Is there such a thing as an environmental libertarian or am I a walking contradiction?

For as much good as labels do, I consider myself both an environmentalist and a libertarian. If you know anything about those two ideals, they seem mutually exclusive on the surface. It has been my experience speaking with Libertarians online that most of them are at least environmentally conscious. As one told me, nobody hates the planet.

I beg to differ on the contrary

Still, there seems to be a discord between an environmentalist mindset and a libertarian mindset, and so I’ve set out to see if this discord is real or a product of society. Before I begin this journey, you must know that my ideological base is environmentalism, as I have a Master's in Biology. My journey has started with FEE, the Foundation for Economic Education.

I agree with every word that you say

Fred Smith and Iain Murray wrote an article on FEE titled The State Can’t Protect the Environment – Markets Can.

(T)he one area where many, perhaps most, still believe only government can operate is that of environmental protection. This essay argues that classical liberals should challenge this view and seek to evolve a free market environmental programme based on the expansion of property rights and associated legal protections. There are indeed environmental concerns, but these reflect failures to allow markets and their prerequisite institutions to evolve, rather than “market failures”.

I have no belief but I believe

They have my attention. I probably fall into the category of people who argue that the government must be involved in environmental protection, but I’m listening.
They argue that institutions such as nuisance laws regarding pollution and subsurface property rights were established during the development of the Industrial Revolution, but that was stopped in its tracks by privileges granted by legislatures to railroads and industrial plants, in essence giving them the right to pollute. This is, of course, the main problem with government intervention in any area – legislature in effect picks winners and losers.

Legislatures eager to promote economic growth granted railroads and many industrial plants pollution privileges. Subsurface property rights in oil pools and reserves did evolve, but they were not extended to aquifers, groundwater, and other liquid underground resources. And most mainstream environmental resources, such as wildlife, springs and brooks, airsheds and bays, remained as unprotected commons. Normal market processes were blocked from addressing these emerging areas of social concern. Thus, overuse and pollution – not addressed at the margin – were neglected until they grew to critical levels. A similar problem occurred in the failure to recognize the efforts of radio pioneers to homestead the electromagnetic spectrum. (emphasis mine)

Standards set and broken all the time

As a biologist, that wildlife remained as unprotected commons long enough until their predicaments became dire is heart wrenching. Of course, being educated in the university system, I was taught that governmental regulations were what ultimately saved many species from extinction, and the narrative now is that were it not for government regulators such as the EPA, our water would be undrinkable and our air unbreathable.

Talk is cheap and lies are expensive

I’ve heard of many anecdotes of the EPA either actively or passively harming the environment, but one that jumps to mind is a recent WikiLeaks-type exposure regarding the EPA’s collusion with Monsanto to cover the dangers of glyphosate herbicide (Roundup) which is used in broad-spectrum weed killing.

Environmental Pollution Agency?
Regardless of how you feel about WikiLeaks, the government (or at least, some people within the government, since the gov’t itself isn’t a sentient being) doesn’t always do the right thing gasp!

Control the chaos behind a gun

Drawing on examples from early on in the Industrial Revolution, Smith and Murray argue that

Early forms of pollution – primitive charcoal production that produced noxious smoke, say, or sewage that dirtied water – would likely irritate downwind or downstream parties. Communal norms would discipline to some degree such “pollution activities” as they threatened the communities’ “proper enjoyment of their property”. But such low levels of pollution, especially in small cultural enclaves, could readily be handled: community pressures could encourage charcoal operations to relocate to more remote woodlands. Homeowners could be shamed into building clay-lined privies.

Do as I say not as I do

“Relocating charcoal operations to more remote woodlands” reminds me of the phrase “out of sight, out of mind.” Perhaps it’s a good thing that simply shoving pollution problems out of sight is no longer possible, due to the large-scale nature of coal plants and oil pipelines. Perhaps this visibility will make us all more eco-conscious.
I think the key to the above block quote is “such low levels of pollution, especially in small cultural enclaves, could be readily handled.” Libertarians are always advocating for de-centralized solutions. I recently read an article in Reason magazine which argued that the nuclear approach by victims of Hurricane Sandy was much better than the highly centralized approach by the victims of Hurricane Katrina. But the environment is different, I think. The environment is interconnected, in ways we still don’t understand, and so one cultural approach may not work for another part of the ecosystem, or a nuclear approach to an environmental problem just may not be an option.
In fact, Murray and Smith fall into this trap I’ve set.

