Lexington, KY - Much of the rhetoric and actions of modern environmentalism are in direct conflict with what we think of as our right to privacy. This is indeed unfortunate, as a healthy natural environment and having privacy and control over our own lives are both important to us. So it would be quite beneficial to find a way to alleviate this conflict. Fortunately, I believe such a way exists.
We surely are given plenty of environment-related advice about our personal behaviors. The media is filled with admonitions about how we should alter certain activities and change our buying patterns to conform to more "environmentally friendly" habits. For example, the United Nations indicates that people should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change. Governor Schwarzenegger is giving tips on "eco-driving" to reduce carbon emissions, and we often hear advice/critiques regarding the carbon footprint of air, bus and rail travel. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine issued a report claiming that maintaining a lower body weight is better for the environment. There is the widely circulated Sheryl Crow comment on limiting toilet paper use to one square per visit (later said to be a joke). More startling are the views of Jonathon Porritt, chair of the British government's Sustainable Development Commission, who says that curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. And our own Nancy Pelosi, when recently in China and discussing conservation, is reported as commenting, "We have so much room for improvement. Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility."
Each of these examples is squarely at odds with the idea that individuals have a right to privacy or autonomy in their own lives. Though those supporting an original intent view of constitutional law might dispute whether a right to privacy can be read from the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that this right exists, though it is more appropriately called a right to autonomy. Whatever your views on whether this is a correct interpretation of the Constitution, it seems clear that most Americans (and many others around the world) think that individuals ought to have the right to control their own personal decisions. Though much of constitutional law in this regard deals with reproductive rights and contraception, and assisted suicide, there are vastly more decisions we make regarding personal matters - like how much toilet paper to use, what and how much to eat, and how to travel. While the latter items might be viewed as trivial, the collection of these "trivial" things is important in determining the nature of one's life and should not simply be dismissed as trifling.
How does one reconcile the desire for a clean environment and the rights for individuals to make personal decisions in their own lives? Modern environmentalism simply does not do so. Judging by the current public discourse, its approach seems to amount to looking over people's shoulders and hounding them about the irresponsible nature of their consumption. Not very civilized social interaction. With this approach, subjecting every aspect of our lives to an inventory (to paraphrase Speaker Pelosi) puts personal and free choice in contempt. Though pollution and related resource use issues are problems, this is no way to deal with it.
Fortunately, there is a better way to approach these problems that aligns the interests of personal autonomy with sensible resource use. It's an economic resolution termed market-based environmentalism. Essentially, it's a pricing solution such that we pay the cost of using the resources we buy.
How this works starts with the fundamental cause of environmental and resource use problems: a pricing mechanism is absent for some resources because of the difficulty in establishing property rights for them. The price I pay for most goods covers the cost of using the resources that produce them. Resource owners do not sell their property unless the cost of its use is covered. Thus, I have the correct incentive not to "overuse" the goods that I buy. This incentive is absent for many environmental goods because I am not able (nor required) to pay for the resources I use. Ownership is lacking in air, open water, access to range land and other environmental goods, and so these are priced at zero, thus leaving little incentive for individuals to either conserve on their use or, where feasible, for others to produce them. As a result, overuse is a persistent problem in some settings, e.g., air and water pollution, overfishing, and rangeland and forest overuse.
Thus, the problem is a lack of property and markets and can be dealt with by establishing them, where feasible. Some dramatic cases of resource overuse have been solved with the implementation of property rights. The nation of Namibia had long experienced diminishing populations of wild animals and overuse of public lands, but began allowing groups to obtain ownership over rangeland and the wildlife residing there. A thriving ecotourism industry emerged, with large increases of previously declining populations of animals such as elephants and rhinos.
Establishing property rights over resources such as air and open water is not so easy, but it's still possible to emulate important aspects of a market-like pricing system. The Environmental Protection Agency's emissions trading system for sulphur dioxide (SO2) does so. Electric utilities are awarded the "rights" to emit a certain amount of SO2 and these rights can be bought and sold. In effect, a quasi-market for the use of the air is created. This idea can be used for other pollutants. A system like this - called cap and trade - has been proposed for greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, good analysis of the effects of greenhouse gases is being buried under a morass of politics and hype. Nevertheless, the principle of establishing a market where individuals pay for resources used is a good one.
Such a market and pricing system gives me incentives not to overuse resources and implicitly assures others that the price I pay compensates for the cost of their use. No one needs to judge the other's consumption. We can make our purchasing decisions autonomously and still maintain our environment, with no more intrusion into one another's diets, driving habits, toilet paper use, or our "inventory" of personal behaviors.
John Garen is department chair and Gatton Endowed Professor of Economics at the University of Kentucky.