Government Versus the Environment
Government Causes More Harm to the Environment Than Businesses or Individual Citizens
When the subject is the environment, the public perception is that a resource of such importance can only be adequately safeguarded by the benevolent, all-encompassing hands of the government. Whether that protection comes in the guise of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or any of their variations at the federal, state, and local levels, many citizens fear that leaving environmental (that is, property) stewardship in the hands of “big business” or “selfish” individuals would result in wholesale destruction of our land, water, and air.
The zeal with which our legal system handles alleged enemies of the environment grows ever stronger. Individuals are imprisoned for dumping dirt on their own land. Entrepreneurs-even with local and state permits in hand-are brought to trial for violating the decrees of the Army Corps of Engineers by creating new lakes and wildlife preserves. Private forestland is declared off-limits to individuals seeking to retire to and build on their own property; selling their own trees will land them in jail.
In their efforts to protect the ecology, government agents prohibit development along certain seashores, seek to limit usage of private property that is home to endangered species, to forbid lumber harvesting on “public” lands harboring spotted owls, and to bring more and more wilderness under the protective wing of our dedicated public servants.
Yet, as in many other areas of our society, government reveals its contradictions by doing things that harm our environment far more than anything attributable to business or individual citizens. Amazingly, though, the ecological headaches engendered by these darker policies do not dim the luster of governmental activism. Indeed, as is typical of the harm engendered by the state’s ignorance, ineptitude, and intolerance, the resultant problems lead to even more strident calls for further intervention. This seemingly endless cycle only increases the costs we all pay for such bad programs, not only monetarily but in diminished personal freedom and erosion of respect for our legal and governing system.
Helping a Few, Harming Many
Most of the damage the state does to our environment comes when it seeks to help a particular segment of the population at the expense of the rest. With concentrated benefits and diffused costs masquerading under the mask of “the public good,” these efforts have created many of the most egregious examples of abuse.
- Water usage has proven to be a favorite excuse offered for state intervention. Farmers benefit from subsidies designed to lower their costs for irrigating their crops. As a result, areas of marginal agricultural potential (especially in the west) are brought under production. Fragile lands are exploited that might otherwise lie fallow. Not only does the resultant overproduction of some commodities lower the prices farmers get for them, but the increased acreage put into crops leads to an acceleration of soil erosion. Subsidized crop insurance further exacerbates the situation.
- Nonfarm citizens also have their water costs subsidized by people in other parts of the country. Dam construction and artificial waterways designed to transport that water enable people to populate such arid regions as Arizona and southern California. Not only does that lead to an explosion in population in those and other areas, natural lands are flooded for reservoirs, water tables are lowered to quench the thirst of newcomers, and water shortages occur during times of lowered rainfall. Rather than letting supply and demand determine the proper usage of water, the government decides how this resource will be distributed. Those dams also provide hydroelectricity below cost, again encouraging settlement of these areas at a higher level than would otherwise occur.
- Where there is too much water the government again intervenes. Swamps have been drained (in Florida, for example) to encourage development. Now those same areas suffer a dearth of water, endangering the habitat of alligators and various species of birds.
- Even while prohibiting the cutting of trees in some forests, the government subsidizes the construction of access roads into other so-called public lands. This leads to an increase in the harvesting of lumber from areas many environmentalists would like to preserve. Wildlife habitat is also threatened.
- In a similar vein, state-owned rangelands are overgrazed by cattlemen enjoying lower-than-market rates to rent the land. In another example of the “tragedy of the commons” (the overuse of a resource because of the denial of individual ownership), overgrazing also strains local water supplies and contributes to environmental degradation.
- While the government is lauded by some and condemned by others for reintroducing wolves into the west, few mention that it was government bounties on these predators (as well as others) that contributed to their decline in the first place.
- Though it prohibits development of some “sensitive” rivers, seashores, and islands, the government encourages building in other such places. On flood plains and along coastlines, homeowners proliferate despite the dangers of recurrent flooding or storm damage. Why? Either they purchase below-market flood insurance or have their property losses covered by a “compassionate” government’s disaster relief that diminishes the cost of choosing to settle in such risky environments. Many of these homeowners rebuild repeatedly, all at the expense of their fellow citizens.
- Zoning and land-use regulations designed to preserve wetlands and other wildlife habitat diminish the incentive of landowners to convert portions of their property to such uses. Rather than lose control of their property to stifling edicts, many citizens will choose instead to “sterilize” their land and not convert it to recreational or conservational use.
- Highway construction paid for by the government places roads through woodlands and other habitat regardless of the wishes of the property owners (who are confronted by the use of eminent domain) and regardless of whether it makes economic sense. By also paying for infrastructure costs, the state encourages development in places where it might not otherwise occur. In Brazil, tax incentives and state-subsidized road construction have contributed to the very rain forest destruction so many environmentalists decry–even as they call for more governmental controls.
- Subsidized freeways contribute to overuse that leads to massive traffic jams and more car exhaust in the atmosphere as autos creep along toward their destinations.
- Through excessive regulation and the prohibition of such technology as breeder reactors, the government has effectively killed new nuclear-power plant construction in this country, although nuclear power is safer and pollutes less than many traditional power sources, including coal and natural gas.
