Environment-plank-Ruwart

Source: Mary Ruwart
===Environment (Part 1)===
===The Pollution Solution (Part I)===
Isn't government the best protector of the environment and our national parks?
Who's the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants?
If you guessed "none of the above" you'd be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land. In addition, our government doesn't even clean up its own garbage!
In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals-enough contamination to cost $100 billion dollars in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages. Government departments have sovereign immunity.
In 1984, a Utah court ruled that the U.S. military was negligent in its nuclear testing, causing serious health problems (e.g. death) for the people exposed to radioactive fallout. The Court of Appeals dismissed the claims of the victims, because government employees have sovereign immunity.
Hooker Chemical begged the Niagara Falls School Board not to excavate the land where Hooker had safely stored toxic chemical waste. The school board ignored these warnings and taxpayers had to foot a $30 million relocation bill when health problems arose. The EPA filed suit, not against the reckless school board, but against Hooker Chemical! Government officials have sovereign immunity.
Government, both federal and local, is the greatest single polluter in the U.S. This polluter literally gets away with murder because of sovereign immunity. Libertarians would make government as responsible for its actions as everyone else is expected to be. Libertarians would protect the environment by first abolishing sovereign immunity.
By turning to government for environmental protection, we've placed the fox in charge of the hen house-and a very large hen house it is! Governments, both federal and local, control over 40% of our country's land mass. Unfortunately, government's stewardship over our land is gradually destroying it.
For example, the Bureau of Land Management controls an area almost twice the size of Texas, including nearly all of Alaska and Nevada. Much of this land is rented to ranchers for grazing cattle. Because ranchers are only renting the land, they have no incentive to take care of it. Not surprisingly, studies as early as 1925 indicated that cattle were twice as likely to die on public ranges and had half as many calves as animals grazing on private lands.
Obviously, owners make better environmental guardians than renters. If the government sold its acreage to private ranchers, the new owners would make sure that they grazed the land sustainably to maximize profit and yield.
Indeed, ownership of wildlife can literally save endangered species from extinction. Between 1979 and 1989, Kenya banned elephant hunting, yet the numbers of these noble beasts dropped from 65,000 to 19,000. In Zimbabwe during the same time period, however, elephants could be legally "owned" and sold. The number of elephants increased from 30,000 to 43,000 as their owners became fiercely protective of their "property." Poachers didn't have a chance!
Similarly, commercialization of the buffalo saved it from extinction. We never worry about cattle becoming extinct, because their status as valuable "property" encourages their propagation. The second step libertarians would take to protect the environment and save endangered species would be to encourage private ownership of both land and beast.
Environmentalists were once wary of private ownership, but now recognize that establishing the property rights of native people has become an effective strategy to save the rainforests. Do you remember the movie, Medicine Man, where scientist Sean Connery discovers a miracle drug in the rainforest ecology? Unfortunately, the life-saving compound is literally bulldozed under when the government turns the rainforest over to corporate interests. The natives that scientist Connery lives with are driven from their forest home. Their homesteading rights are simply ignored by their own government!
Our own Native Americans were driven from their rightful lands as well. Similarly, our national forests are turned over to logging companies, just as the rainforests are. By 1985, the U.S. Forest Service had built 350,000 miles of logging roads with our tax dollars-outstripping our interstate highway system by a factor of 8! In the meantime, hiking trails declined by 30%. Clearly, our government serves special interest groups instead of protecting our environmental heritage.
Even our national parks are not immune from abuse. Yellowstone's Park Service once encouraged employees to trap predators (e.g., wolves, fox, etc.) so that the hoofed mammals favored by visitors would flourish. Not surprisingly, the ecological balance was upset. The larger elk drove out the deer and sheep, trampled the riverbanks, and destroyed beaver habitat. Without the beavers, the water fowl, mink, otter, and trout were threatened. Without the trout or the shrubs and berries that once lined the riverbanks, grizzlies began to endanger park visitors in their search for food. As a result, park officials had to remove the bears and have started bringing back the wolves.
Wouldn't we be better served if naturalist organizations, such as the Audubon Society or Nature Conservancy, took over the management of our precious parks? The Audubon Society's Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary, partially supports itself with natural gas wells operated in an ecologically- sound manner. In addition to preserving the sensitive habitat, the Society shows how technology and ecology can co-exist peacefully and profitably.
The environment would benefit immensely from the elimination of sovereign immunity coupled with the privatization of land and beast. The third and final step in the libertarian program to save the environment is the use of restitution both as a deterrent and a restorative. Next month's column will feature the second part of the Pollution Solution, answering the question "How would libertarians keep our air and water clean?"
Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D., is the author of Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle, a liberty primer for liberals, Christians, New Agers, and pragmatists. She also wrote Short Answers to the Tough Questions: Sound Bites for the Libertarian Candidate after her Internet column (www.self-gov.org) of the same name.
References:
1. John Baden, "Destroying the Environment: Government Mismanagement of Our Natural Resources: (Dallas, TX: National Center for Policy Analysis, 1986), pp. 20-21.
2. Alston Chase, Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press), pp. 123-124.
3. Mary J. Ruwart, "Destroying the Environment" and "Pollution Solution" in Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle (Kalamazoo, MI: SunStar Press, 1993), pp.97-110; 171-182. 
----
==Environment (Part 2)==
The Pollution Solution (Part 2)
===How would we keep our air and water clean?===
Pollution Solution (Part 1) explored two steps that libertarians would take to save the environment. First, libertarians would eliminate sovereign immunity so that victims of the country's greatest polluter-government--would have recourse. Second, libertarians would privatize land and beast to save endangered species, preserve our parks, protect our national forests, and improve our vast cattle ranges. In addition, libertarians would couple these powerful reforms with restitution, to prevent pollution before it starts.
