Where Does It All Start And Where Will It End?

Chapter 2; rethinking the way we think

It all really starts with Malthus, during the industrial revolution when the events of both extreme economic growth and environmental degradation simultaneously occurred. Through the mediums of resource exploitation from better technology, the epicentre of the revolution became covered in a layer of factory excreted soot. To the point of certain moth species depleting due to the change in habitat (a certain tree that originally was a light colour that became discoloured). His general sentiment to the new found technologies was largely summed up by “Population and growing consumption must eventually run into the wall of finite natural resources,”.

He of course wasn’t wrong since the majority of the consumption through the free market tends to stem from the use of some form of fossil fuel. However in the book, the author aims to argue a point against those views of a gloomy ending through our own mutually assured destruction, since environmental policy isn’t that awful in the long run as long as it’s done right.

Without it, The free market would have a monopoly on the environment and natural resources, however through this system there are no accountable parties. The example given in the chapter here is of a paper mill that disposed it’s waste in the nearby water, where the water became contaminated further downstream hence causing costs for the rest of society. These costs would be incurred on those affected and not on the ones who were the cause, this essentially would be the beginning of the tragedy of the commons. As a result of these large disparities and failures in the market, “Pigou called for taxes or regulations on polluters imposed through a political process”. This is a prime example the state and the market acting as separate entities with entirely different end goals; the market seeks to augment itself and hence maximize in value and utility, whereas the state is acting to curb this at the cost of resource exploitation. This is all done under the notion that the economy will not self regulate. 

The author here proposes another thought, the idea that people are not inherently altruistic and self interest will always prevail taking into account transaction costs and incentives, but ultimately about how this can be “harnessed” to aid in the plight involving an environmental catastrophe. Yet even still there is an assumption that has to be made in order for this theory to operate successfully, and this is that the environment is of only “anthropic” value. That is to say that all the value of the environment is the on that humans perceive. Through 

this, all changes made to the environment through human hands is based on human needs.

He then focuses on the incentives that tend to the rule the bureaucratic class, with the example used of the Yellowstone national park that was built on grizzly bear territory, that set the tone of a higher commercialized political order that overrides the “good intentions” of the so called bureaucrat.

After all this, the tragedy of the commons is bound to occur, as each person will act in their self-interest and all things are of equal ownership; anyone can fish from the sea there is no restriction. 

It will become ultimately destroyed, since conversely there is not incentive to refrain from fishing, since another will simply take it instead. That is the tragedy.

Another issue lies in the place of an action not having preconceived consequences, humans cannot always predict the outcome of something they do, yet organisation of actions involving the environment is expensive and involves a lot of pre planning but ultimately could be the most beneficial. Especially if we knew that digging up some old ammonites would lead to global destruction.

Bibliography 

Anderson, T., Leal, D. and Anderson, T. (2001). Free market environmentalism. 1st ed. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave.