Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

First, Do No Harm

Part 1 – Protecting the Environment

by Theresa Fritz Camoriano

We are very fortunate to live in an era in which we do not have to struggle to survive.  We have time for leisure, and we have time for intellectual pursuits.  Most of us strive to find meaning in our lives by trying to make the world a better place in at least some way.  We may try to do a good job of providing for our families, teaching our children good values and habits.  We may help our neighbors or our churches.  We may take up causes, such as protecting the environment, educating children, providing libraries, providing health care, housing, or transportation to needy people, defending civil rights, providing help to people who are mentally ill, and so forth. 

There are many steps we can take in an attempt to make the world a better place, but the first step we should take is to ensure that we do not do harm.  There are no shortcuts to virtue, and we should be sure that our actions don’t just make us feel good but also actually do good.  So I would like to explore that issue, beginning in this article with the topic of protecting the environment.

The environment is a huge topic, and there are many aspects of the environment that we may want to preserve or improve.  Do we want to protect the scenery?  Do we want to preserve the diversity of plant and animal species?  Do we want to clean the air or the water?  Are we concerned about global warming or cooling, or about maintaining the integrity of water supplies, or about the oceans?  If any of these areas are of concern to us, what is the best way for us to expend our energy or resources to promote our goals?

There are many things we can do in our own lives and with our own property to help protect the environment.  With respect to land that we own, there are many steps we can take, such as picking up trash, avoiding the excessive use of fertilizers or insecticides that might pollute water supplies, following good agricultural practices, and so forth.  In our personal lives, we can use some common sense to avoid waste – for example not buying more than we really need.

But what about issues that extend far beyond our own property?  How can we protect the scenic beauty or the water supply of an entire region? How can we protect the air? 

For many people, their first step in trying to protect the environment is to promote the passage of laws and regulations that purport to achieve that goal.  These people believe that they are more intelligent and more virtuous than other people, and that this intelligence and virtue gives them the right to force other people to do things their way. Unfortunately, by promoting the use of force against others, these people frequently do serious harm.

If we really want to do good for the environment (or for any other cause we might champion), we should begin by treating other people with respect, not with disdain.  We should begin with a bit of humility, recognizing that we are not God, we are not all-knowing, and, no matter how intelligent or virtuous we think we are, we do not have the moral right to use force to control other people's lives and property.  In particular, if we want to protect the environment, we should respect the right of property owners to control their own property. 

Who has a greater interest in protecting the beauty and integrity of a piece of property than the person who owns it?  Certainly not a bureaucrat or government planner!  If the owner trashes his land or allows it to be polluted, he harms himself by devaluing his own property.  Property owners have an incentive to plant trees that will only be harvested long after they die, because the trees increase the value of the property.  Property owners have an incentive to protect their soil and water for the same reasons.  Not only do property owners have the greatest incentive to protect the land, but they also know and understand the special features of their land far better than some far-away bureaucrat passing laws and regulations.  So, while many so-called “environmentalists” want to take a quick, feel-good action of using force to control and restrict the land owner, they should recognize that there is no shortcut to virtue.  Using the force of laws or regulations to restrict the property owner’s right to control his own property also reduces his incentive to protect that property, thereby setting up a situation that probably will result in doing real harm to the environment.

As an example, let’s consider what happened in Honduras.  There, the government wanted to protect trees, so it passed a law saying that trees were a “patrimony”, to be owned by the government on behalf of the people.  In effect, the government stole the trees from the owners of the property on which the trees grew, totally failing to respect the property owners' rights.  From that point forward, property owners did not have the right to cut down trees or to harvest trees on their own property.  In effect, the same trees that used to be an asset to them became a liability.  Many so-called “environmentalists” would generally think this would be a good idea.  It would make them feel good to think they were protecting the trees.  But let’s look at what really happened.

Once the property owners no longer had a financial incentive to protect the trees on their property, the trees began to disappear.  Trees became a burden for the property owners, because they prevented the owners from being able to use their own land, and the owners could not look forward to harvesting the trees for profit.  It is not clear who cut down the trees -- whether it was corrupt politicians or other thieves, or whether the property owners themselves harvested the trees illegally, but the trees that were owned by the government on behalf of the people disappeared rapidly.  Within a few years, so many trees had been cut down that the weather patterns changed, resulting in droughts and higher temperatures.  Finally, when a hurricane came through the area, there were no trees to hold the soil in place on the steep slopes, so there were massive landslides, which caused the deaths of thousands of people. 

