From: matus [matus@snet.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:32 PM
To: matus@snet.net
Subject: MFD List - tragedy of the commons

(A familiar concept to students of economics is known as 'the tragedy of the
commons'  That is, any valued resource in which single members can reap the
benefits but the group as a whole must pay the costs will necessarily be
exploited.  The principle applies to just about every valued resource, from
international fishing waters to large plains animals graze on to drinking
water and clean air.  If a fishing company can make money off of fishing in
open waters, they will, even if they over fish to the point that the animals
are brought to extinction.  If property rights are assigned to that company,
however, then if they over fish, there stock dies, and they go out of
business.  Of course in open waters this is difficult since the fish schools
ignore property boundaries.  But the example applies perfectly to animals
raised in hatcheries, or fish farms with fishes.  The company must regulate
the number of fish available and how many are consumed with how many will be
available the following year.  Another example is a company that pollutes
the air.  This single company reaps the benefits, that is, not having to pay
for the disposal of their waste, which essentially is a cost incurred in the
product, and shares the costs, everyone is forced to deal with the now
polluted air.  Libertarians and free-market supporters assert that if
companies had to pay for the costs they incur on shared resources, then
environmental protection must follow.  Coal power plants can dump millions
of tons of coal ash and radioactive uranium into the air, while nuclear
plants must dispose of their waste in expensive deep underground compounds.
Imagine if nuclear power plants just dumped thier waste into the air?
If Coal plants (which generate more than 2/3rds of our power) were forced to
'cap' their smoke stacks, that is, process their waste into something usable
(long lasting pavement for instance, or even gravel) the cost for generating
coal power would be much more expensive than nuclear power.  Contingent with
their actual environmental impacts, and not their perceived ones.  Thus Coal
burning plants would have the incentive to be more efficient and produce
less waste because they actually had to pay for the costs of their
operation.  Economists call these negative side effects imparted on others
'negative externalities' If companies and organizations across the board
were required by law to incorporate these 'negative externalities' into the
costs of their products both the economy and the environment would benefit.
- Mike)

Environmental Protection through Private Action

from - http://home.earthlink.net/~jhadler/buffalo.html

By Jonathan Adler



            Over 100,000 bison roam the western plains today.  Bison, also
known as buffalo, populate ranches, parks, and wilderness areas throughout
Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and other states, including Yellowstone National
Park.  But it was not always this way.

            Around the turn of the century, there were only 25 bison in
Yellowstone, as open-access poaching nearly wiped out the entire herd.
Fortunately, private individuals like William Hornaday, founder of the
American Bison Association, ensured that the majestic buffalo survived.
Hornaday, and others like him, saw to it that bison were bred, fed and
protected from hunters.  Thus, while bison were dwindling in Yellowstone,
they were prospering on private lands - so much so that the herds in
Yellowstone today are mostly descended from private herds.  Nationwide, over
90 percent live on private land.

            The recovery of the American bison is a testament to the power
of private conservation.  Were it not for the care that private owners had
for the bison, it is possible that the symbol of the Interior Department and
the Buffalo Bills would be a memory on American soil.

	Bison were threatened by what ecologist Garrett Hardin termed the
"tragedy of the commons."  Because bison were unowned - they lived in an
open-access commons - they were unprotected.  Owners protect their resources
because they receive the benefits of that protection.  In the commons,
however, there is no incentive to protect a resource because you cannot be
sure that you will receive the benefit.  A hunter that foregoes shooting a
buffalo in the commons today in the hope that there will be more buffalo in
a year has no guarantee that other hunters will show the same foresight.

	Unlike the commons, ownership encourages stewardship. As Hardin
noted, the tragedy of the commons "is averted by private property, or
something formally like it." If you own something, you have an interest in
ensuring that it is protected and that its value is maintained, if not
increased.  Thus oyster fishers in Willapa Bay, Washington, are fierce
protectors of local water quality because their livelihoods - their oyster
beds - are at stake.  They also invest in local ecological restoration and
protection to ensure that they have oysters in the future.  It is no wonder
that many people consider Willapa Bay oysters as the best around.

