Environmentalists seem to lean left pretty heavily. It’s been true for decades. They constantly demand increases in regulation and oversight. Basically, they trust the government to fix problems that they think could end humanity.
Let’s look into that notion. You don’t need to agree with the concerns of environmentalists to have this discussion. Regardless on your position on climate change, global warming, ice caps or endangered species, there’s an important argument that is being overlooked: Capitalism and its principles is a better way for environmentalists to achieve their aims.
Again, even if you don’t agree that CO2 emissions are a problem, it’s pretty obvious that the best way to reduce CO2 emissions is to make it an enticing prospect for businesses. Let’s really dive into this topic.
Let’s stick to cold, hard facts for a minute. Climate change proponents have hard pushed the notion that industrial CO2 emissions are the primary cause of climate change and that those emissions are a threat to the future of humanity. If we take their word for it, then President Trump might be the savior of humanity. Hopefully, you’ve seen this reported before. Since President Trump took us out of the Paris Agreement, the United States has led the world in CO2 reduction.
This isn’t a close contest, either. If you compare the U.S. to the other dozen or so countries that have also reduced their output, the U.S. almost matches the combined success of all of those countries. Our one country is responsible for roughly half of all CO2 reductions in the last two years. What’s most important is to understand that this was done through pure capitalism.
One of the first things Trump did when he took office was slash excessive regulations surrounding fracking techniques. As a result, fracking became a much cheaper practice, and natural gas prices dropped. Since natural gas is a more carbon-efficient fuel than oil or coal, its lower price enabled it to supplant a large amount of oil and coal in energy production. The result is the reduced CO2 output that you’re now seeing.
In other words, a simple supply and demand treatment enabled the U.S. to lead the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Incentivizing Environmental Care
The relationship between fracking and lower CO2 emissions can be generalized. In a capitalistic economy, anyone who owns resources has the goal of optimizing those resources. This means that land owners want their land to be as productive as possible. That very concept has caused the overall number of trees and vegetation in the U.S. to grow over the last two decades.
Farmers and other landowners have used innovative techniques to make their plots more efficient. They are investing fewer resources than ever and producing more food or vegetative products than ever before. The measurable impact of profit-driven land management is a cleaner, more sustainable environment in our country.
This is more obvious with industry. Looking at the last two decades again, the majority of companies in the Fortune 500 are using less power and water than they were 20 years ago. At the same time, their output is higher than ever.
To put this in simplest terms, power costs money. Using less power for the same result is good for business. Capitalism is inherently incentivizing companies to be environmentally responsible because it saves money.
That’s even more obvious when you look at the processor war between Intel and AMD. Every year they release processors that can handle more calculations while drawing less power than previous models.
If none of that was enough, capitalism also incentivizes environmental care through consumer demand. American consumers are more aware than ever how business practices can adversely affect the environment. They’re deliberately choosing companies that opt for responsible practices. If the consumers want environmental companies, capitalism will ensure that it’s what they get.
Regulation vs Markets
The argument for capitalism grows even stronger when you compare regulatory efforts to free-market efforts to improve environmental policy. Here’s an example. In Oregon, activists were worried that irrigation was taking too much water away from natural fish and wildlife in the state. They sued farmers over water rights in order to try and “protect” the environment. The resulting litigation was slow, costly and ultimately didn’t change the irrigation practices of the farmers at all.
After viewing that failure, a different group tried an entirely new approach. They left the courts out of the discussion and instead offered to purchase water access for the streams and rivers they deemed important. With that transaction, the farmers were able to afford to reduce irrigation, and everyone got what they wanted. The free market approach accomplished what regulation couldn’t.
Another example of this working is taking place in California right now. Concerned with decreasing populations of water fowl, a bird-watching organization partnered with rice farmers. Using an app, bird watchers track the migration patterns of the fowl. They use that information to inform the rice farmers which fields should be flooded to grow rice. This creates habitats for the fowl, and they have a positive, symbiotic relationship with the farms. Once again, everyone wins and the government isn’t involved.
You can find countless more examples of people using innovation and free markets to try and steward the environment. When you compare it to Big Brother making demands, the success of the free-market approach always wins.
There’s really no room for argument. Any pragmatic environmentalist, who values effective changes over political arguments, has to embrace capitalism. It’s the only system with enough power to rapidly adapt to environmental concerns. It’s also the only sustainable approach to inject environmental stewardship into productivity. In fact, capitalism is so much better suited to environmentalism than regulation that it the only viable way to change industry.
Even if environmentalists choose politics over the changes they claim to want, capitalism naturally trends towards sustainability anyway. Anyone who claims to be an environmentalist and against capitalism is either woefully misinformed or a liar.
Share this information far and wide. From now on, environmentalists can join us in making the world a better place, or they can publicly admit that they are full of it.
