Shanahan-Heritage-environmentalist%20copy

Shanahan-Heritage-environmentalist%20copy -...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: December
21,
1991
 The
Conservative
as
Environmentalist
 by
Shanahan,
John
 Heritage
Lecture
#358
 Can
a
conservative
be
an
environmentalist?
My
environmentalist
ffiends
tell
me
the
 answer
is
no‐that
the
goals
of
conservatives
and
en‐
vironmentalists
are
 irreconcilable.
That
idea
is
not
only
wrong,
but
tragically
wrong,
because
it
blinds
 environmentalists
to
the
fact
that
conservatives,
through
their
understanding
of
 markets
and
property
rights,
actually
have
proposed
better
ways
to
improve
the
 environment
without
the
unnecessary
costs
that
typify
proposals
from
many
 environmental
organizations.
Let
me
begin
by
making
some
things
clear.
I
am
a
 conservative!
This
means,
among
other
things,
that
I
believe
in
minimal
government
 regulation,
minimal
governmental
intrusion
into
the
lives
of
citizens,
and
fiscal
 restraint
in
the
taxing
and
spending
of
the
hard‐earned
wealth
of
the
people.
I
also
 believe
that
command
and
control
methods
of
governing
in
general
are
economical‐
 ly
inefficient
and
anathema
to
a
healthy
and
free
society.
I
am
also
an
 environmentalist,
or
to
use
my
preferred
term,
a
conservationist.
Contrary
to
the
 impressions
conveyed
by
some
environmentalists,
conservatives
gain
just
as
much
 from
clean
air
as
anyone
else
does.
We
do
not
have
secret
meetings
at
which
we
 breathe
exhaust
fumes.
Nor
do
we
have
special
skin
that
magically
resists
cancer
 from
an
excess
of
sunshine
due
to
depletion
of
the
ozone
layer.
Nor
do
we
like
to
 build
our
houses
on
toxic
waste
dumps.
In
other
words,
we
have
nothing
to
gain
 from
environmental
degradation,
and
I
am
not
here
to
defend
it.
To
the
contrary,
I
 believe
in
the
importance
of
clean
air
for
people‐including
myself
‐to
breathe,
clean
 rivers
for
people
to
use,
and
freedom
from
involuntary
exposure
to
cancer‐
causing
 chemicals.
I
believe
too
that
our
nation
should
make
polluters
pay
the
real
costs
that
 their
pollution
im‐
poses
upon
society.
That
would
give
polluters
tangible
incentives
 to
conserve
non‐renewable
resources
and
to
use
renewable
resources
in
a
wise
and
 responsible
manner.

 Fundamental
Objective.

 I
am
a
conservative
environmentalist
because,
while
I
believe
in
the
fundamental
 objectives
of
a
clean
and
safe
environment,
I
am
concerned
that
some
ill‐conceived
 forms
of
protection
unnecessarily
threaten
the
jobs
and
health
of
ordinary
 Americans
without
any
appreciable
benefit
to
the
environment.
Thus
what
 differentiates
me,
as
a
conservative
environmentalist,
from
some
other
environmen‐
 talists
is
this:
while
we
environmentalists
can
broadly
agree
on
environmental
 objectives,
I
mean
to
achieve
them
with
the
fewest
working
men
and
women
getting
 pink
slips
and
with
the
least
in‐
trusion
in
to
the
lives
of
the
Americans.
Moreover,
as
 a
conservative
who
understands
how
markets
work,
I
believe
I
know
market‐based
 ways
to
protect
the
environment
more
effectively
with
less
economic
side
effects
 than
leftist
environmentalists.

 
 Conservative
Battle.