By following a policy that failed to respect the property owners, the environment was devastated and thousands of people were killed.  That is what happens when people try to take a feel-good shortcut to virtue.

But what about property owners who want to create pollution?  Those who want to spew chemicals into the air or pour effluent on their neighbors’ land? The common law has been striking the correct balance to handle this type of problem for hundreds of years, giving a person the right to defend the peaceful enjoyment of his own property against excessive noise, odors, light, and other nuisances and to stop trespass of people, sewage, or other things onto his property.  Common law nuisance and trespass allow the courts to do the balancing act that is necessary in these cases to respect the property owner’s right to enjoy and control his own property so long as he also respects the similar rights of his neighbors.

But today’s so-called “environmentalists” would not be content with allowing property owners to defend themselves and their property.  They want far greater control in order to prevent property owners from developing their own property or to control the types of developments that can be built. They want to restrict people’s freedom to choose the kind of housing and lifestyle they want.  They want to prevent the building of roads, thereby causing severe traffic congestion and pushing people into using mass transit.  Of course, this causes problems with air pollution as well as other problems, but those  so-called “environmentalists” and “planners”, who think they are much more intelligent and virtuous than the rest of us, believe they are doing us a favor when they force these controls on us.

And what about global warming?  If you are old enough, you will remember that about twenty years ago we were worried about global cooling – not warming!  But now, global warming is all the rage among politicians and “environmentalists”.  While there apparently is scientific proof that winter temperatures have increased by 1°F over the past hundred years, the cause of that warming is not at all clear.  At least half of that warming occurred before humans put substantial amounts of carbon into the air.  Scientists have not been able to devise models that explain the past, nevermind being able to predict what will happen in the future!  Even the most optimistic models project that we cannot reduce global warming by more than 1/4°F no matter how much we cut emissions of greenhouse gases, but that does not stop the all-knowing “environmentalists” from proposing a severe use of force against all their fellow citizens in the form of restrictions on the emission of greenhouse gases (such as the carbon dioxide you put into the air every time you exhale). 

While the Kyoto Protocol does not command people to stop breathing, it would use force to severely restrict the use of fossil fuels.  While such an extreme action would do little if anything to reverse global warming, we know for sure that it would cause a severe economic contraction or a depression, making us all much poorer.  One bit of data that the so-called "environmentalists" like to ignore is the fact that the quality of the environment closely correlates with the degree of prosperity, so, based on the clear scientific evidence, there can be little doubt that forcing severe restrictions in the use of fossil fuels, which would severely harm the economy, also would result in severe harm to the environment.  Of course, it would also cause severe harm to the people who are impoverished, making their lives less safe, less pleasant, and perhaps even shorter.  But so-called "environmentalists" have repeatedly shown that they don't care much for people anyway! Again, the proposed shortcut, feel-good path to “virtue” would result in real harm, both to people and to the environment.

So what is a well-intentioned person to do?  First, educate yourself.  Study the science behind these stories.  You cannot act intelligently when you are basing your decisions on politically-driven information.  If you really believe the hard evidence shows that greenhouse gases are excessive and are harmful, then maybe you should get to work on coming up with ways to reduce the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere on a voluntary basis.  For example, growing plants in the ocean could absorb large quantities of carbon dioxide, and perhaps turn a profit as well!  Do your homework; roll up your sleeves and do something positive.  But don't think that you are being virtuous or doing something beneficial by promoting regulations and controls on your neighbor.  Such actions are arrogant and destructive -- not beneficial. 

If you want to create a nature preserve, then pool your resources with other like-minded people and buy the land for the preserve.  People are saving endangered animals all over the world by creating preserves where the animals are protected and by charging for tours of the preserve.  In this manner, the animals become profitable assets, which makes it much more likely that they will be kept alive.  (You haven't seen a shortage of cattle since we started farming them for meat!)  These preservation programs are done with private money and without force, and they are much more beneficial than force-based programs.  If you want to preserve the natural beauty of an area even as it is developed for homes or businesses, then buy the land and put a restrictive covenant on it, restricting the manner in which the land can be used.  Or develop it yourself and see whether you can turn a profit by building a beautiful, scenic development. The opportunities for creative solutions are endless.  But first, do no harm.

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN