really pisses off property rights advocates. These are laws that restrict land use in the name of conservation. Lets say you own 10,000 acres out in Montana. You use those 10,000 acres for logging, deviding the land so you have 20 plots (this lets you harvest mature 20 year old trees on 5% of your property each year as long as you keep replanting, a fairly common practice). Now lets say that it is discovered that 5,000 acres of your land is a habitat for a rare and endangered bird. Suddenly, you've lost half of your land. You likely still need to be insured on that land, you definately need to pay tax on it, and no one is willing to buy it. You aren't allowed to disturb the habitat, remove the animal, or use the land in any way. The land has effectively become an albatross and you are forced to incur the costs of conservation even though you did nothing wrong. Laws like that step on property rights pretty severely.

It isn't anybody's property: this is why environmental legislation is mostly pissing in the wind and land owners can do whatever the hell they want with it.

It isn't anybody's property: this is why environmental legislation is mostly pissing in the wind and land owners can do whatever the hell they want with it.
Surely my land is my property, and your land is your property? And most of those things that cause "environmental damage" cause damage to your, my, or somebody else's property. It doesn't matter that nobody owns the entire environment, because in this reframing it isn't an issue of damage to the environment as a whole, it is an issue of damage to those things that are owned.

Surely my land is my property, and your land is your property? And most of those things that cause "environmental damage" cause damage to your, my, or somebody else's property. It doesn't matter that nobody owns the entire environment, because in this reframing it isn't an issue of damage to the environment as a whole, it is an issue of damage to those things that are owned.
Unfortunately, razing rainforest to the ground in order to raise cattle isn't seen as harming anybody's property. You're right that there have been a few cases of people getting taken to court for dumping pollutants upriver of somebody else, but that's about as far as that goes.

One of the big problems some conservatives (not nearly enough, theres too much of the knee jerk reaction out there) is that enviornmental regulation tends to go too far sometimes. There are basically two classes of enviornmental regulation. The first is regulation which restricts harm done by buisness. These are the kinds of laws you brought up: you can't dump chemical x at all and only y amount of chemical z per year. These laws are necessary, but you need to have a devil's advocate on the other side, because there must be a ballance between regulation and exonomic freedom. In other words, a sensible conservative will always look for the least restrictive course of action for a given problem, whereas a lot of proposed enviornmental regulation is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to kill a cockroach.
I'm not sure it is an issue of freedom vs. regulation. Might it be an issue of freedom vs. freedom?:
My freedom to control my property vs. a somebody else's freedom to pollute?
Within the general free-market mindset of property rights, I'd think that one's freedom to control one's property would override.
Within this framework, maybe it might be a little simpler to determine a course of action: Don't let others harm my property, and don't let me harm theirs. Perhaps it eliminates the Cockroach-Sledgehammer Problem? I don't know.
The second form of enviornmental regulation that you see is the kind that really pisses off property rights advocates. These are laws that restrict land use in the name of conservation. Lets say you own 10,000 acres out in Montana. You use those 10,000 acres for logging, deviding the land so you have 20 plots (this lets you harvest mature 20 year old trees on 5% of your property each year as long as you keep replanting, a fairly common practice). Now lets say that it is discovered that 5,000 acres of your land is a habitat for a rare and endangered bird. Suddenly, you've lost half of your land. You likely still need to be insured on that land, you definately need to pay tax on it, and no one is willing to buy it. You aren't allowed to disturb the habitat, remove the animal, or use the land in any way. The land has effectively become an albatross and you are forced to incur the costs of conservation even though you did nothing wrong. Laws like that step on property rights pretty severely.
Well, I doubt that laws like this would be a logical course of action within that framework.

Interesting arguement...
Though I doubt any environmentalists would say this is what drives them

No, environmental regulation makes sense. It's only when it causes economic damage disproportionate to its benefits that I have a problem with it.
I'm not sure I agree with that, as I don't see why economic damage vs. benefit comes into it. I don't think it really matters how much economic damage is being done to another if the alternative is not having control of my property, and it seems to me that bringing that whole economic damage bit into it is valuing the economy in its entirety over property rights.
That's just my idea of it, though, and I might be totally misunderstanding you.

Interesting arguement...
Though I doubt any environmentalists would say this is what drives them

That's because you don't understand environmentalists.

I think we need enviromental standards in place quickly. The reason why enviromental regulations harm the economy is because we rely on damaging the enviroment to fulfill our standard of life.

I agree with Vetalia, it's about externalities.

*writes song about environmentalism*

I'm not sure I agree with that, as I don't see why economic damage vs. benefit comes into it. I don't think it really matters how much economic damage is being done to another if the alternative is not having control of my property, and it seems to me that bringing that whole economic damage bit into it is valuing the economy in its entirety over property rights.

What I mean is that environmental regulation should protect the damaging of others' property, for example through preventing the dumping of chemicals in to waterways and improperly storing waste. Regulations that inhibit your right to use your property as you see fit, so long as it doesn't directly damage the property of others tend to be economic burdens rather than beneficial.

I don't want to see my $1,000,000 property become literally worthless because of some damn endangered bird.

The issue I have is that it is often impossible to accurately define the property rights on some resources.

Sure, it's easy to sorta own a bit of rainforest - but who owns the atmosphere that will suffer if the trees produce no more oxygen?

Who owns the fish in the North Sea that get fished away because everyone just cares for their own profit?

Who owns anything regarding the problem with CO2 emissions?

