Environmental policy has been a point of contention in one form or another both in the United States and in the world at large for as long as anyone inhabiting the Earth today has been alive. While not the first champion of the environment and conservation, former United States President Theodore Roosevelt became known as the godfather of conservation during the early 1900s (Anderson & Huggins, 2008). During his time as President, he promoted the sustainable use of the nation’s natural resources, public protection and management of wild game, and the safeguarding of open spaces. It is likely that from this initial surge of conservationist ideology emerged many of the environmentalist ideas and policies that exist today. In particular, two environmental
…show more content…
Environmental socialism, referred to from here on as eco-socialism, supports a departure from capitalism and instead emphasizes the ideas of “common ownership” of natural resources and the restoration of the commons. The central idea of eco-socialism is that through the diffusion of property rights among everyone, a larger number of people are incentivized to not overuse resources, pollute, or otherwise harm the environment. Conversely, free market environmentalism (FME) believes that markets can act as a solution to environmental problems by establishing and managing property rights. The establishing of property rights is a key factor in FME because they transform the environment into an asset rather than a liability by giving the owners …show more content…
In theory, eco-socialism and the diffusion of property rights is an efficient strategy for protecting the environment due to the lessened responsibility on single individuals to conserve and maintain the property. However, eco-socialism is unfortunately prone to the tragedy of the commons and the free-rider problem due to humanity’s selfish nature. This results in overexploitation and inefficient use of the resources of the Commons while the vast majority of the “owners” forgo their duties of maintenance and self-restraint on the assumption that someone else will take care of it for them. Since eco-socialism is so terribly inefficient, the opposite ideology, FME must be the answer to our problems right? Unfortunately, this is not the case either, as the privatization of the Commons is not the most efficient solution either. FME, and capitalism in general, tend to lead to waste and inefficiency within the market as well as making environmentalism exclusive, at least in part, to those that can afford to purchase property rights. It is because of these factors and limitations that a compromise between eco-socialism and FME seems to be the most efficient strategy to adopt when it comes to environmental policy. This compromise would allow and incentivize environmentalism for everyone from the common man or woman to the largest multinational
Environmental socialism, referred to from here on as eco-socialism, supports a departure from capitalism and instead emphasizes the ideas of “common ownership” of natural resources and the restoration of the commons. The central idea of eco-socialism is that through the diffusion of property rights among everyone, a larger number of people are incentivized to not overuse resources, pollute, or otherwise harm the environment. Conversely, free market environmentalism (FME) believes that markets can act as a solution to environmental problems by establishing and managing property rights. The establishing of property rights is a key factor in FME because they transform the environment into an asset rather than a liability by giving the owners …show more content…
In theory, eco-socialism and the diffusion of property rights is an efficient strategy for protecting the environment due to the lessened responsibility on single individuals to conserve and maintain the property. However, eco-socialism is unfortunately prone to the tragedy of the commons and the free-rider problem due to humanity’s selfish nature. This results in overexploitation and inefficient use of the resources of the Commons while the vast majority of the “owners” forgo their duties of maintenance and self-restraint on the assumption that someone else will take care of it for them. Since eco-socialism is so terribly inefficient, the opposite ideology, FME must be the answer to our problems right? Unfortunately, this is not the case either, as the privatization of the Commons is not the most efficient solution either. FME, and capitalism in general, tend to lead to waste and inefficiency within the market as well as making environmentalism exclusive, at least in part, to those that can afford to purchase property rights. It is because of these factors and limitations that a compromise between eco-socialism and FME seems to be the most efficient strategy to adopt when it comes to environmental policy. This compromise would allow and incentivize environmentalism for everyone from the common man or woman to the largest multinational