NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/environm/2889

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-22 | 3.2 KB

Xref: sparky talk.environment:2889 sci.environment:9761 alt.politics.marrou:119
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!cookie.enet.dec.com!berenson
From: [e-mail] (Hal Berenson)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:01:48 GMT
Lines: 47


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (V Headshape) writes...
>People who own things have incentive to think up solutions when the "problem"
>is a threat to their ownership.  The only reason property owners might
>try to think up environmental solutions is that if they don't, they
>may lose their "property rights," and THAT incentive is provided by the
>threat of government intervention.
>

Interesting reasoning, but not really true.  The most incentive people
have is to retain the value of the property.  When the government
declares that the puddle in your backyard is a wetland (the standard is
worded something like "if its wet x days per year, its wetland") the
value of your property drops because people are less likely to buy land
that is under severe federal restrictions.  The behavoir of the landowner
now becomes (and many farmers are reportedly doing this) upon noticing an
area is not drying up shortly after rainfall, fill it in or regrade it
before the Feds declare it protected wetlands!  So, the law is now
driving people to destroy wetlands that they were once content to
preserve (or at least ignore).

A private group would, instead, come in and either buy the land or at
least offer the landowner financial incentives to retain the wetlands.
Why would people do that?  Well, if they are interested in protecting the
environment then they should be willing to contribute voluntarily to such
groups right?  But I won't even rely on such "charity".  Ducks Unlimited
is one of the most well funded environmental groups out there and it
obtains its funding out of contributors' self-interest.  In order to hunt
ducks there have to be ducks.  For there to be a healthy duck population,
there have to be wetlands.  Ducks Unlimited doesn't develop hunting
facilities, but bird hunters give it 10s (or is it 100s) of millions of
dollars per year so that waterfowl populations can be maintained/grown.
(An interesting side observation...many large landowners, particularly
farmers, are hunters and have lots of personal interest in preserving the
ecosystem.)
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson

Home: [e-mail]
Work: [e-mail]

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --