Free Market Environmentalism Research Articles

A Survey on Immune System in Genetic Engineering and their Applications

The increasing number of human diseases has become a major global concern. Researchers have found a novel way to defend against some of the deadliest diseases emerging across the globe. Incorporating a genetic modifications in immune cells can result in producing more powerful antibodies. With this technology, researchers have now successfully defended a potentially fatal lung infection. The similar approach might be effective in treating other human diseases. The integration of immune system in genetic engineering is being studied by combining wide range of techniques and organisms from agriculturally relevant plants to other genetic models such as Drosophila to humans. This initiates the research investigations on the rapid advancement of genetic engineering, including advancements in research and education. This study discusses the concept of genetic engineering in the immune system, as well as various types of genetic engineering and their applications. This work discusses about preserving an endangered species while promoting free market environmentalism.

A Survey on Immune System in Genetic Engineering and their Applications

The increasing number of human diseases has become a major global concern. Researchers have found a novel way to defend against some of the deadliest diseases emerging across the globe. Incorporating a genetic modifications in immune cells can result in producing more powerful antibodies. With this technology, researchers have now successfully defended a potentially fatal lung infection. The similar approach might be effective in treating other human diseases. The integration of immune system in genetic engineering is being studied by combining wide range of techniques and organisms from agriculturally relevant plants to other genetic models such as Drosophila to humans. This initiates the research investigations on the rapid advancement of genetic engineering, including advancements in research and education. This study discusses the concept of genetic engineering in the immune system, as well as various types of genetic engineering and their applications. This work discusses about preserving an endangered species while promoting free market environmentalism.

On environmental justice, Part I: an intuitive conservation dilemma

AbstractThis article introduces an intuitive conservation dilemma called the Canyon Dilemma: Is it possible to condemn the mining of the Grand Canyon, even by a poor generation, while also permitting this generation’s mining of an unremarkable small canyon? It then argues that not one of several prominent theories of environmental justice, including various forms of egalitarianism, welfarism, deep-ecological theories, communitarianism and free-market environmentalism, can navigate this dilemma. The article concludes by highlighting the dilemma-navigating potential of the equal-claims idea – the idea that the natural world is something to which every human being, present and future, has an equal, substantive claim.

A Free-Market Environmentalist Transition toward Renewable Energy: The Cases of Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom

Renewable energy (RE) is one of the most popular public policy orientations worldwide. Compared to some other countries and continents, Europe has gained an early awareness of energy and environmental problems in general. At the theoretical level, free-market environmentalism indicates that based on the principle of private property rights, with fewer state interventionist and regulation policies, entrepreneurs, as the driving force of the market economy, can provide better services to meet the necessity of offering RE to protect the environment more effectively. Previous studies have revealed that Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have made some progress in using the market to develop RE. However, this research did not analyze the three countries’ RE conditions from the perspective of free-market environmentalism. Based on our review of the principles of free-market environmentalism, this paper originally provides an empirical study of how Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have partly conducted free-market-oriented policies to successfully achieve their policy goal of RE since the 1990s on a practical level. In particular, compared with Germany and Denmark, the UK has maintained a relatively low energy tax rate and opted for more pro-market measures since the Hayekian-Thatcherism free-market reform of 1979. The paper also discovers that Fredrich A. Hayek’s theories have strongly impacted its energy liberalization reform agenda since then. Low taxes on the energy industry and electricity have alleviated the burden on the electricity enterprises and consumers in the UK. Moreover, the empirical results above show that the energy enterprises play essential roles in providing better and more affordable RE for household and industrial users in the three sampled countries. Based on the above results, the paper also warns that state intervention policies such as taxation, state subsidies, and industrial access restrictions can impede these three countries’ RE targets. Additionally, our research provides reform agendas and policy suggestions to policymakers on the importance of implementing free-market environmentalism to provide more efficient RE in the post-COVID-19 era.

Does a free-market economy make mother nature angry? Evidence from Asian economies.

