Using Economics to Solve the Tragedy of the Commons is Good Policy
Penni Livingston
I read an article today on Medium complaining of misunderstanding of this concept where the author of the article also misunderstood the concept. I responded in a comment and want to share a more expanded view on this vital topic. We need to use economics to solve our climate crisis that was caused — by economics.
I wrote my doctoral thesis in law school in 1986 or 87 on “Innovative Economic Devices” to assist command and control regulations (laws on the books that require specific pollution equipment or standards) for environmental protection. My memory and understanding is that Aldo Leopold discusses the “Tragedy of the Commons” in his Sand County Almanac book long before some person, claimed to be a white supremist, uses the concept for arguing against goodness. I am relying on a 35 year old memory here but I think this is right.
Leopold learned his environmental lessons from our public declaration of war on wolves where he was involved. His life story is featured in a movie called Green Fire, well worth seeing. The article I am responding to advocates that we start to think that anything written about “the tragedy of the commons” is a trick argument for bad policy. That is not how I view this pretty old concept that formed the basis of that old law school thesis paper that tried to solve the tragedy of the commons, a very real problem.
Tragedy of the Commons is a vitally important concept that needs to be discussed not dismissed because some writers misuse or misunderstand it. It is not fake or BS because someone coopted it to argue bad policy! It is an economic concept that stands for the experiential concept that if no one owns the air, it will be over polluted. If no one owns the land, it will get over depleted. Thank God our government owns our air and regulates it.
If everyone or no one owns the water, we will over poison it. This could apply to depletion of groundwater for overuse when it is free as well as applying to the polluting of a river with a government permit that is likely free as well. The economic conclusion I drew in my law school thesis paper is to CHARGE TO POLLUTE!
Also, to subsidize non-fossil fuel use since we all commonly benefit from that reduction of pollution. Through our tax dollars, we pool money together to build and light roadways and bridges. We fund health departments and fire departments. We respond to disasters as a common committee we call government. This is the good side of us defeating or preventing a tragedy of the commons; common areas and common people- pooling resources for the common good.
Think climate change since that is the best example of “Externalities” or economic costs of business use of common resources- the planet- that are not “Internalized” into the cost of doing that business. Instead of preventing or internalizing these pollutions, these “externalities” are imposed externally onto the world, into our atmosphere that holds the planet together. Why? because we, as a common people, have not required it in our laws.
When companies can make more profit by polluting- we have not economically dis-incentivized pollution that harms us; economics drives everything including politics- hello! and law. It drives elections.
The Citizens United decision that essentially says that money is speech legitimized “big money interests” and hidden interests to fund and thereby own our big politicians. That has got to go on every side of the aisle. We need to publicly fund elections to remove corruption. Then we give free air time like we use to.
A creation of a cultural tragedy of the commons can be seen in putting a price on broadcasting. When President Reagan privatized and auctioned our air waves, he inadvertently sparked the dumbing down of our collective intellect with gullibility to disinformation and dumbness as television grew out of control. Deciding which resources we sell is pretty important, certainly not our integrity as is happening with all things Trump.
In law school we would say property ownership comes with a bundle of rights or sticks like the right to possess or exclude others, to rent, to mortgage, or even to loan. I would say that if you value the right to feel safe where you live, you need to watch your bundle of sticks that come from property ownership of the planet or you will own crap when the tenant leaves. Restrict future access of pollution to our common areas.
As a people, we vote with dollars and we do things we should not do for dollars. We have to make compliance with good protective laws mandatory in corporate charters. Don’t comply, lose your charter and your LIMITED LIABILITY that corporations get for their supposed contributions to the common good. If you pollute- you are not contributing to the public good. For real!
Think hard on that one. We can change things for the common good. Consider joining “Move to Amend”, a very smart group who understands the history of corporate charters and how out of whack we are since the common good has been removed as a requirement for obtaining limited liability and big tax breaks.
