Tiananmen Square, Beijing (Photo: Oded Balilty/AP)
I had a post with this title back in October ’11, on the L.A. smog of past decades and in which I asked how libertarians would have dealt with it in the absence of state regulation and environmental legislation. I never got any kind of response, needless to say—not from a free-marketeer, at any rate, though one did send an email with a link to an article about how anti-pollution regulations hinder job creation, or something like that, but that in no way addressed my question. Now we’ve been reading about the off-the-scales smog alert in Beijing the other day and comparisons with the infamous London pea soup fog that afflicted that city for well over a century, until the first clear air laws were enacted there in the 1950s. London was hardly the only city with a present-day Beijing-like smog problem, of course. The Atlantic has a piece today on smog in Pittsburgh through the mid 20th century. Incredible to think that people lived with this (as they live with it today in Beijing and elsewhere). Scroll down and click on the link of the photo show of what Pittsburgh looked like at noon.
So I repeat my question to libertarians, and to anti-government Tea Party GOP types more generally: if they had their way and government got out of the business of environmental regulation—and with clean air and other such acts repealed in the interest of an unfettered free market, not to mention abolishing subsidies for mass transit—, what do they think would happen pollution-wise? If there were a return to the smog status quo ante—an inevitability, one would presume—what would they propose doing about it, if anything?
I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for a response.
A freed market would deal with it primarily in two ways: by appealing to the individual’s senses of morality and empathy, and by vigorous enforcement of property rights.
The first is something we’re seeing more and more frequently already. There is a demand from consumers for “green” products, even though there is no legislation requiring it. People are becoming more aware of products and processes that may be wasteful or reckless with environmental resources, and they are seeking out environmentally friendly alternatives. This sort of peaceful exchange of ideas and competition for business is the very essence of the free market.
The second stems from recognizing what pollution really is: harmful substances ending up on property when the property owner didn’t want it. For example, if your neighbor has noxious chemicals on his property, it is fine so long as they are safely contained on his property and do not make their way onto your property. But once they do (or once it becomes imminent that they will), then your neighbor has committed a crime against you. He has polluted your land, or your air, or you water, etc. A freed market, by definition, requires strong property rights. The right of an individual to peacefully dispose of her property as she sees fit is what freedom and free trade is all about. Unfortunately, from the systems of weak property rights all around the world we see the resulting tragedy of the commons. We see the people who should be recognized as the rightful owners of portions of land, water, and airspace having their property rights violated by socialized control of these resources. The ruling authorities deem this pollution to be justifiable and in the interest of the greater good. Those with enough wealth or political influence are able to pollute without paying the full cost of the damage they’ve caused.