As discussed last week, the Climate Socialists in the US Democratic Party ultimate objective appears to be to replace capitalism by socialism. It is clear, however, that Socialism has a dismal record both in leading to environmental problems and in inadequate development and use of sensitive but highly productive new techniques. The environmental records of Soviet communism and Cuba are about as dismal as one can find. Socialism is simply not very good at safeguarding the environment.
So since the Climate Socialists claim extreme concern for the environment to the point of emphasizing a non-problem (climate change) as a reason to overthrow capitalism, they either do not understand the dismal experience or deliberately ignore it. The result is that the Climate Socialists are advocating that environmental problems be “solved” by switching to a system that will end up being worse for the environment and for economic progress. Whatever advantages socialism may offer, environmental protection is certainly not one of them nor is timely development and use of improved production techniques.
The Importance of Property Rights
Consider the case of property rights. They are important in capitalism and minor or missing under socialism. Under capitalism some property rights systems include rights to subsurface minerals. In general, the US has them and Europe does not. This seemingly minor difference has generally allowed fracking to flourish in the US and flounder in Europe.
The result is that the US is now the dominant world producer of oil and natural gas while much of Europe is playing a smaller and smaller role. Similarly for environmental impacts of resource decisions, the Soviet Union had a dismal environmental record while the US has done very well. The reason is that many oil and gas resources are privately owned and the owners can object or sue polluters in many cases. Under Socialism these decisions are much more often made by governments with little opposition from private groups since no one has a personal ownership stake in the outcome.
The reason for this is that Capitalism provides some protections for property rights and usually allows people to use their property to make profits regardless of what current popular beliefs may hold. Under capitalism, property rights give someone a reason to object if their property rights are infringed. As a result, if someone is polluting the air over someone else’s property they are likely to object and try to do something about it. The history of the destruction of the Aral Sea is an example of such pollution in a Socialist country; the history of the development of fracking in recent years is an illustration of productive adoption of new technology in a Capitalist country. The development of fracking as the basis for a new US dominance in oil and natural gas production was made possible by private subsurface property rights in most of the US, particularly in the red states. The lack of such rights in many countries in Western Europe explains why fracking has been ignored in such countries and in some blue states that have effectively outlawed it.
What the Climate Socialists are proposing is government intervention in the market that will reduce incentives to adopt new technology that increases productivity and incentives to avoid environmental degradation. I cannot think of a better way to make the world worse off. Yet the climate socialists claim they are environmentalists. It is important for voters to understand this. We need both a good environment and a prosperous economy.
[…] http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/5009 […]
Here is a little pet peeve. I don’t enjoy it when loony leftists want the US to counter climate change like we fought World War II.
My family lost a cousin to a bullet on a pacific island. Another relative designed a firing pattern for rockets covering the d day landings.
Hitler and Tojo really existed. They were not a hoax. It is insulting to families that have sacrificed to protect freedom to suggest that an eco hoax justifies a massive economic restructuring of the United States.
What’s worse is when loonies suggest we need to give up democracy in order for eco despots to perpetrate their horribly costly solutions for a non existent problem. Any loony who advises this should be charged with a crime.
Red China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela are effectively totalitarian states, without fair elections. Democracies are going to tend to be more responsive to voters in effective democracies and protective of the environment as a result.
China has poor air quality and poor water quality. Most rivers are dammed for hydro electricity. China is notorious for building many more factories than needed to serve customers. This is inefficient for an economy.
Democratic socialism including fair elections and capitalism is usually going to be better for the environment than totalitarian socialism.
Yet even under democracies, When a government owns an asset, it may let it degrade, because unwilling to invest money in maintaining it. Socialist democracies can be inefficient and squander resources. their poverty may prevent them from investing in cleaner air and water.
The best governance for environmental quality is an effective democracy with abundant economic freedom for businesses to innovate and be efficient.
Democracies are undercut however when one political party champions Fake Science, as with climate alarmism. Fake ecoscience alarmism raises costs and squanders resources for zero eco benefits..
Doctor Carlin makes a great point that private property rights have enabled a US energy boom via drilling and fracking. The efficient use of economic resources by competing private firms generates wealth to enable a better quality of environment.
The American left has lost faith in manufacturing in America, in US workers, in capitalism, and in democracy. they generate dishonest claims about climate and about Russian influence over Trump. there is a lot of Trump Derangement Syndrome taking place. it is disgracefully dishonest or stupid and horrible to watch.