This was not the intent of our founders, I assure you. Of course these are the founders who owned people as slaves and who gave no rights to women whatsoever. We must measure morality by our own standards and consider carefully modern issues viewed from the wisdom and value of those men setting up the Constitution. Language must be given its plain meaning even including the intent to grow forward and expand within the framework.
The language is as important as any perceived intent of the many minds and colonies who formed the agreement. The language calls for honoring common principles like fairness and respect for property ownership. We can amend the Constitution.
I think it should say all People, whatever gender, are created equal and endowed with rights and corporations are not people. We have rights as citizens and a duty to vote. Meandering a little off point, Gerrymandering is at war with common values, for example, as it does not involve fairness or respect of law we all agreed to live by. Cheating is not to be respected or rewarded.
Going back to the philosopher John Loche, when we own our land, not only are we not communists, but we take care of the land and things we own. The tragedy is that we will overuse resources if we do not value them as though we owned them. We value drinking unpoisoned water from our faucet. This value could be expressed as a price we pay, especially if we get a disease. That is a real cost or externality that was not internalized by the harmer. Freedom from harm of another is the highest freedom we possess.
The concept of overuse from failure to collectively own is just how it economically works out in real life. The economy drives decisions and many of those decisions are motivated by self interest over the other except to the extent we regulate and set policy for the common good. Thank our government for checking meat and drugs, however well we think they are doing. Some policy is set with our tax dollars, even our tax policies.
Money drives behavior. We need a huge shift in corporate and individual behavior to save us from the tragedy we are already commonly experiencing. We have restoration to do but we have control over what has not yet been wasted. So what do we do about over grazing or over forestation on public lands? EASY- Stop doing it or allowing it or CHARGE an appropriate fee for removal of trees or minerals on public lands. And don’t allow pollution of those lands and waters!
REGULATE the common resources is what we have done since the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and thank God! Even so, we have not eliminated water pollution under a system that issues “permits” or permission to pollute under a legal regimen system we call the “National Pollution Discharge Elimination System” (NPDES). We have not eliminated water discharges so regulations have not been enough.
We have to get a handle on climate change like we are driving a race car. We have to monetize the value of nature that we have not protected from use. That includes carbon capture, change in technologies, energy efficiency and all kinds of things. We have to fund future responses, repairs, and restoration from the effects of natural disasters that are getting worse and more frequent. Welcome to the biggest tragedy of the commons ever!
We will need money to solve this problem and that calls for an economic solution to this economically created problem. We need to think about this tragedy of the commons that is clearly misunderstood by a whole lot of people as pointed out by Douglas Rushkoff in his Medium article that prompted my writing here. Ignoring the tragedy of the commons as it unfolds before our eyes or thinking it is fake news is not fixing what the concept demands of us nor is it fixing any perceived misunderstanding.
Seeing the tragedy of the commons in action, we use our awareness to save our common resources, air, ecosystems, water, trees, climate, endangered species our collective selves put at risk. We do this by making the planet and its people a priority. Smart people recognize that we can stop further harm with economic policy- gas taxes even and subsidies for solar and electric cars. No more coal plant permits! We move behavior with economics as well as with enforcement of the law.
We need to use economic devices like emission fees and subsidies -as we are to a little degree- so we bring the true cost of pollution to bear on those who pollute and harm- our air, our water, our land, our health. Our planet needs us to fund the repairs from what is the best example of the tragedy of the commons: climate change and its devasting weather and permanent losses. So let’s implement some innovative economic devices to deal with it. That’s what my law school self advocated for and it is what I think after three decades of suing polluters and developers who flood people.
Go Carbon Tax and Go Bob Ingles at RepublicENs! He and his team and partners are trying to teach the world and those in his party about ways to solve climate change. He has quite a coalition and I am glad to know him. This is not a partisan issue. This is a people of the earth unite issue.
Thanks for reading what I was thinking about today. Please learn what we need to do on issues you care about and write your reps. Vote for climate protection measures as our number one issue above all else right now. Act as though your life depends on figuring out solutions to this tragedy of the commons or your life will depend on it. And please use your dollars to meet the doctor’s creed and do no harm.