Why are environmental resources rarely available as ownable private property?

Probably the first thing that jumped to your mind was “WATER.” Indeed, humans have fought and killed each other as long as we’ve existed over the right to water. And water rights seem like kryptonite to a libertarian approach to environmentalism. The first thing that jumped to my mind was “OCEAN.” Because how can you own the ocean, or a species within the ocean? Oceanic species, especially the larger, charismatic ones (what we biologists call charismatic megafauna, for example, Orcas) are migratory. It’s hard enough to get multiple governments to agree to species conservation plans. But perhaps if Bill Gates owned all the Orcas, he’d be a great steward and there wouldn’t be pods off the West Coast starving because salmon is being overharvested.
Me saying Bill Gates owns all the orcas probably feels icky to you. It sure feels icky to me. And that’s a huge issue I see with “owning” environmental resources. Owning one animal feels okay (unless you’re an animal rights extremist); owning an entire species feels very, very wrong. This seems a very slippery philosophical slope, so I’m going to stop this digression with one final comment: we are all just leasing the air and water and food we use and consume while we’re here. Eventually the space I take up and the water and food I consume will pass on to the next generation, and the one after that. In short, I'm one of those people who believes we don't truly own anything.

Excuse our dust, but grow we must

Back to the FEE article:

But with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, the quantity and nature of materials processed and the quantity of residuals (pollution, waste) increased. The power of communities to address external and large enterprises weakened; moreover such enterprises brought benefits as well as nuisances.
Yet weak property rights and a liability system dealing with water and air did exist, building blocks for a more robust market in these areas. And efforts were made to adapt them to these new challenges...

For example, farmers sued railroads when the sparks from the first-generation locomotives set fire to their fields. Which is great because this will create incentives for cleaner energy and better technology. But what if nobody (or nobody in a place of power) cares? For example, I care greatly about how roads kill herps by the boatloads. I’m not in a place of power, though, and most other people don’t care, or at least don’t care enough to do anything. It seems lobbying the government to do something on my behalf is the only recourse.

Wildlife underpass with a fine mesh fence lower and a larger mesh fence higher on the right. Would wildlife underpasses exist in a free market society? Would they be ubiquitous? Better designed?
The problem, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, is that governments granted companies the “right to pollute.” Murray and Smith argue that property rights were ignored, and free markets not allowed to develop alternative strategies to combat new forms of pollution and infringement and waste. The example they use is the electromagnetic spectrum and how this resource initially was regulated by homesteading with “rules to separate one bandwidth user from another.” Then Congress and the FCC stepped in, taking control of this valuable resource, which is indeed an environmental resource.

The Hypothesis

(T)he “market failure” model presumes that all environmental issues are inherently political.

As a biologist, I know that environmental issues are not political, at least, not in the sense that they are generated by politics. They arise from people not understanding and/or not caring about the impact their actions are having on the environment. Not everyone is a biologist, so not everyone understands or cares that the ocean is the world’s greatest carbon sink, sequestering gigatons (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons) of carbon each year. Therefore, building nuclear reactors and industrial factories on the ocean’s edge and dumping pollutants into it may occur because people don’t know or don’t care about how vital the ocean is to this planet’s health.
Some of the methods used in the past (before ubiquitous government intervention) appeal to me as fragile, or head-in-the-sand in nature.

(R)elocation, changing time of operations, acquiring buffer zones or even negotiating with the harmed party to permit future emissions... “fencing” themselves off from the nuisance... adding settling and treatment ponds, and so forth.

Relocating a plant that produces chemical waste doesn’t solve the problem of pollution, it, well, relocates it. But Murray and Smith have an argument for that, too:

Classical liberals would expect the discovery process to provide a number of competing environmental response strategies.