The linkage between a free market and the environment has been under debate for a long time. In the traditional view, environmental issues are one of the free market's failures. However, a free market is a solution for environmental problems through the lens of free-market Environmentalism because free markets can be more successful than governments in solving environmental issues. Whether or not a free-market economy leads to environmental degradation and makes Mother Nature angry is a challengeable research gap. This paper fills this gap by examining the impact of a free-market on Mother Nature's anger in 35 Asian economies over the period 2000-2018. Our empirical results show that a free-market economy reduces the Mother Nature's anger (proxied by total number of deaths and total economic losses from natural disasters), and this beneficial impact is intensified with the improvement of property rights and government integrity. Our findings assert the important role of a free-market economy, property rights, and government integrity in mitigating the anger of Mother Nature.

Neoliberal İdeolojinin Çevresel Yüzü: Ekoliberalizm

1960'ların sonlarından itibaren çevre konusu ulusal ve uluslararası ölçekte önem kazanmıştır. Bu durum karşısında ülkelerin mevzuatlarında çevre konusu daha fazla önem ve yer bulurken, uluslararası platformda çevre konusu konferanslar ve hukuki metinler aracılığı ile giderek daha fazla gündeme gelmeye başlamıştır. Tüm bu pratik gelişmelere koşut olarak siyasal ideolojilerin birçoğunda ekoloji alanına doğru bir kırılma meydana gelmiştir. Siyasal ideolojilerin hemen hemen hepsi hâkim ekonomik sistem olan kapitalizmi yaşanan çevre sorunlarının ana kaynağı olarak görüp, bu gelişmeler üzerinden liberalizm ve serbest piyasa ekonomisini eleştirirken, liberal ideologlar bu saldırılara karşı öncelikle teorik bir zemin hazırlama gereği hissetmişlerdir. Bu anlamda liberal ideolojinin tıpkı diğer ideolojiler gibi temel varsayımlarını ekoloji bilimine eklemleme çabaları neticesinde serbest piyasa çevreciliği (ekoliberalizm) ortaya çıkmıştır. Liberalizmin zaman içerisinde evrilerek eko-liberalizme dönüşümü belirli eksenler üzerinden olmuştur. Bu eksenler öncelikle içerisinde yeni birey tanımı da barındıran özgürlük, ekonomi ve doğa kavramlarıdır. Bu kapsamda makalenin birinci bölümünde ekoliberalizmin bu üç gelişme ekseni etrafında nasıl bir ideolojik çerçeve ve altyapı oluşturduğunu belirledikten sonra, ikinci bölümde ekoliberalizmin pratik yaşamda çevre sorunlarına hangi tür uygulama araçları ile müdahalede bulunduğu ortaya konmuş; bu araçların ne tür bir politik çerçeveye oturduğu tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır.

Free market for the environment

The tragedy of the commons is responsible for many, if not all, of the environmental problems concerning natural resource preservation that we face in modern society. The tragedy of the commons describes a situation in which resources held “in common”, namely, public resources, are depleted or mistreated by collective action. Basically it means lack of private ownership and almost inevitably leads to a misallocation of resources. And yet, the predominating kinds of solutions proposed to solve these problems involve increased government regulation—effectively expanding the scope of the very tragedy of the commons which lies at the heart of the problem in the first place. The present paper advocates an alternative: free market environmentalism. It is not a contradiction in terms, despite how that phrase sounds to the modern ear. In this paper we attempt to demonstrate that laissez-faire capitalism is our last best hope for protecting the environment. Free market environmentalism centers around private property rights and thus a decentralization of environmental decision-making. Effective choices made about scarce resources must be based upon free market price signals and incentives. The lack of laissez-faire capitalism applied to earth’s natural resources distorts both of these indicators—causing poorly made and oftentimes destructive decisions. A free market solution to the environment creates the most value for society, allows for open and continuous entrepreneurial innovation, and economically empowers those who are the most environmentally vulnerable.

Bottled water and groundwater in Ontario: Can free market environmentalism resolve the emerging conflicts?