But if you can define rights, people can sometimes work out a deal themselves without the government. But the problems arise if negotiations become difficult or impossible. (Coase Theorem (http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/CoaseJLE1960.pdf))

Other than that, I'm a fan of tradable pollution permits - why not let the market do the regulation for you?

What I mean is that environmental regulation should protect the damaging of others' property, for example through preventing the dumping of chemicals in to waterways and improperly storing waste. Regulations that inhibit your right to use your property as you see fit, so long as it doesn't directly damage the property of others tend to be economic burdens rather than beneficial.

I don't want to see my $1,000,000 property become literally worthless because of some damn endangered bird.
Oh, in that case, surely. I don't think a property-rights based system of environmentalism would support laws such as that.

Oh, in that case, surely. I don't think a property-rights based system of environmentalism would support laws such as that.

No, it would be concerned with preserving everyone's property rights by curbing the ability and legality of polluting and thereby damaging someone else's property.

I think we need enviromental standards in place quickly. The reason why enviromental regulations harm the economy is because we rely on damaging the enviroment to fulfill our standard of life.

Yeah, but more money goes to businesses that research, develop and improve environmental solutions. When you get right down to it, the total amount of money changing hands isn't going to change in an industrial world with a greater environmental emphasis. It's just going to be flowing to different hands.

The issue I have is that it is often impossible to accurately define the property rights on some resources.

Sure, it's easy to sorta own a bit of rainforest - but who owns the atmosphere that will suffer if the trees produce no more oxygen?
Well, in that case, nobody owns the atmosphere, but if it causes a real problem it will damage things that people do own, woulnd't it? Such as their health? So if someone was undertaking an action that truly would cause a large decline in atmospheric quality, I'd imagine property rights based thinking wouldn't allow it. It isn't necessary for the object being directly affected to be owned, as in this case the affect to that unowned object causes harm to something that is owned.
Who owns the fish in the North Sea that get fished away because everyone just cares for their own profit?
Hmm. I don't know what I would say about that issue.
Who owns anything regarding the problem with CO2 emissions?
I think that the idea that direct ownership of the affected object isn't necessary applies again here.
Other than that, I'm a fan of tradable pollution permits - why not let the market do the regulation for you?
I'm not so sure I like the idea of pollution permits. What prevents someone from buying enough permits to be allowed to cause damage to my property? I've always been a bit wary of some of the free-market environmentalists because their ideas seem to allow others to harm my property, if they have the cash. The only way I know of to ensure that that didn't happen within the pollution-credit system would be to have a very, very low amount of pollution permits, low to the point of causing undue strain by forcing businesses to pollute even less than the limit that was accepted before.

Of course, I'm not sure that I have such a great understanding of the whole credit-trading system, so I might be missing something crucial.

Yeah, but more money goes to businesses that research, develop and improve environmental solutions. When you get right down to it, the total amount of money changing hands isn't going to change in an industrial world with a greater environmental emphasis. It's just going to be flowing to different hands.

Not necessarily; depending on how the regulations are introduced it may not turn out that way. If you assign a very stiff environmental code quickly, a lot of small companies will go under because they can't afford the costs to refit their factories/offices to the new requirements.

They have to be implemented gradually to ensure that the market, both suppliers of the environmental products and the companies who need them, is prepared to absorb the costs.

No, it would be concerned with preserving everyone's property rights by curbing the ability and legality of polluting and thereby damaging someone else's property.
I'm not sure I understand the "No" bit. Are you saying that my previous statement was wrong, or agreeing that a property-rights based system wouldn't support the laws you were discussing?
Other than that, I agree.

I'm not sure I understand the "No" bit. Are you saying that my previous statement was wrong, or agreeing that a property-rights based system wouldn't support the laws you were discussing?
Other than that, I agree.

I am agreeing, but clairifying my position.

Well, in that case, nobody owns the atmosphere, but if it causes a real problem it will damage things that people do own, woulnd't it? Such as their health?
And then you try and prove who actually did put that one chemical that made you sick into the air?

I'm not so sure I like the idea of pollution permits. What prevents someone from buying enough permits to be allowed to cause damage to my property?
Oh, these things are only for the aggregate. There'll still have to be rules regarding such small-scale issues. Permits could only really work when you have total amounts of certain chemicals into the atmosphere and so on - so pretty ideal to cope with the CO2 crisis.

And then you try and prove who actually did put that one chemical that made you sick into the air?
Well, I suppose my idea isn't without its impracticalities then. Oh well.
Oh, these things are only for the aggregate. There'll still have to be rules regarding such small-scale issues. Permits could only really work when you have total amounts of certain chemicals into the atmosphere and so on - so pretty ideal to cope with the CO2 crisis.
Depending on the particular chemical, I suppose that would make sense then.

Not necessarily; depending on how the regulations are introduced it may not turn out that way. If you assign a very stiff environmental code quickly, a lot of small companies will go under because they can't afford the costs to refit their factories/offices to the new requirements.

They have to be implemented gradually to ensure that the market, both suppliers of the environmental products and the companies who need them, is prepared to absorb the costs.

It's also possible that movement towards a more self-sustaining society might be an economic bonanza.

It's also possible that movement towards a more self-sustaining society might be an economic bonanza.

It is, as long as it's done gradually. Like many other adjustments to the economy, they can be extremely rewarding economically as long as they aren't done too quickly. The green sector of the economy is almost entirely high-tech and high-paying, so it's obvious that an influx of those jobs would be very beneficial.