 Unlike
so
'me
environmentalists,
I
also
think
that
it
is
sensible
to
strike
some
 balance
between
production
of
goods
and
services
and
environmental
protection‐ and
that
good
policy
should
try
to
have
as
much
as
possible
of
each.
Here
let
me
 make
a
confession.
Much
of
the
conservative
movement
has
erred
on
the
side
of
 emphasizing
economic
growth
while
ignoring
the
extent
of
our
environmental
 problems.
To
protect
the
economy,
we
conserva‐
tives
have
fought
the
 environmental
movement
step
by
step,
and
we
have
lost
step
by
step.
I
can
tell
you
 why.
It
is
because
environmentalists
have
had
the
moral
high
ground,
even
though
 they
have
not
provided
the
most
beneficial
solutions.
People
care
about
the
world,
 and
they
saw
it
being
pol‐
luted
around
them.
They
saw
their
rivers
running
brown
 with
filth.
They
saw
open
dumps
that
spread
disease,
hazardous
chemicals
being
 thrown
into
pits
and
simply
covered
with
dirt.
They
heard
of
the
impending
 extinction
of
numerous
animals,
and,
of
all
creatures,
the
bald
eagle‐
the
symbol
of
 America
itself.
And
through
it
all‐and
you're
not
going
to
like
this‐we
conservatives
 often
were
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
fence,
the
wrong
side
of
an
emotional
issue.
And
 through
it
all‐and
this
is
painful
for
me
to
say‐we
often
were
on
the
wrong
side
of
 the
environment.
Most
conservatives,
facing
a
changed
and
limited
world,
accepted
 implicitly
or
explicitly
the
defense
that
the
rivers
and
the
air
were
free
to
use
 because
they
were
public
property.
They
im‐
plied
that
putting
any
price
or
 restrictions
whatsoever
on
the
use
of
these
resources
was
uneconomic
and
 threatened
jobs,
that
the
additional
cost
would
reduce
their
profits
unnecessarily.

 Perverse
Incentive.

 What
leftists
understood
and
the
public
at
large
understood
was
that
publicly
 owned
goods,
free
of
constraints
on
usage,
will
be
depleted
over
time.
Garrett
 Hardin,
Professor
Emeritus
of
Human
Ecology
at
the
University
of
California,
in
his
 seminal
1968
work,
"TheTragedy
of
the
Commons"
showed
that
when
a
good
is
 publicly
owned,
or
"owned”
in
common,
no
one
has
an
incentive
to
conserve
or
to
 manage
the
good.
In
fact,
there
is
a
perverse
incentive
to
use
the
good
inefficiently‐ to
deplete
it.
Let
me
give
you
an
example.
I
was
told
a
short
story
a
few
years
ago.
It
 goes
something
like
this.
When
Europeans
came
to
the
America's
eastern
shore,
the
 Northeastern
Native
Americans
used
all
the
lands
in
common.
They
killed
animals
 for
the
meat
or
furs
that
they
needed
for
their
own
personal
subsistence.
The
 Europeans,
however,
valued
furs
greatly,
and
were
willing
to
offer
many
valuable
 goods
in
exchange
for
as
many
pelts
as
could
be
supplied.
The
Chippewa
in
Canada,
 for
example,
who
had
never
before
overhunted
their
domains,
were
suddenly
given
 the
incentive
to
hunt
more
and
more
game,
despite
the
fact
that
they
were
not
 hungry
and
had
ade‐
quate
clothing.
A
fur
became
valuable,
but
no
one
owned
the
 game
and
no
one
regulated
the
hunting.
Wildlife
became
scarce
because
each
 person,
Native
and
European,
had
an
incentive
to
shoot
or
trap
an
animal
before
the
 next
person
did.
If
they
decided
to
let
a
scarce
animal
breed
rather
than
kill
it,
they
 forfeited
something
of
value
yet
reaped
none
of
the
rewards
from
their
responsible
 conduct.
Someone
else
either
killed
the
animal
or
killed
the
offspring,
reaping
all
the
 benefits.
Slowly
but
surely,
the
local
game
population
was
depleted,
and
widespread
 starvation
among
the
Indians
en‐
sued.
 Some
North
American
Natives,
however,
realized
that
if
they
were
to
survive,
they
 must
con‐
serve
the
wildlife
to
ensure
a
continued
supply
of
meat
and
fur
pelts.
To
 ensure
a
renewable
supply
of
pelts,
they
staked
out
beaver
lodges
and
other
lands
as
 their
own
exclusive
domain
to
permit
the
game
to
breed,
protecting
them
from
 other
hunters.
This
marked
the
beginning
of
de
facto
property
rights
for
the
 Chippewa.
The
beaver
and
other
game
populations
slowly
rebounded
and
the
 Natives
prospered
because
they
had
an
incentive
to
conserve
and
protect
the
 valuable
game
to
ensure
a
plentiful
supply
for
the
future.
The
moral
of
this
story
is
 twofold.
First,
if
a
good
is
owned
in
common,
no
one
owns
it
and
it
will
be
depleted
 even
if
it
is
a
renewable
resource.
Second,
if
there
are
incentives
to
conserve
 resources,
then
people
will
con‐
serve
out
of
self‐interest.
When
it
came
to
certain
 resources
like
the
air
and
water,
conservatives
have
tended
to
ignore
the
first
 lesson,
and
consequently
lost
the
opportunity
to
implement
the
second.
We
left
 ourselves
wide
open
to
the
groups
made
up
of
people
that
are
sometimes
referred
 to
as
watermelons‐green
on
the
outside
and
red
on
the
inside.
We
left
ourselves
 open
to
the
human
haters,
who
would
like
to
see
the
planet
purged
of
the
disease
 called
humans.