Nestlé Waters’s recent purchase of a well and water-taking rights in the Township of Centre Wellington, Ontario, has garnered national and international attention, raising concerns about how groundwater resources should be managed. In this paper, we explore free market environmentalism as a way to resolve groundwater management and water-takings issues in Ontario. Controversy over groundwater resources and their use, as illustrated by the recent case in Ontario, has become more prevalent globally as concerns about groundwater quality and scarcity develop. Our results suggest that, in theory, the incorporation of private property rights and the common law principle of riparian rights into provincial groundwater allocation mechanisms has the potential to resolve the emerging conflicts in Ontario. However, our analysis reveals that the current level of politicization in Ontario’s water allocation and pricing systems, combined with the current lack of adequate monitoring and documentation of groundwater use, are significant barriers to implementing a resource allocation mechanism for groundwater based on the principles of private ownership and riparian rights. We address these limitations to gain a deeper understanding the implications of the current water-takings system in Ontario, and conclude that these limitations deserve greater social and political attention if these controversies are to be resolved. While free market environmentalism has solutions to offer to Ontario’s groundwater management issue, the current political and institutional approaches to groundwater allocation and pricing in Ontario do not allow for them to be fully applied.

Private Property and the Politics of Environmental Protection

Private property plays two opposing roles in stories about the environment. In the story favored by most environmentalists, private property is the bad guy. (1) It balkanizes an interconnected ecosystem into artificial units of individual ownership. Owners of these finite parcels have little incentive to invest in ecosystem resources and every incentive to dump polluting wastes onto other parcels. Only by relocating control over natural resources in some central authority like the federal government, can we make integrated decisions designed to preserve the health of the entire ecosystem. For these traditional environmentalists, private property is the problem; public control is the solution. There is a counter story, told by the proponents of what is sometimes called free market environmentalism. (2) In this story, private property is the good guy. Environmental degradation is a problem because of incomplete property rights. If all resources were privately owned, then no one would be able to impose externalities on anyone else; potential polluters would have to purchase the right to pollute first. Similarly, if all resources--including habitats of endangered species and other ecologically sensitive resources--were privately owned, then owners would have incentives to invest in the preservation of these resources, and would use their ingenuity to get persons who care about environmental protection to pay for it. For free market environmentalists, public control of resources is the problem; private property is the solution. Both sides in this debate are only half right. The traditional environmentalists are closer to the mark in their diagnosis of the problem. Property rights are always and inevitably incomplete, as it is costly to set up and enforce any system of private property. Because property rights are incomplete, owners of resources that are subject to private ownership--such as parcels of land devoted to productive uses--will always have incentives to disregard the costs they impose on common resources that are not subject to private ownership. Sometimes creating new types of property rights can help the situation; more often, however, the only cost-effective solution to these sorts of spillovers is government regulation. On the other hand, the free market environmentalists are closer to the mark in devising a solution to the problem. Missing from the traditional account is any credible theory of how we can generate collective action to protect sensitive ecosystem resources. Bursts of collective altruism do happen, but they are difficult to sustain. Witness the history of socialism, or, more pertinently the history of environmentalism. (3) What is needed is an institutional arrangement that generates private incentives supporting collective action that will protect the environment. The best such arrangement is the widespread private ownership of land. In this sense, the free market environmentalists are closer to the mark in their prescription of a cure than are the traditional environmentalists, with their call for a bigger government. I. Casual empiricism strongly suggests that private property is good for the environment. Eastern Europe in the 1980s offered a kind of natural experiment about the effects of different property regimes. (4) An iron curtain ran through Eastern Europe from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. West of the line, real property was predominately subject to private ownership. East of the line, real property was owned by the state. The results were plain for all to see: while towns and villages on the west side were typically neat and clean, with well-scrubbed streets and colorful boxes of flowers in the windows, towns and villages on the east side were drab and dirty, with plaster falling off the walls and no flowers to be seen anywhere. These paired communities were generally composed of buildings of the same vintage and style of construction and were populated by families having the same ethnic background and cultural traditions. …

