Block on Economics in Environmentalism

Contrary to Pigou and Samuelson, manufac- turers, foundries, railroads, etc., could not act in a vacuum, as if the costs they imposed on others were of no moment. There was a "way to force private polluters to bear the social cost of their operations": sue them, make them pay for their past transgressions, and get a court order prohibiting them from such invasions in future.residential area, for example, would subject the firm to debilitating lawsuits.

Upholding property rights in this manner had several salutary effects. First of all, there was an incentive to use clean burning, but slightly more expensive anthracite coal rather than the cheaper but dirtier high sulfur content variety; less risk of lawsuits. Second, it paid to install scrubbers, and other techniques for reducing pollution output. Third there was an impetus to engage in research and development of new and better methods for the internalization of externalities: keeping one's pollutants to oneself. Fourth, there was a movement toward the use better chimneys and other smoke prevention devices. Fifth, an incipient forensic pollution industry was in the process of being developed.16 Sixth, the locational decisions of manufacturing firms was intimately effected. The law implied that it would be more profitable to establish a plant in an area with very few people, or none at all; setting up shop in a 

In Walter Block's "Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights," he describes methods of privatizing natural resources and what unspoiled wilderness that remains. His ideas are realistic and proven. In Africa, countries that outlaw poaching for elephant ivory still have issues with the practice, as each hunter has positive market encouragement to take a many animals as possible to compete. In African nations where it is legalized, land owners have motivation to save the species, taking older elephants, letting younger ones propagate the populations again. With that discrimination, the species can regain its numbers, and the ivory trade can remain profitable yet sustainable. Hunters that provide the ivory have an interest to maintain the species to guarantee future revenue. With an extinction, everyone loses. With regulation through privatization, the elephants can be considered winners. That win comes at a cost, yet worth it considering the tragic alternative. Those who can not find this market example as acceptable in terms of minimizing the violence against nature have not studies economics and fail to understand that nothing is ever quite black and white.