	Not only must landowners take care in their own actions, in many
cases they must defend their land against the intrusions of others.  In the
United States, this is typically done through the enforcement of
environmental regulations.  In parts of Canada and the United Kingdom,
however, water quality is protected through common law protections of
private property.  The English Anglers Cooperative Association defends
fishing rights by suing upstream polluters that damage fish stocks.  The
basis of the litigation is not failure to comply with an arcane permitting
requirement, but the simple fact that upstream pollution hurts downstream
fish.  Salmon in Scotland and New Brunswick are often protected in the same
way.

      Landowners have a strong incentive to maintain the value of their land
for themselves - as well as for others.  Even if I don't mind living in a
run-down home, as a homeowner I have a strong incentive to keep it
well-maintained so that its resale value does not fall.  (This is why owners
tend to treat their homes better than renters or temporary tenants do.)

      There are more trees in America's forests today than at any other
point in this century, largely because of the incentives private ownership
provides.  For every tree that forest owners or timber companies cut down,
several more are planted.  Of course some of this planting does occur on
tree farms, but the planting of trees for future use relieves economic
pressures to chop down old-growth forests or trees in wilderness areas.

	Timber companies replant on their own land (as opposed to the
national forests) not because they want to be "environmentally correct" but
because it often makes sound business sense.  Planting trees can be a good
economic investment, and can help companies in other ways as well.  Some
forest owners have discovered that at relatively little cost, forests can be
managed for camping, hiking, bird-watching and recreation.  It also makes
sense for companies to respond to local environmental concerns - whether
about run-off or the aesthetics of rectangular clearcuts - for companies can
be sure that as owners they will be held responsible for how they treat the
land.

      Of course, private stewardship does not require that one always act in
pursuit of profit.  The principle of private ownership enables conservation
groups and other landowners to purchase and protect vital habitat and
empowers stewards to take those actions that are necessary to preserve vital
resources.  It has also allowed individuals such as David Bamberger, former
CEO of Church's Fried Chicken, to protect foreign species on the verge of
extinction. Bamberger and the other members of the Exotic Wildlife
Association own more scimitar-horned oryx on their private lands in the U.S.
than exist in its native African range.

Consider also the case of Hawk Mountain.  The Hawk Mountain Sanctuary is a
2,000-acre wildlife refuge located in eastern Pennsylvania along the
Appalachian Mountains. It was founded in 1934 by a Mrs. Rosalie Edge, a
conservationist concerned about the local slaughter of migrating hawks and
other raptors.  While the government was paying bounties on certain birds of
prey and national conservation groups were focused on other causes, Mrs.
Edge was raising money to purchase the land and protect these birds from
decline.  Because she owned Hawk Mountain, Mrs. Edge was capable of
protecting the birds she cared about.  Today, Mrs. Edge's legacy is one of
the most important raptor research cites in the country.

"Private ownership includes not only hunting preserves, commercial bird
breeders, parrot jungles, and safari parks, it also includes wildlife
sanctuaries, Audubon Society refuges, World Wildlife Fund preserves, and a
multitude of private, non-profit conservation projects," observes Robert J.
Smith, senior scholar with the Center for Private Conservation and a
lifelong conservationist.  This is the principle that motivated the founders
of America's great conservation organizations - the groups whose purpose was
once to identify, purchase and protect vital habitat for imperiled species
to ensure their survival.  The first game warden killed in the line of duty
was not employed by the federal government, but by a private conservation
group.

America's environmental movement was founded on the idea that private
conservation was the key to protecting wildlife and natural resources for
our selves and our future.  Environmental groups were founded to purchase
and protect habitat directly.  Since then, many groups have strayed off
course, stressing political solutions to environmental problems.  This
produced mixed results, leading to a rediscovery of the importance of
private ownership in environmental protection.  With a greater reliance on
private property, America's proud conservation tradition can be reborn.

www.matus1976.com