Американский инвайронментализм как политическая идеология

The article is devoted to the formation of the American Environmentalism as a philosophic school and a political ideology from the latter half of the 19th century until today. The author follows the genesis of its three major directions – the Conservationist Movement, Preservationism and Greenism – which gradually developed into the single “Green” ideology that has been influencing the state environmental policy intrinsically since the end of the 19th century. In the course of rapid economic development, especially after the World War II, the “Limits to Growth” concept captured the consciousness of the American society as ordinary people became aware of multiple environmental disasters inevitably resulting from industrial growth – not only the traditional need to preserve wild nature and protect endangered species, but also the necessity to control the cleanness of air, water and soils, to monitor a radiation level, to securely dispose hard waste in big amounts, to remove ramifications of chemicals use in agriculture and in households, etc. Although the Conservationist philosophy (meaning merely a conservation of nature and natural resources for present and future generations) remains the core of the “Green” ideology in the U.S. up to the present day, many other allied concepts were emerging or restored during the 20th century, such as the Malthusianism (in form of Neo-Malthusianism), New Environmentalism, Eco-Sociology, Eco-Marxism, Free Market Environmentalism, Evangelical Environmentalism, Radical Environmentalism, Ecological Anarchism, Post-Environmentalism and other. Some of these approaches lay emphasis rather on social problems connected with destruction of the environment, other deal more with environmental issues themselves. Generally, the American Environmentalism in its modern state is regarded by its adepts as an insufficient political ideology deprived of an essential power to solve new environmental problems or effectively influence state policy in present-day conditions. It seems to have reached its limits, and needs to transform into a new political ideology relevant to realities of the 21st century.&nbsp

Free market environmentalism for the next generation

Free market environmentalism for the next generation

Tropical Deforestation: Can Property Rights Stem the Tide?

In this report the property right structures surrounding tropical forest management are analyzed with a specific case study presented on tropical forests in Honduras. In order to adequately understand the set of property rights in place surrounding tropical forests, the applicable sets of property rights are laid out and explained (private, common, state, and open access). It is argued that the current property rights regimes in place surrounding tropical forests are inadequate and are the issue leading to high levels of deforestation. Conflicts and controversies surrounding the issue are presented for a counterargument and separate view of the issue. It was found that the current property rights regime in Honduras is inadequate for effective resource management as it lacks enforceability along with structure and is the prominent issue surrounding tropical deforestation. Private property rights were the most effective form of property rights found for maintaining natural resources, and it is therefore recommended that private ownership be instilled upon tropical forests to reduce the rate of deforestation. Free Market Environmentalism (FME) is offered as a solution to the current methodology for the management of tropical forests, as it advocates for private ownership and an enforceable set of rights. Therefore, it is recommended that a private property rights regime following the FME methodology replace existing state property rights in order to stem the tide of tropical deforestation.

The Birth of Free-Market Environmentalism

Around the world, particularly in the United States, debates about environmental protection have become ever-more fractious and polarized, following a radical shift in the collective understanding of environmental challenges and the appropriate responses to them. Whereas in the 1970s and the 1980s, environmental protection took the form of government-led action and intergovernmental treaty making, today it comes primarily under the heading of market capitalism and technological optimism. Sabin’s The Bet traces the growing politicization of, and free-market triumphalism around, environmental matters since the late 1960s in the context of the highly public wager between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon that has become the stuff of legend in environmental circles.

Green Economy in Theoretical Dilemma

The principle objective of this paper is to demonstrate how the green economy approach will work in the context of classical theories. Green economy is a new approach to achieve sustainable development. This concept, a way of putting a price on the use of natural resources previously considered ‘free’, is being pushed as the only to prevent future crisis. This approach is fully based on market and privatization which can find the best solution to protect the natural resources. Green economy; a market mechanism what can lead to the efficient use of natural resources and can achieve the economic, social and environmental sustainability. Neo-liberalism, free market environmentalism and eco-modernization theories are the main strength of this green economy approach where as these theories have been rooted from classical theories. Classical theorists like Adam smith, Ricardo belief is that the market as a mechanism for maximizing efficient resource use and well-being. On the other hand, Karl Marx’s eco-socialism generates the idea of exploitation in free market mechanism which can lead to an environmental crisis like the 1929 Wall Street crash or the great depression of the 1930s in the USA or the world crisis in 2008. From this theoretical perspective, green economy is in a conflict position between environmental sustainability and economic growth. Still green economy needs a through examination before this nature is going to bail outs.

Free Market Environmentalism for the Next Generation

Free Market Environmentalism for the Next Generation

Environmental Markets: A Property Rights Approach, by Terry L.Anderson and Gary D.Libecap. Published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2014, pp. 240, ISBN: 978 0 5212 7965 9, AUD$ 37.59 (paperback) AUD$ 94.03 (hardcover).

Environmental Markets: A Property Rights Approach, by Terry L.Anderson and Gary D.Libecap. Published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2014, pp. 240, ISBN: 978 0 5212 7965 9, AUD$ 37.59 (paperback) AUD$ 94.03 (hardcover).

