This is the first of several follow-up posts to my post "Grist and the tragedy of the panicked enviro", where I try to clarify the institutional frameworks for understanding and addressing resource problems, in response to confusion in comments by others.
cyberfarer
Posted 2:58 am
27 Aug 2009
I'm sorry, but the "tragedy of the commons" is utter B.S. The Western
world has pursued a course of private property and has managed to leave
ecological catastrophe in its wake. The "tragedy of the commons" and
other simplistic market morality fail to understand the essence of that
which it seeks to moderate, the capitalist consumer market premised on
profit and only profit.
The rate of exploitation and the decline
of resources, water, energy, fisheries, soil, minerals, etc., all
occured under a free market, private property paradigm. That is the
facts and the reality. Pretending it isn't true and wishing for a
morality that doesn't exist within the free market is juvenile and
counter-productive.
The "tragedy of the commons" represents a
hypothetical situation that does not occur in real life. In real life,
corporations own, or vie to own, resources or access to them for the
purpose of extraction and profit and they seek to maximize profits
through economies of scale, that is industrial extraction methods,
drift netting, blowing up mountains, tossing mining waste into clear,
pristine lakes. The money is in the resource and when the resource is
exhausted they will move on to the next one.
TokyoTom
Posted 1:38 pm
27 Aug 2009
Cyberfarer,
Thanks for your comments on the "tragedy of the
commons". Though you are way off base, you provide an opportunity for
deeper discussion.
The tragedy of the unmanaged commons paradigm
is BS? My flip response? Go tell it to Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate,
who posted a perceptive essay in May on the tragedy of the commons
dynamics that are affecting climate and global climate policy
coordination.
Did you miss this and the relatively productive discussion thread?
Sure,
the Western
world has managed to create many environmental problems, but we`ve
largely cleaned up our own messes, haven`t we? While it by no means
excuses our own faults, far worse environmental problems have been
created and are still stewing in Russia and other state-directed
economies, and it`s no coincidence that the vast pollution being
created in China and India are tied to governement-owned enterprise and
an inability of injured people to sue for damages or to stop harmful
activities. And the great waves of extinctions created as man spread
around the globe tens of thousands of years ago can hardly be laid at
the foot of either the Western world or of private property rights (nor
can the collapse of earlier civilizations).
The
"tragedy of the commons" is NOT a "simplistic market morality", but a
description of cooperation problems and incentives relating to shared.
open-access resources. The tragedy of the commons and problems of
cooperation - and theft - are not even limited to mankind, but permeate
nature. This perceptive article by Bruce Yandle touches on competition
in nature, and links the ascendance of man to our evolution of
relatively enhanced cooperation:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-commons-tragedy-or-triumph/
The
"tragedy of the commons" paradigm is useful to analyze, but the
paradigm doesn`t "seek to moderate" anything, and is just as useful in
looking at the ways Western nations still contribute to environmental
problems around the world (as I point out here:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/09/28/too-many-or-too-few-people-does-the-market-provide-an-answer.aspx) as it is in examining:
- environmental devastation in Haiti (which has little or no property rights, and vast free-for-all "government" holdings),
-
deforestation in Indonesia and the Amazon:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/05/24/capitalism-the-destructive-exploitation-of-the-amazon-and-the-tragedy-of-the-government-owned-commons.aspx,
- pollution in China: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=china, and
-
crashing fisheries around the world as a result of government of marine
resources (producing free-for-alls and fleet subsidies) and a
free-for-all for other unowned or unprotected resources:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=fish.
On fish, you might note what the organization Defying Ocean's End (cofounded by Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy,
Natural Resources Defense Council, The Ocean Conservancy, Wildlife
Conservation Society, The World Conservation Union, and World Wildlife
Fund) recently said:
http://www.defyingoceansend.org...
"Overfishing,
high bycatch rates, the use of gear types that damage habitat (like
trawls and dredges), and the large subsidies supporting fisheries
(totally over $15 billion per year) are all symptoms of an underlying
problem. In most fisheries that are exhibiting declines in
landings and revenues, overfishing, bycatch, and habitat damage,
actions that result in the symptoms are actually rational given the way
the fisheries are managed. In these fisheries, secure privileges to
catch certain amounts of fish are not specified, so naturally
individual fishermen compete to maximize their individual shares of the
catch. No incentives for conservation exist in this situation, because
every fish conserved can be caught by another fisherman. The
competition to maximize catch often results in a fishery "arms race",
resulting in the purchase of multiple vessels, the use of powerful
engines and large vessels, and the use of highly efficient gear like
trawls.
"Most of the solutions that have been implemented or proposed to fix the world's fisheries center on command-and-control
measures: regulators or courts telling fishermen how to fish through
the imposition of controls on effort (e.g., fishing vessel length,
engine horsepower, gear restrictions, etc.). Prescriptions like these
work against strong economic incentives for maximizing catch, which are
not addressed by such measures, and are of course usually resisted by
fishermen. Often, prescriptions create incentives for "work-arounds"
and set up a cat-and-mouse game between fishermen and regulators - for example, if regulators impose a restriction on vessel size,
fishermen may purchase two vessels to maintain high catch levels.
"As
in most natural resource problems, more effective solutions will
address the fundamental drivers of unsustainable fisheries. In this
case, the key necessary reform will be to designate secure catch
privileges."
You
say: "The rate of exploitation and the decline
of resources, water, energy, fisheries, soil, minerals, etc., all
occured under a free market, private property paradigm." This is
clearly demonstrably wrong, and draws entirely the wrong lessons. While
private property is certainly no panacea, neither are they what is
wrong. Very often, is is governments that have been and are wrong,
though there is certainly some learning going on.
While
Garrett Hardin`s "The Tragedy of the Commons" certainly represents a
hypothetical situation, it is actually a very powerful analytical tool
for understanding and fashioning solutions to countless "real life"
problems. See Elinor Ostrom et al., Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges, Science, 04/09/99 http://conservationcommons.org/media/document/docu-wyycyz.pdf
"In real life,
corporations own, or vie to own, resources or access to them for the
purpose of extraction and profit and they seek to maximize profits
through economies of scale, that is industrial extraction methods,
drift netting, blowing up mountains, tossing mining waste into clear,
pristine lakes."
What
you describe here is a conflict between preferences over how resources
are used. Do you prefer a free-for-all, or a situation where those who
use a resource can protect it, negotiate with others who wish to see
other values preserved, and who are responsible for negative
consequences caused to others (not always a part of some property
rights systems), or perhaps a situation where governments make all
resource exploitation decisions?"
"The money is in the resource and when the resource is
exhausted they will move on to the next one."
The
money is never in the "resource", but in the ways that people can use
it or otherwise value it (and of course people also value pristine
environments).