 Market
Counterattack.

 Reasonable
people
came
to
believe
that
they
had
a
choice
of
either
supporting
the
 environment
through
costly
regulations
or
supporting
economic
growth
and
let‐
 ting
the
environment
go
to
the
dogs.
They
saw
no
other
alternative.
Conservatives
 fought
the
green
movement
by
trying
to
block
the
regulatory
initiatives.
This
made
 sense
and
was
right.
But
our
problem
was
that
we
stopped
there.
We
should
have
 gone
further.
We
should
have
accepted
the
premise
that
the
environment
must
be
 conserved
and
then
we
should
have
counterattacked
with
market
solutions
‐
 suggesting
ways
we
could
best
protect
our
common
resources
by
providing
 incentives
to
individuals
to
act
responsibly.
Lacking
alternatives,
otherwise
 responsible
people
have
joined
the
calls
for
costly,
inefficient
command
and
control
 regulations
which
often
do
not
address
the
real
environmental
problems.
These
 people
now
equate
regulation
with
responsible
behavior,
when
in
fact
it
is
 paternalism,
taking
responsibility
away
from
the
people.
The
worst
fallout
has
been
 that
an
entire
generation
is
growing
up
thinking
that
conservatism
means
greedy
 self‐interest
and
pro‐pollution,
with
television
cartoons
Saturday
mornings
 portraying
all
industrial
development,
and
even
humans
themselves,
as
evil.
The
 debate
over
environmental
policy
rages
and
we
are
not
part
of
it.
Now
that
I've
 raised
your
ire,
let
me
state
that
conservatives'
actions
wereunderstandable
at
the
 time.
Our
laws
and
property
rights
were
predicated
on
the
existence
of
unlimited
 resources,
and
when
the
law
was
formed,
those
resources
were
unlimited.
 Smokestacks
were
seen
as
economic
vitality,
not
irresponsibility.
The
environment
 was
not
something
that
was
highly
valued
by
a
great
number
of
people.
But
the
 world
around
us
has
changed,
becoming
more
limited
with
each
year,
and
 environmen‐
tal
protection
became
more
important
to
most
people.
The
mistake
we
 made
as
conservatives
was
not
that
our
philosophy
was
wrong.
Our
mistake
was
 that,
in
this
one
isolated
area,
we
were
inconsistent
with
the
principles
that
define
 our
move‐
ment:
that
decisions
should
be
left
to
individuals
who
are
accountable
for
 their
actions.
 Conservatives
were
collectivists
when
it
came
to
using
environmental
goods.
Our
 stance
was
perfectly
logical
when
many
resources
could
be
treated
as
unlimited
and
 the
damage
done
by
economic
activity
seemed
minor
and
unimportant
compared
to
 the
resulting
benefits.

