A Response To: "Private Investment Protects Environment Where Government Fails"

Read This First ---------> Editorial Link

I think it would be valuable to you and your readers if you provided some empirical evidence to back up your examples of how private ownership, or lack there of, has made environmental situations better or worse. I think you may find that much of this type of evidence scarcely exists or is contradictory to your claims. Within the construct of Capitalist Ideology, the idea of privatizing preservation SEEMS sound on its face, but I think if you were to scratch below the surface you would find that it does not translate fully to reality. This is pretty much what happens when any ideology, be it from the left or the right, meets with reality.

The most obvious example, and frankly the most ridiculous one you presented, would be the difference between privately and publicly owned forests. The amount of public forests far outstrips those of private ownership, which provides a greater opportunity for natural fire by simple statistical chance. Additionally, those fires started by humans happen on public lands because that's where the public camps and where malcontents go to express themselves. However, if you have data that supports your supposition, I would love to see it.

Another ridiculous assertion is that by creating and privatizing elephant farming to create a controlled market for Ivory you would help preserve African elephants. Basically, you assert that it would create a market-based reason for saving the elephants. Please show me any kind of empirical evidence that supports this supposition. You can't. The reality is that some things are worth doing even if they won't result in profit.

This idea is the fault line within capitalist ideology and yet is one of the most important indicators of enlightened society. Yes, capitalism provides many great incentives to move society forward, and certainly is the basis for the successful progress of freedom. But, capitalism alone does not provide incentives to do those things that will not result in direct profit for an individual or individual corporation. What capitalism DOES do is set up an infrastructure that provides surplus and expendable resources that can be applied to issues that are in the interest of society as a whole, but will not directly result in profit. The extent to which a society is willing to expend such resources on non-profit efforts is a large indicator of its social enlightenment. Sometimes, in fact often times, there are those things that must be done to promote the greater good of society and those things will not be profitable.

I don't think that utilizing capitalism as a tool to help preservation is without merit. However, I think you have done a disservice to the idea with the examples you site and I think that capitalism alone will certainly not be the answer. The record of corporate abuses is clear and the fact that we came out ahead of communist nations with regard to record is a direct result of our collective conscience implemented through government regulation. If you would like to argue that we need more efficiency from our government services, I would agree. But, this would include better enforcement of environmental regulations so that we can ensure that those using the environment for profit are indeed fulfilling their obligation to care for the environment - even when it seems it would be in their best, i.e. profitable, interest. As with most things in the human world, the answer will most likely be a mixture of the two. Ethical and responsible capital enterprise backed by enforceable and enforced regulation combined with support for those things that provide no direct profit. Socialism and communism in their purest forms do not work, but neither does pure self-interest and it’s ideological foolishness to believe otherwise.