- By reducing the wealth of its citizens through taxation, inflation, and regulation, the government makes it more difficult to deal with the legitimate environmental problems we do face. Wealthier societies have the resources to handle such difficulties while poorer ones do not.
Ultimately, it is the state’s violation of property rights that leads to many of the environmental ills laid at the feet of private citizens and businesses. The greatest ecological disasters in the world have occurred in those countries where property rights did not exist. (In the former Soviet Union and East Germany, for example, the devastation reached horrific heights.) Through subsidies, regulations, zoning, and eminent domain, the state encourages behavior that increases pressures on the environment.
There is nothing inherently wrong with settling in Arizona, with building one’s home on a seashore, or with constructing highways. But it is wrong to force others to share the costs of doing so. A person’s right to his property is inviolable. Whenever the government encourages and sanctions policies that steal that property–whether directly or indirectly–it acts immorally. In terms of environmental protection, the state is not exempt from the law of unintended consequences. Even when acting from good intentions, the government will cause problems where none existed or permit the continuation of problems that adherence to property rights would end.
In reality, the issue is not “the government versus the environment” but rather the government versus individuals and their rights. Only destruction can result from failing to understand that.
Comment by Donald M. Coder on 22 September 2009:
This is another example of reality versus political hope, and nature versus utopian wishing. The “socialist” dream lives in a non-existent land of what they think should happen, and they reject what is clear reality and natural law. The collectivist mind believes that there is a small group of virtuous and intelligent people who know what is best, but history shows that these people are evil, arrogant, and lacking in common sense. Tragically, today Americans are rushing into this utopian future of control, collectivism, and confiscation of private wealth. History shows time and again that the result will be tyranny, poverty, and ultimately violent revolution. Thank you for this reminder.
Comment by Logan Whaley on 13 October 2010:
I honestly think that people should have their own rights to do what they want and not let the government decide for them. Like stated previously it should be up to the individuals to do the “right thing” but many of them wont. As a result, much more damage will be seen around us
Comment by James Madison Fan on 14 October 2010:
The thing I love about many authors in this magazine is they can’t seem to figure out the difference between the baby and the bathwater so they toss out both rather than consider that the former should be retained while discarding the later. Mr. Madden suffers from this same myopic view. All government is bad. All private activity is good. No exceptions.
How about Love Canal? Did Hooker Chemical have the best interest of the public in mind when they dumped 21,000 tons of toxic waste there and sold it to the Niagara Falls Public School System? Many companies still do cost analysis as to the risk versus reward of the financial gain of inappropriately disposing of toxic waste versus the fines if caught. This kind of behavior is what prompted public demand for environmental protection in the first place.
How about Whaling? They would have kept going until the animals were extinct. Even with a massive public awareness campaign it was a near thing and many species are still at risk because of genetic diversity issues.
How about cigarettes? If it were up to the tobacco industry they’d still be advertising there therapeutic benefits and they certainly wouldn’t have a warning on the side. Big Tobacco launched an advertising campaign that disputed the link between tobacco use and lung cancer and spent billions fighting government restrictions on everything from advertising to children (Joe Camel) to the regulation of their products as addictive. It wasn’t until 1995 when Jeff Wigand came forward with enough evidence to finally sink them that Big Tobacco reluctantly admitted they were intentionally getting people hooked on a product they knew quite well was going to kill their clients.
How about fishing? The US, Japan, and ECU have held multiple meetings to discuss declining fish populations that threaten the fiscal viability of their fishing fleets. For 25 years Marine Biologists have been begging them to avoid spawning grounds so stocks can recover. Cape Cod used to have so many fish it looked like the water was boiling. In 2010 fishermen in this same area take months to collect quotas their fathers and grandfathers could collect in days. I’m a weekend angler so I’m not some sort of super greenie vegan nut job, I just get annoyed when I charter a fishing trip and the only thing I end up catching is a cold when I used to be able to fill my ice chest in a few hours.
You don’t need to be an environmentalist whacko to figure out that Big Business is going to do what makes them more money no matter what it does. Big Business can’t be trusted any more than the government can. If Mr. Madden wants to demonize Big Government then he has my support but when he starts deify Big Business all he’s doing is promoting one flavor of tyranny over another when neither one is at all palatable.
Comment by Dhughes on 14 October 2010:
I don’t think big government is good at all. On the other hand I do feel that you should have a government and that is should regulate “some”. Big businesses are in it for themselves. That doesn’t mean that we should hate them. They are the ones that are providing everything that we enjoy in life, except freedom! (I guess there are companies in that to.) It is the entrepreneurial sprit that has brought us forward to the technological age that we are in.
Our creator gave us this land to use for our pursuit of happiness. It is our responsibility to take care of it. With minimal governmental regulations. I feel that we should be informed, and that “we the people” should make the decisions. NOT big business or big Government!!
Comment by James Madison Fan on 15 October 2010:
Dhughes,
Exactly.
I don’t care what a business does any more than I care what a person does as long as it doesn’t do something that has a negative effect on me or things that I value.