Land management in the Conata Basin: a free market approach

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the viability of free market environmentalism. This is the philosophy that has as its basic premise the view that laissez faire capitalism and concomitant private property rights, far from being an impediment to the well-functioning of the environment, are actually the last best hope for this desiderata.Design/methodology/approach– The prairie dog and the ferret are not the species usually associated with concern over endangerment. Typically, it is the whale, the elephant and the rhino that are subjected to such an analysis. The authors approach this issue through the “eyeglasses” of the economist who sees value in our free enterprise institutions.Findings– The authors found that the tragedy of the commons works in this case as it does in all other relevant venues: if land is not privately held, but rather open to all, a tragedy occurs: there is economics misallocation and a too swift use of resources compared to the optimal situation.Originality/value– The authors know of no other examination of the prairie dog and the ferret in the Conata Basin. This is an important case in point in amassing evidence of the workings of the private property systemvis-à-visthe environment.

Green economics, science and libertarianism

A green economics that aspires to understand economic activity and to value non-human nature must eschew scientific methodology. Neither neoclassical environmental economics nor ecological economics constitute an anti-scientistic green economics, failing to capture the centrality of agents' subjective meanings while imposing the observer's values. Free market environmentalism and Austrian environmental economics solve the problems of agent meaning and observer values for human economic agents but share an anthropocentric perspective on the environment as no more than natural resources. Libertarian green economics not only solves the meaning and value problems but also has the capacity to expand the boundaries of moral concern beyond those recognised by free market environmentalism and Austrian economics, incorporating non-human nature as including bearers of property rights.

Money from and for forests: A critical reflection on the feasibility of market approaches for the conservation of Amazonian forests

The preservation of Amazonian natural forests is of utmost national and international interest. The exploration of market opportunities for the commercialization of forest goods and services has become the prevailing conservation approach. It is likely that the generation of income from forests will motivate forest owners and users to appreciate and use their resources more sustainably. After more than 20 years of applying, adjusting and expanding this approach, this paper critically reflects on its main assumptions, successes and consequences with a special emphasis on the Amazon's natural forests. Over time, three major strategies have been outlined to translate the approach into practice: (1) the management of timber by logging companies in forest concessions, (2) the use of timber and non-timber forest products by smallholders and communities, and (3) the selling of environmental services that forests provide, in particular carbon. The analysis revealed that the commercialization of goods and services from natural forests has indeed the potential to generate income, yet their financial attractiveness is rather limited if compared with other land use options. This seriously affects the probability that forest-related uses at a wider scale will be successful. It also became evident that the legal-institutional framework set up to facilitate economic gains from the forests' commercial potential tended to discriminate against traditional forest users who, due to disparate reasons, would be willing to accept the modest financial returns from managing natural forests in commercial ways. It is discussed that the feasibility of market approaches, in contrast to the assumptions of free market environmentalism, depends on effective measures to strengthen the role and market position of local forest users and on initiatives from firms to invest in the establishment of more sustainable commodities even when a reduction in profits are a possibility.

Applying and assessing free market environmentalism to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s coltan resources: Challenges and possibilities

Coltan is the commonly used term for tantalum, a metal used in electronics, when sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). This article considers that a “resource curse,” where a resource-rich country paradoxically experiences low social and economic development, is occurring in the DRC with respect to this mineral. The school of economic thought known as free market environmentalism broadly prescribes free markets, individual property rights, and common-law liability as the incentives to reduce environmental problems. While it is a less-common and sometimes controversial perspective on solving environmental problems, an analysis of a free market environmentalist perspective of coltan mining in the DRC provides alternative perspectives on solving a “resource curse,” such as effective property rights as put forward by Moriss (2009). Considering the practicality of implementing free market environmentalist principles in a war-torn country with weak governance, this article theorizes that the Congolese government could respond to the recent Congo Conflict Minerals Act within the American Dodd-Frank Act (2010) by implementing licenses to mine coltan resources that closely resemble private property rights, drawing on Pearse (1988), in areas of the DRC less affected by conflict.
 
 Keywords: Democratic Republic of Congo; coltan; tantalum; mining; free market environmentalism; property rights (privatization of)