Customer Reviews

Free Market Environmentalism

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As the title suggests, this book provides a manifesto for "free market environmentalism" (FME). It's a seminal text for that community, which argues (surprise) for free-market solutions to environmental problems.

The book makes its case effectively, and open-minded people on all sides of these debates can learn something from the book. Chapter 2, "Rethinking the Way We Think," is particularly valuable in making the reader think a second time about things she thinks she knows. The selection of topics in the rest of the book (fencing ranches in the western US, bureaucratic land-use mandates, user fees for recreation in national forests, global warming) is pretty random but tolerably representative. Some suggestions are more plausible than others.

The ideological side of FME wants to make markets look like the solutions to all problems. The real FME claim is that, if government chooses to achieve some environmental goal, it can achieve that goal at least cost by developing market solutions. For example, tradable emissions permits achieve a given level of emissions efficiently, but you still have to decide the emissions level politically, and have bureaucrats enforce the levels. Similarly, user fees might raise the value that national forests place on recreation use, and might reduce crowding at some sites - - but the "real" market solution would be to sell national forests to the highest bidder, sell national parks to Disney, and so on.

Anderson and Leal don't actually propose such sell-offs but the ideological version of FME would advocate them on the basis of logical consistency. A healthier recognition of the limits of FME, and the role of politics, would serve their agenda better.

The ideology also infects Anderson and Leal's language -- "bureaucrats" not "administrators" or "government officials," for example -- and, as another reviewer points out, they'd rather just deny the existence of global warming because the problem is not amenable to market solutions.

The global warming example also highlights that the FME "solutions" to tough problems often involve mitigation, not solution. For example, Anderson and Leal propose that the US stop subsidizing beachfront development so that sea-level rise and greater hurricane frequency do not damage even more property than otherwise. That's a fine point, but it does nothing to address the underlying problem of global warming.

That said, the book is very much reading, especially if you are predisposed to dislike it. FME can enrich the toolkit of the environmental community, and can also point the pragmatic part of that community toward reducing political opposition to various environmental programs. Even if you're skeptical of markets, you shouldn't be scared to read about them.

This book is a real eye-opener. It shows how sometimes the private sector is much better at protecting the environment than the government is. It builds from early examples in the 19th century up through effective private-sector efforts today. At the same time, it points out how government programs sometimes worsen the very problem they seek to correct.

Some people might not believe its notion that the private sector will always do the right thing. And, of course, it won't. However, this book is a good guide to the growing movement to find a better way to protect the environment.

I really enjoyed this book. I am a Geography student in college and found this text entirely relevant to every issue that my professors bring up as confusing. Not so! I'm not saying that our environmental issues will be easy to fix, but they are definitely fixable using the ideas in this book. Hopefully more intellectuals will read this book and realize the actual truths vs. the truisms every politician would like them to believe.

This book purports to be serious scholarship but is little more than very readable libertarian/free market boosterism. It does, however, do a good job of reflecting the values of the so-called Gingrich revolution of the mid-nineties and probably those of the current Bush administration.

The book takes one of two approaches: to place absolute faith in markets when it comes to environmental protection, or to deny the reality of particularly intractable problems. It's interesting to note that the sub-chapter on global warming, titled "Global Warming or a Lot of Hot Air?" (deriding those who believe in global warming as "Chicken Littles") which appeared in the first edition has disappeared from the 2001 revised edition. The revised edition doesn't even list global warming or climate change in the index.

Anderson and Leal make their strongest argument where they write about "government failure" in funding the construction, by the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, of un-economic and ecologically harmful dams throughout the 20th century. This sort of pork-barrel spending wasted taxpayer money and harmed the environment and was largely unopposed, at least until Presidents Carter and Reagan (to both of their credit) began to resist, as is recounted at great length in Marc Reisner's excellent book Cadillac Desert.

In Anderson and Leal's chosen scheme of environmentalism, the most likely determiner of how natural resources would be allocated would be big multinational corporations, not unlike Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, etc.. We have seen how (un)wisely these corporations protect the public interest and how equally (un)wisely they protect the interests of their own shareholders. Yes, by all means, lets put the Great Lakes into a water market and allow some new "Enron" to control the trading. (See Anderson and Leal's Chapter 8, titled "Priming the Invisible Pump.") It's scary to think that the decision over whether we will have any wilderness left at all would be in such (in)capable private hands. Yet that's what the authors recommend. This book's solutions are overly simplistic and thus either wrong or incomplete. I give the book a five for readability and a one for policy, with policy weighted most heavily.