As Oliver W. Holmes said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”
As long as Big Business keeps their metaphorical “fist” away from my metaphorical and literal nose then I don’t see any reason for regulations. The problem is these corporations keep getting closer and closer to our faces until they finally make contact and they have the nerve to be surprised when an entire group of people with bloody noses ask the government to ensure they don’t end up getting tagged in the face again.
Comment by Jessica on 18 October 2010:
The government in my mind is a necessary evil at times. There needs to be some government regulation to keep individuals and industries from dumping waste, polluting air and water, which can be dangerous for the environmentand those in it. Big government and more regulations do trample on rights of the American people. If I buy land to do with it what I wish, I will not want the government to interfere with what I choose to do with it. Whether it is dumping dirt or selling trees off my land. This should be my right to do with my property what I wish. However by doing something that may affect others in a harmful way by polluting the water, land or air of those around me, there might be some need for government regulation or fees associated with a business that is harmful. But I believe that the government should play a minimal role.
Comment by Ty Eberhardt on 18 October 2010:
James Madison, that quote is one of my favorites!
Government needs to stop interfering with peoples lives as much as they are. It is ultimately our decision and we just need to stand up to them. But of course nobody is going to. I mean really??? They are creating regulations preventing growth to preserve the ecology, but in florida they are destroying the swamps and because of that they are now in trouble with how much water is left. Not to mention the wildlife that are in danger.
Comment by Denise Kunzie on 18 October 2010:
It seems like its a no win for either sides. If the government dosent put guide lines in place people could run a muck and do what they want but with the with the government saying what we can do or not takes way the peoples freedom. We need some kind of regulation to keep our enviorment safe but at what coast of freedom?
Comment by Catie Appelfeller on 20 October 2010:
What people want to do with their property should continue to be their choice, as long is it isn’t severely and directly hurting anyone else, which is why I think the government does have to be an ‘umpire’ of sorts with issues like this. If someone is doing something that will really hurt people or cause much damage to the land, then perhaps there should be some regulations on it. But what people do with their own property shouldn’t really be any concern but theirs.
Comment by Morgan Hess on 24 October 2010:
People should be able to have their own rights to do what they want with their property. The government already controls so much why do they need to control everything. If people take advantage of certain situations then they should be regulate them but otherwise people should have a choice of what they can do with their property.
Comment by Danny G. on 24 October 2010:
I think that people should be able to decide what is going on, on their own property, although it may cause damage. Big business should be regulated to an extent so they aren’t poluting rivers and large enviromental areas, but as for the individual, it should be up to them, not the government.
Comment by Lindsey Schlieger on 25 October 2010:
I feel that people should be able to do what they want with their property, and the government have no say. There should be limits and some regulations to protect wildlife so people aren’t poluting rivers or any other form of environments.
Comment by Annie Olson on 25 October 2010:
I think that when people purchase property they have the right to do whatever they want to with it. I think that with that right comes repect as well for that property. Government should only take action or step in if unneccessary damages are done to that property without reasonalbe causes. There has to be the “bad cop” in this world or else it would be utter chaos, it just happens to be that the “bad cop” is the government.
Comment by Marc L on 25 October 2010:
Yet again,
government took a good idea and screwed it up.
I understand why the government tries to do these things. but what they need to be doing is setting a few guide lines and stay out.
Stop trying to fix something that isnt broken. so you cant have a beach front property. get over it.
they talk about inhabiting the dryer southern areas of california.
by directing water in that area so more people can live there they are increasing illegal immigration.
Fix one problem and cause another.
Comment by vampirehunterd on 25 October 2010:
The author is clearly trying to steer attention away from the real issues. Yes, it is unfortunate when bureaucracy gets in the way of progress for environmental reforms, but it has indeed penetrated nearly every aspect of our lives anyway. Yes, it’s very unfortunate that the growth and expansion of the human race has inevitable consequences for the physical environment and resources. But most of the real problem is large businesses. Do we not remember the industrial revolution? That is the reason why all the regulations are in place. If some small businesses or individuals get caught up in regulations, then it is a small price to pay.
Comment by Callie Cromwell on 22 March 2011:
What really upset me about this article is the government’s “disaster relief fund” given to people who have their houses destroy by some natural disaster but refuse to move and simply rebuild their home at the expense of the taxpayers. This is just another example of how people will take advantage of the government intervening in areas which they clearly should stay out of. The government AND taxpayers should not have to take responsibility for someone else’s decision to remain in an obviously dangerous area.
Comment by Mike on 22 March 2011:
In general I agree. It may be the government versus individuals and their rights, but those individuals weren’t always right. In most cases that is the reason for the laws governing what one can and can not do with the land they own, in others it was a matter of who had the better lobbying group or the deepest pockets. There are many of these environmental laws that have turned out to be detrimental after the fact, my only hope is that at some point common sense will prevail and someone will get the inaccurate laws repaired.
Comment by marire alice on 21 October 2011:
in general ,it is true that the government has been politicizing the issues of environment and i as an environmentalist i suggest that the issue should be left for a certain body with the strict conditions of adhering to the rules and regulations of the environment as part and parcel of human beings