Libertarians reject the initiation of physical force as a means to their ends. Restitution is the remedy when someone harms another, takes their property, or damages it. While punishment is intended to hurt the aggressor, restitution restores the victim to the fullest extent possible. Restitution is "punishment" that fits the crime and therefore provides a more effective deterrent.
For example, if your neighbors dumped garbage on your lawn, you would expect them to clean it up. If they didn't do so when asked, you'd call the local law enforcement. When your neighbor finally did restore your lawn, you'd expect them to compensate you for whatever additional costs were incurred in the enforcement of your claim. Obviously, the expense and hassle of cleaning up your lawn far outweighs the benefits that your neighbors might get from dumping garbage on your lawn in the first place. Thus, if they knew that you were likely to seek restitution, your neighbors would not pollute your property.
Environmental restoration is costly and difficult. Restitution therefore becomes an incredibly onerous punishment and the most effective deterrent known. Let's examine a real-life example of how restitution, coupled with privatization, can protect our waterways.
In Britain, individuals have property rights in the rivers that run through their land. If someone upstream pollutes the water and harms the fish, the downstream owners don't have to wait for a bureaucratic commission to study the issue. Instead, they immediately sue the polluters to protect their valuable property and claim restitution for damages. As a result, would-be polluters are effectively deterred from damaging the environment.
Waterways that don't have a private protector fare much worse. A citizen's action group recently contacted me because they were concerned about businesses dumping toxic chemicals into the neighboring Ohio River. Because the government claims stewardship of this waterway, individuals have no ownership rights on which to base a suit. They must wait until bureaucrats decide to take action. If the businesses contribute to the campaign chests of powerful politicians, nothing may ever happen, even if local authorities are truly protective of the environment.
Even when the government does decide to move against a corporate polluter, restitution is seldom required. Instead, the business usually pays a fine. Sometimes the fine is small enough that the business finds it cheaper to pollute and pay. Private owners would seldom be willing to let their property polluted for a small sum, because the decrease in property value would be a devastating financial blow.
Even ocean beds can be protected from pollution when private ownership of fishing rights is coupled with restitution. In some states, homesteading of oyster beds is permitted. Private oyster beds are more prolific and profitable than public ones. The owners have incentive to invest money in caring for the beds and harvesting them sustainably.
In the early part of this century, shrimp fishers along the Gulf of Mexico collectively claimed "homesteading" property rights in the coastal waters. Their association regulated the harvest of shrimp sustainably to maximize long term profit. The U.S. government refused to recognize the property rights of the shrimp fishers and outlawed their organization. Not surprisingly, too many shrimp were taken and the population has dropped.
Our air can be protected from pollution with restitution and private ownership as well. For example, in a libertarian society, the roadways would be privately owned. If neighbors complained of pollution, the road company might offer monetary compensation. Most likely, however, the neighbors would want the pollution to stop. Since 80% of emissions' pollution is caused by 20% of the cars, the road company might deny access or charge much higher user fees to polluting vehicles. Given these alternatives, most of the owners would probably buy a newer car or get their emission system upgraded. Such measures would reduce pollution until the neighbors were no longer bothered by it.
Similarly, if a product polluted the air, victims could sue the product maker, who in turn would pass the costs of restitution onto the consumer. Higher prices would discourage use and decrease pollution.
Instead of using restitution to alter the usage of potentially damaging products, government today simply bans them. For example, the insecticide DDT eradicated insects that carried malaria, yellow fever, sleeping sickness, typhus, and encephalitis, especially in Third World countries. Pressured by the ban placed on this chemical by the U.S. government, Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) abandoned spraying DDT in 1964. Malaria rose from less than two dozen cases per year to over 2 million. The victims had no recourse because governments have sovereign immunity.
Without sovereign immunity, victims of bans or harmful laws could sue for restitution. The threat of such suit would encourage lawmakers to consider the adverse effects of their actions. Today, because of sovereign immunity, our politicians literally get away with murder.
In today's society, polluters might simply declare bankruptcy and walk away. However, in a libertarian society, a creditor could not be forced by government to give up their claims for damages. Polluters who couldn't pay immediately would most likely have to make monthly payments until their debt and the interest on that debt was paid in full. If they refused to make such payments, they would most likely end up in a work prison where the additional costs of incarceration would be added to their tab. Rather than lose their freedom and incur additional costs, most polluters would chose to keep up their payments.
In some cases, the damage might exceed whatever the polluters could pay even with a life time of trying to make things right. Restitution can't bring back the dead or easily reclaim a poisoned well. However, by privitizing land and beast, bad political policy won't be able to destroy the 40% of our nation's land and wildlife now controlled by the government. By instituting restitution, polluters will face a formidable deterrent. By eliminating sovereign immunity, our bureaucrats will no longer be able to get away with the murder of millions.
Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D., is the author of Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle, a liberty primer for liberals, Christians, New Agers, and pragmatists. She also wrote Short Answers to the Tough Questions: Sound Bites for the Libertarian Candidate after her Internet column (www.self-gov.org) of the same name.
References:
1. Elizabeth M. Whelan, Toxic Terror (Ottawa, Ill.: Jameson Books, 1985), pp. 68-74.
2. Jane S. Shaw and Richard L. Stroup, "Gone Fishin'," Reason Magazine August/September 1988, pp. 34-37.
3. Mary J. Ruwart, "The Other Piece of the Puzzle," in Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle (Kalamazoo, MI: SunStar Press, 1993), pp.159-169.
----