 Time
to
Change.

 But
conservativis
failed
to
notice
the
changes
taking
place
in
recent
decades.
We
 were
blind
to
the
need
to
create
a
structure
which
allows
the
market
to
allocate
en‐
 vironmental
goods
as
it
does
other
goods.
It
is
time
for
conservatives
to
recognize
 that
by
abandoning
the
debate
as
credible
participants,
we
have
allowed
these
 strangling
regulations
to
breed.
It
thus
is
time
for
conservatives
to
change
our
way
 of
thinking
if
our
principles
are
to
prevail.
Okay,
the
damage
is
done.
Now
what
do
 we
do
about
it?
How
do
we
reverse
the
regulatory
trend?
To
reverse
the
trend,
it
is
 necessary
to
understand
how
conservatives
can
be
environmentalists
without
 ideological
conflict,
to
realize
that
conservative
principles
are
not
incompatible
with
 en‐
vironmental
responsibility,
and
that,
in
fact,
we
all
are
environmentalists.
I
 would
like
all
of
you
to
answer
for
yourself
the
following
questions.
Do
you
like
 clean
air?
Do
you
want
to
be
safe
from
cancer‐causing
pollutants?
Would
you
be
 bothered
by
the
extinc‐
tion
of
the
elephant
or
the
bald
eagle?
I'll
wager
that
almost
 all
of
you
answered
yes
to
at
least
one
question.
Okay,
we're
all
environmentalists.
 But
what
does
this
really
mean?
If
we're
all
environmentalists,
why
is
there
a
 difference
of
opinion
concerning
proper
public
policy
on
the
environment?
 Obviously,
as
with
most
issues,
being
an
environmentalist
does
not
mean
we
all
 agree
as
how
best
to
solve
environmental
problems.
It
does
not
mean
we
all
agree
 on
priorities.

 Asking
the
Right
Questions.

 I
am
going
to
outline
some
free
market
environmental
solutions
or
answers
in
a
 moment‐but
first
I
have
to
start
at
the
beginning,
namely,
what
are
the
ques‐
tions?
 Does
being
environmentalists
mean
that
we
should
ensure
that
humans
have
no
 effect
upon
the
trillions
of
ecosystems
in
the
world?
Does
it
mean
that
we
must
 ensure
that
the
climate
does
not
change
at
all?
If
we
don't
allow
for
some
change,
is
 this
defying
Mother
Nature's
scheme
of
things,
since‐in
the
billions
of
years
when
 there
were
no
humans
on
the
planet,
the
climate
and
chemical
composition
of
the
 atmosphere
fluctuated?
How
do
we
solve
our
solid
waste
problem?
Is
there
a
 problem?
If
so,
what
is
its
nature?
Should
we
demand
recycling
or
even
encourage
 it?
Does
our
current
system
of
garbage
collec‐
tion
encourage
recycling?
Does
 carbon
dioxide
cause
global
warming?
If
so,
how
much
warming‐half
a
degree?
Ten
 degrees?
Over
what
period
of
time?
Would
the
increase
slow
or
stop
on
its
own?
 Win
plants
thrive
better
in
a
carbon
rich
environment?
Will
global
warming
mean
 vastly
increased
agricul‐
tural
production
without
increased
pesticide
use,
helping
 to
solve
world
hunger?
Should
we
even
be
worried
about
pesticides?
Certainly
 they've
increased
world
food
produc‐
tion,
but
with
what
harm
to
human
health?
Do
 the
tests
that
show
cancer‐catising
attributes
for
some
pesticides
mean
we
should
 ban
those
pesticides?
Bruce
Ames,
Professor
of
Biochemistry
and
Molecular
Biology
 at
the
University
of
California
at
Berkeley,
and
the
scientist
who
is
large‐ly
 responsible
for
the
way
we
identify
cancer‐causing
agents,
has
now
reconsidered
 his
position.
He
says
that
the
procedure
our
government
scientists
use
to
test
for
 carcinogen
levels
grossly
overstates
the
cancer
risk
and
even
identifies
as
 carcinogenic
some
agents
which
are,
in
fact,
probably
not.
Finally,
what
should
be
 our
environmental
priorities?
With
our
limited
economic
resources,
how
do
we
 decide
which
environmental
problems
should
be
solved?
How
do
we
decide
on
the
 best
mix
of
economic
development,
environmental
conservation,
and
preservation?
 Now
that
you
have
had
these
many
questions
thrown
at
you,
I'd
like
to
sum
it
all
up
 with
another
question:
If
we
don't
know
the
right
questions,
how
can
we
expect
to
 know
the
right
answers?
If
we
can't
even
agree
on
whether
environmentalism
 means
keeping
the
world
safe
for
the
needs
and
values
of
humans
or
if
it
means
 having
a
planet
untouched
by
man,
how
can
we
all
agree
on
the
solutions?
The
 obvious
answer
is
that
we
can't.

