Environmental Regulations

Libertarian arguments often sound good at first. When critically analyzed, however, they fall to pieces faster than a 1972 Ford Pinto. My opponent's argument is no different. Libertarians view the world and its problems far too simplistically, and they gloss over history and human nature in coming up with wrong-headed, if pleasant-sounding, explanations. First, my opponent fails to grasp the fundamental difference between point and non-point source pollution. Basic environmental science tells us that point-source pollution comes from one, easily identified source. A factory belching smoke is a prime example. These sources of pollution are easily controlled. The trouble is, the vast majority of pollution comes from non-point-sources. It's time to inject an anecdote: My family and I hiked to the top of Mt. Leconte in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. From the top, no human settlement is visible. However, all of the trees on the summit are dead. This is due to acid rain. My opponent might say: "No problem, if that land was privately owned, the owner could just sue the big pollution factory over the next hill and the problem would be gone!" But that would not work. The acid rain comes from mainly from car and home emissions from all over the East Coast. Now, would my opponent advocate suing every car and home owner along the Atlantic Seaboard? The largest polluters are collective groups. One car doesn't produce much sulfur dioxide (the gas mainly responsible for acid rain), but a whole state full of cars does. Suing a car manufacturer would be equally futile: they aren't at fault, after all, they just produced a product the consumers wanted (a typical libertarian argument). What I'm getting at is that pollution is really a sum of many tiny parts. Frequent lawsuits and strict defense of property rights can't even touch the vast number of these tiny little parts. This is where a broader regulation is needed to attempt to reduce all of the tiny parts, thereby reducing the whole. Second, my opponent does not grasp the disconnect between Adam Smith's economics and environmentally sound policy. My opponent uses the example of drilling in ANWR, saying that if oil companies prevail, it is because the economy places more importance on oil than on the environment. However, what is economically favored is not always what is best for society, the fatal flaw in the libertarian system. Oil companies could surely muster more than enough money to buy ANWR, and they could do it much faster than environmental groups could even begin to rally financial support. Remember, of Fortune 500 richest corporations, three of the top five are oil companies. If all restrictions were removed, there would be, without a doubt, drilling in ANWR. But would that drilling be in the public's best interest? This is why we elect government leaders, who respond to public demands and create policies and regulations that follow with the public's desires. Finally, my opponent ignores history and human nature. If property rights work so well, why did anyone ever call for more regulation? Let me remind everyone that there was a time in the U.S. history when we didn't have environmental regulations. Industry flourished in the late 19th century in a nation that had no environmental laws. And people were free to sue if their property was damaged. But this litigation did not happen on a large scale. It is human nature to avoid conflict; people just moved farther and farther away from industrial metropolises like my native Cleveland, where the sky was black with smoke from countless steel mills and factories. The wealthy didn't fight; they moved to the country. Those who are educated and have means are more likely to flee than to fight, and those with no means and little education are in no position to wage lengthy legal battles against well-prepared foes. The drive for fast profit is also well ingrained in human nature. My opponent writes that no one would destroy their own property because that would render it worthless. That is certainly true in the long run, but that is not how many people think. I frequently go to Youngstown, Ohio. It is a wasteland today, with skeletons of abandoned, rusting steel mills dominating the skyline. 70 years ago, it was a booming metropolis, and the steel mills, all 37 of them, were belching thick, black smoke that covered the landscape. The land under the steel mills was worthless because of pollution, but at the time, no mill operator was considering selling. They were in it for the great profits in making steel, and they never looked to the future to consider what the land was worth. Human nature is to make fast profit, and often environmental destruction and fast profit go hand in hand. In light of all this, my opponent's argument is looking weak. There is a clear need for environmental regulations to control what businesses and industries do. Further, environmental regulations are a way to reduce non-point-source pollution, a type of pollution my opponent's system cannot address. Don't be deluded by a libertarian's oversimplifications. We truly do need environmental regulations.