I like the sound of that. Use bacteria to fix the waste byproducts, or repurpose the waste byproducts into fuel. In brief, Murray and Smith outline three actions to integrate the costs and benefits of environmental regulation:

1. Extend property rights to the new resource
2. Legitimize new contract instruments that would permit the parties to agree to a risk-sharing arrangement*
3. Cultural change**
   *For example, a polluting plant agrees to hold its effluents below some harmful level and agrees to compensate the property owner if those protections fail. The issue I see with this is the polluting plant may just opt to compensate the property owner if it’s too expensive to properly dispose of their waste. Taking the hit might make sense for them fiscally, but it would be disastrous for the environment. Again, some people only care about their pocketbooks.
   **Recognizing that air and water transgressions – transferring one’s residuals onto the properties of other without their permission – is a trespass, a “pollution. This is where the meat is at, as far as I can tell. People must be held accountable for their transgressions toward the environment, but even more importantly, they must be made to stop. This is why I feel the government must step in and (mis)manage environmental regulations – it’s probably the most regimental, militaristic area of my political ideology. Which is why I’d like to find an alternative that still rigorously protects the environment and our collective resources.

Shoot, shovel, and shut up

Ah, the ace in the hole. Murray and Smith argue that federal protection of species, making species wards of the state, harms them. A private landowner, finding that she has an endangered species on her land, and knowing that she can no longer develop her land any further, will remove all traces of said protected animal and never speak of it again. Murray and Smith rhetorically ask, “Can there be a better way?”
Of course, they argue the libertarian position – make it an economic resource. Let the landowner own the animal, and then she could lease the right to that animal, giving the landowner the incentive to protect both the animal and its habitat. This would encourage development in supporting institutions like pet stores (I’m not sure what they’re thinking with that one), veterinary sciences, licenses, and pet adoption agencies (again, I’m not sure where this train of thought is headed). One area I can see great potential in is with wildlife biologists. Let’s say I wish to perform an experiment on bog turtles, which are found on a farmer’s property. I pay the farmer some amount to not only use her property, but also maintain the bog turtle’s habitat, and as a reward, I gain access to this animal in the wild.
Another option the authors suggest is crowdfunding support for the landowner who finds her land suddenly worthless if it is home to a protected species. Such crowdfunding makes her land valuable again, as important habitat to said protected species, and she will again have incentive to keep the animal and land, and will personally protect it as an income source.
I must admit that this makes a lot of sense. As Murray and Smith say, “Why should people who value the spotted owl send money to a landowner to protect it when the landowner is theoretically banned from doing anything to harm it or its habitat? They get far more ‘bang per buck’ (I’m sure they intended this pun!) from funding environmental groups that lobby for more bans, caps, and mandates.” After all, I can see how decentralized protection of this sort would greatly benefit animals that don’t have large ranges, that is, ranges on the order of counties/states/countries.

An example of a charismatic species. This cute bird, by fostering desire to protect its habitat, will also protect many other, less cute species. Spotted, owl, Strix occidentalis.
Perhaps one of the most salient points these authors make is that the term “environment” has become synonymous for “everything,” and they argue that central management of everything is foolish, which is a perfectly rational argument to make. Perhaps their argument that fragmented protection via the free market is best is therefore more valid than I’m currently willing to give them credit for.

Antithesis

Perhaps this is a difference of location, but as opposed to the thought experiment involving the spotted owl, private property protection was most certainly not the case with the (still) critically endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. In the 1980s this species received binational protection (from Mexico and the U.S.) and since then, the numbers have increased exponentially, from hundreds of nesting females at the lowest, to tens of thousands now. Of course, there’s no way of knowing that if a free market solution had been implemented instead, Kemp’s ridleys would be equally or more protected than they are now.

Thesis

In conclusion, I am encouraged that libertarians both recognize the benefits of and encourage the implementation of environmental regulation, albeit in the form of property rights. It seems that animals that don’t range very far, like salamanders or the bog turtle, could benefit greatly from private property protection and market-based solutions. However, I remain thoroughly unconvinced property rights will be sufficient to address and redress every environmental slight, especially when it comes to international areas like the ocean and the ocean’s resources. I will let Smith and Murray have the last word, speaking of a property rights approach to pollution:

(E)xternalities would be internalized while they were minor, and readily addressed, rather than waiting till there was a crisis.

---

Image Credits:
1 In the contradiction lies the hope: steamcommunity.com
2 Strange or Familiar Bedfellows? Glyphosate.news
3 Wildlife won’t become roadkill here! Wikimedia Commons
4 This owlet is almost as cute as its name! Pixabay