 Incorporating
Human
Values.

 Conservatives
maintain
that
any
rational
discussion
of
what
constitutes
 environmentalism
must
incorporate
human
values,
wants,
and
needs
concerning
the
 environment.
Environmentalism
is
a
meaningless
concept
if
we
attempt
to
define
it
 in
terms
separate
from
what
people
believe
is
important.
By
incorporating
these
 values
into
our
definition
of
environmental
responsibility,
we
can
better
determine
 what
questions
to
ask.
To
incorporate
our
values
fully
into
our
dealing
with
the
 environment,
we
must
have
a
means
by
which
to
realize
their
preferences‐a
way
to
 reflect
commonly
held
beliefs
and
to
set
priorities
for
all
the
competing
preferences.
 History
has
shown
that
the
best
way
to
put
goods
to
their
most
highly
valued
use
is
 through
the
marketplace.
This
is
how
material
values
are
best
real‐
ized
and
 maximized.
If
land
next
to
my
home
is
more
highly
valued
to
me
as
a
wooded
estate
 than
it
is
to
you
as
a
widget
factory,
I
will
pay
more
than
you
to
acquire
it.
If
I
value
 tender.,
juicy
beefsteaks
and
am
willing
to
pay
for
them,
this
gives
someone
the
 incentive
to
breed
cattle
to
provide
steaks
to
me
for
profit.
All
well
and
good.
But
 how
does
letting
markets
function
protect
the
environment?
Saving
the
Elephant.
 Let's
return
to
the
question
dealing
with
the
threatened
extinction
of
the
elephant.
 Would
the
marketplace
protect
them?
The
answer
is,
not
only
would
it
protect
them
 a
lot
better
than
the
international
ban
on
elephant
ivory
currently
in
effect,
the
 marketplace
would
probably
actually
save
them
from
extinction.
A
brief
history
of
 the
facts:
In
Central
Africa,
from
1979
to
1989,
one
decade,
the
elephant
herd
 population
dropped
from
about
500,000
to
275,000.
East
Africa's
herd
population
 dropped
even
more
dramatically
during
the
same
decade,
from
546,000
elephants
 to
155,000.
In
government‐owned
East
African
game
parks,
56
percent
of
the
 elephants
were
killed
or
died.
Some
projections
show
that
elephants
could
be
 extinct
in
East
and
Central
Africa
as
early
as
the
year
2005.
In
the
late
1970s,
the
 government
of
Kenya
banned
elephant
hunting
as
a
means
to
save
the
species.
The
 result,
unfortunately,
has
been
a
continued
reduction
of
the
elephant
population
 from
65,000
to
19,000.
Now
let's
take
a
look
at
Zimbabwe.
Over
this
same
period,
it
 witnessed
an
increase
in
its
elephant
herd
size
from
30,000
to
43,000.
The
 difference
between
Zimbabwe
and
Kenya
is
that
Zimbabwe
not
only
allows,
but
 encourages
hunting.
This
probably
surprises
you
given
that
it
is
Zimbabwe's
herds
 that
are
increasing.
Yet
it
is
true.
The
usually
small
Zimbabwe
villages
that
own
the
 lands
on
which
elephants
five
and
graze
charge
safari
operators
for
the
right
to
 conduct
hunts.
The
villages
profit
directly
and
thus
have
an
incentive
to
promote
 herd
growth
to
increase
their
income.
They
further
have
a
strong
incen‐
tive
to
 prevent
poaching,
because
poachers
cost
the
villagers
income.
Poachers
in
the
 countries
that
have
banned
hunting
create
a
classic
situation
of
the
tragedy
of
the
 commons.
Elephant
herds
are
decimated
because
poachers
have
an
incentive
to
kill
 them
as
quickly
as
possible.
Nobody
individually
benefits
by
foregoing
its
use.
 Perversely,
in
countries
that
have
banned
elephant
hunting,
villagers
have
an
 incentive
to
assist
in
the
eradication
of
what
otherwise
many
consider
to
be
a
pest.
 After
all,
elephants
compete
with
villagers
for
scarce
resources
in
the
harsh
 environment
of
Africa.

 Reward
for
Conservation.

 Zimbabwe,
as
‐well
Botswana,
Namibia;
and
South
Africa
all
reward
the
 conservation
of
elephants
by
letting
the
conservationists
profit
from
their
protective
 behavior.
And
in
each
country
the
herd
sizes
are
increasing.
Profit
comes
not
only
 from
safari
operators.
Elephants
also
are
shot
by
hunters
or
culled
from
herds
to
 ensure
enough
food
for
the
remaining
animals.
The
elephants
that
are
killed
are
 skinned,
their
tusks
are
cut
off,
and
the
meat
is
butchered
and
sold.
The
skin
is
made
 into
boots
and
the
ivory
carved
into
statues
and
other
items.
The
entire
animal
is
 consumed,
making
each
elephant
more
valuable
to
the
society
and
more
valuable
to
 conserve.
By
contrast,
because
the
poacher
must
act
quickly
for
fear
of
being
shot
 himself
for
his
crime,
he
will
often
use
a
buzzsaw
to
cut
off
the
ivory
tusk
as
close
to
 the
skull
as
possible
as
quickly
as
possible
and
flee,
leaving
the
carcass
to
rot.
The
 international
ban
on
the
ivory
trade
penalizes
those
nations
that
have
set
up
 responsible
market
structures
which
encourage
conservation.
This
ban
should
be
 Iifted
and
nations
outlawing
hunting
should
set
up
systems
similar
to
Zimbabwe's.
 Two
other
environmental
problems
that
can
be
solved
by
a
market
approach
are,
 first,
the
prob‐
lem
of
overfishing
and,
second,
the
polluting
of
our
nation's
rivers
 and
streams.

 Fishing
Rights.

 The
British
solution
is
instructive.
In
Scotland,
virtually
every
inch
of
every
major
 river
and
most
minor
ones
is
privately
owned.
Owners
of
fishing
rights
on
various
 stretches
of
the
rivers
charge
others
for
the
right
to
fish.
These
rivers
are
not
 overfished
because
it
is
not
in
the
owner's
best
interest
to
allow
the
fish
population
 to
be
depleted.
He
wants
to
con‐
tinue
charging
fishermen
for
the
foreseeable
future,
 so
he
conserves
his
fish
stock,
allowing
them
to
reproduce,
and
he
prevents
 pollution
from
entering
his
stretch
of
river.
If
a
municipality
pol‐
lutes
the
water
 upstream,
the
owner
of
the
fishing
rights
can
stop
it
by
suing
for
an
injunction.
We
 should
adopt
the
British
example
to
save
our
waterways
from
further
pollution
and
 over‐
fishing.
This
approach
will
not
infringe
on
people's
rights.
On
the
contrary,
it
 will
protect
rights.
This
approach
also
does
not
require
billions
of
dollars
in
scarce
 government
resources.
And
best
of
all,
it
would
protect
our
nation's
waterways
 better
than
regulation.

 This
concept
of
ownership
can
be
extended
to
the
oceans
to
protect
fisheries,
which
 currently
are
being
overfished.
The
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
 Administration,
known
as
NOAA,
has
tried
dozens
of
solutions
to
solve
the
problem.
 NOAA
has
tried
to
limit
the
number
of
days
per
month
that
a
boat
can
fish.
So
what
 happens?
The
fishermen
simply
send
out
more
boats
and
improve
the
speed
of
their
 operations
so
that
they
catch
the
same
amount
of
fish
in
less
time.
To
reduce
the
 fisherman's
efficiency,
NOAA
has
required
that
fishermen
cut
holes
in
their
net
so
 that
many
fish
can
escape.
So
what
happens?
The
fishermen
just
make
technological
 improve‐
ments
to
overcome
the
liability.
Tremendous
wastes
of
manpower
and
 resources
am
incurred
to
make
the
fisherman
less
efficient
at
his
job,
and
yet
the
 problem
still
exists.

 One
method
to
solve
the
overfishing
problem
is
to
use
a
system
of
individual
 tradeable
quotas,
or
ITQs.
This
is
how
it
works.
First
the
government
determines
 how
many
fish
can
be
caught
without
depleting
the
stock.
Fishermen
then
buy
and
 trade
the
ITQs,
which
allow
them
to
fish
a
certain
percentage
of
whatever
the
 government
designates
as
the
total
catch.
They
then
have
the
incentive
to
catch
a
 given
amount
of
fish
in
the
most
economical
manner
possible.
It
is
not
a
pure
market
 solution,
because
the
government
still
acts
as
the
steward
of
the
fisheries
and
is
 therefore
subject
to
political
pressures.
But
at
least
it
introduces
some
of
the
 efficiencies
of
the
market
into
the
equation.
Actually,
there
is
discussion
in
 government
circles
now
about
introducing
ITQs.
This
would
be
a
great
 improvement
over
any
solution
attempted
to
date.
It
would
protect
the
fisheries
and
 reduce
the
economic
burdens
on
fishermen,
burdens
which
drive
up
the
price
of
 fish.
Even
in
supporting
this
measure,
however,
it
is
important
to
remember
the
 lessons
of
the
past
and
con‐
tinue
to
search
for
better
solutions
more
closely
 reflecting
the
pure
market,
where
final
decision
making
rests
with
the
individual.

 Tracking
Pollution
Sources.

 There
are
market‐oriented
approaches
for
reducing
air
pollution
from
fixed
point
 sources
such
as
factories.
One
such
approach
uses
advanced
technology
that
ac‐
 tually
can
identify
from
which
factory
or
source
a
pollutant
originates.
Although
the
 technology
is
not
yet
fully
developed,
our
existing
ability
to
map
atmospheric
 chemical
concentrations
from
orbit
suggests
that
we
might
in
time
be
able
track
 individual
point
source
polluters,
each
of
which
would
incorporate
an
identifying
 "fingerprint'
'molecule
to
emissions,
the
same
principle
used
when
brands
were
put
 on
cattle
in
the
old
days.
Harmed
individuals
could
then
sue
polluters
under
the
 common
law
of
nuisance.
For
mobile
pollution,
the
regulatory
approach
to
reducing
 air
pollution
from
automobiles
has
been
extremely
expensive
for
the
results
 obtained.
This
is
because
the
regulatory
burden
falls
en‐
tirely
and
equally
on
all
 new
car
owners,
whether
they
purchase
more
polluting
cars
or
less
polluting
cars.
 This
gives
consumers
an
incentive
to
drive
their
more
heavily
polluting
older
cars
 for
a
longer
period
of
time.
It
also
provides
no
incentive
for
people
to
reduce
auto
 pollution
by
getting
their
cars
tuned
regularly.
A
solution
might
be
found
in
a
device
 developed
by
University
of
Denver
Professor
Donald
Stedman.
The
device
functions
 like
a
radar
gun;
only
rather
than
measuring
the
speed
of
a
car,
it
identifies
the
 amount
of
pollutants
emitted
by
the
car.
Cars
could
be
taxed
by
local
governments
 according
to
their
level
of
emissions.
This
would
not
only
provide
incentive
for
 people
to
keep
their
cars
tuned,
but
would
also
make
owners
of
older
cars
bear
their
 share
of
the
burden
of
reducing
total
output.
Best
of
all,
this
approach
could
be
used
 to
target
those
areas
of
the
country,
such
as
Los
Angeles,
which
have
the
most
 serious
problems,
without
penalizing
new
car
owners
living
in
non‐problem
areas.

 New
Conservative
Message.

 This
is
not
a
pure
market
solution.
Yet
it
is
a
tax
that
at
least
somewhat
mimics
the
 market
by
holding
those
responsible
for
pollution
accountable
for
the
costs
of
its
 reduction.
It
makes
the
polluter
pay.
So
where
is
this
leading
us?
It
leads
us
to
a
new
 conservative
message
on
the
environment.
This
new
conservative
message
should
 be:
Make
The
Polluter
Pay.
The
polluter
should
bear
the
total
societal
cost
of
his
 resource
use
and
environmental
degrada‐
tion.
But
he
should
also
reap
rewards
for
 conservation
and
environmentally
sound
practices.
This
approach
rests
on
 economic
accountability.
We
must
create
a
system
in
which
people
are
economicaUy
 accountable
for
environmental
values
and
goods
when
using
resources,
just
as
they
 are
for
other
values
and
goods.
Owners
of
resources,
because
they
are
economically
 accountable
for
their
actions,
are
wise
and
responsible
stewards
of
their
property.
 On
the
whole,
they
will
automatically
choose
the
best
mix
of
development,
 conservation,
and
preservation.
Furthermore,
they
have
tangible
incentives
to
 protect
their
properties
from
pollution
by
others.
The
government,
in
contrast,
will
 not
act
as
a
wise
and
responsible
steward
of
our
resources
be‐
cause
it
is
not
 economically
accountable
for
its
actions.
If
elephants
die,
if
rivers
are
polluted,
if
 resources
are
misused,
individual
bureaucrats
do
not
suffer
direct
economic
 consequences.
Politicians
are
only
politically
accountable,
which
means
they
often
 make
decisions
based
on
pressure
from
interest
groups.

 Setting
Priorities.

 As
individuals,
we
may
not
know
all
the
questions.
But
the
fire
market
can
 incorporate
all
of
those
values
that
people
hold
dear,
setting
priorities
that
best
 meet
people's
needs,
and
requiring
individuals
to
pay
for
what
they
receive.
The
 market,
by
making
the
polluter
bear
the
costs
of
his
pollution,
gives
individuals
 personal
incentives
to
understand
the
environ‐
mental
needs
and
concerns
of
 others,
and
to
meet
those
needs
whenever
it
is
in
society's
and
their
own
best
 interest.
The
challenge
to
conservatives
is
to
seek
market
arrangements
whenever
 possible
to
provide
environmental
values
and
goods,
and
to
pressure
our
local
 government
and
state
legislators
to
use
a
free
market
rather
than
a
command
and
 control
government
approach
to
environmental
problems.
 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/04/2011 for the course BUAD 1 taught by Professor Na during the Spring '09 term at USC.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online