Earth Day Celebration Avoids the Tough Issues

It takes a fairly hard-hearted person to say anything negative about the forthcoming celebration of the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. Of course, we all want a cleaner and safer environment. Nevertheless, it strikes this observer that April 22, 1990--quite unintentionally--may provide opportunity for buck-passing on a massive scale.

To be sure, celebrating Earth Day is a great way for individual citizens to ease their consciences on environmental matters by retaking their vows to support all good ecological causes. And, of course, it is a lot of fun to point the finger of guilt at someone else--preferably a large, impersonal organization that is an inviting target. The obvious candidates for public chastisement are “greedy” corporations and “foot-dragging” government agencies.

In any event, my favorite cartoon on the subject is one showing someone throwing beer cans out of the window while driving to a meeting of some environmental group. And, yes, the vehicle is a Toyota displaying a bumper sticker reading, “Save Whales, Boycott Japanese Products.” Then, again, we can recall a few years ago the case of the environmental genius who buried a new car to show in a dramatic fashion his disapproval of pollution-belching gas guzzlers. Currently we have these friends of the Earth who hammer nails into trees--better to deface them before the loggers and other bad guys get to them.

But being inconsistent about the environment is not limited to a few isolated examples. Last fall, the Roper poll surveyed a representative sample of the American public on environmental matters. Predictably, nearly three-fourths agreed that business has a “definite” responsibility to reduce its air and water pollution. But what about the individual consumer? An overwhelming 80% replied that they never buy recycled paper products. An uncomfortably large 66% said they never use degradable plastic garbage bags; 64% never recycle newspapers. The old trite-but-true saying comes to mind: “Don’t do as I do, do as I say.”

Of course, there are many dedicated people who reflect in their day-to-day actions a sincere concern for the environment. But far larger numbers find it easier merely to impose their views of good civic behavior on the other fellow. The ultimate source of environmental problems is very easily found: Just look in the mirror. The hard fact is that it is much easier to talk about the evils of pollution than to take the tough actions that will really help to clean up. The serious question is how to proceed in this difficult task in the most sensible and effective way.

Fundamentally, it is the life style of the average citizen that generates the demand for the goods and services that give rise to pollution in its various forms. I do not mean to let business (or any other large organization) off the hook. But if we would not buy all those pollution-intensive items in the first place, companies would not make them. And if they made some, they would find that they could not sell those items.

The serious point ignored by most discussions of Earth Day is, why do companies (and others) pollute? We can dismiss out of hand the silly notion that they pollute because they obtain positive enjoyment from a dirty, unhealthy environment. On the contrary, most polluters--be they companies, municipalities or you and me--pollute because it is easier or cheaper or both.

Economists at this point have something useful to contribute to the dialogue. No, most economists will not urge that we develop a more eloquent or heart-rending plea to get many people to change their habits by using items that generate less pollution when made, distributed and disposed of. On the contrary, we will urge changing the underlying incentives so that it becomes more expensive to pollute.

Contrary to rumors, economists really do care about the environment. We even breathe the same air and drink the same water as real people. To update Shakespeare: “If we are polluted, do we not cough?”

However, economists care much more about results than intentions. As a practical matter, there are several ways of reducing pollution effectively. The most satisfying approach is to alter “property rights” so that people cannot use the nation’s air, water or surface as a free dump. They will have to pay for the privilege via a fee or tax on the very act of polluting.

Pollution fees or taxes are not a “license to pollute,” no matter what the “greens” may say. Raising the cost of an item that generates large amounts of pollution creates incentives to shift production (and ultimately consumption) to goods and services that generate much less pollution. And even if we cannot find an acceptable alternative, we will try to use less of the item whose price has gone up. That reaction, too, would mean less pollution.

Without prolonging this lesson in elementary economics, the point that needs to be underscored is that we do not promote a better ecological environment by appealing to patriotism or attacking the virtue of the polluter. Rather, that highly desirable goal is more likely to be achieved by imposing sensible burdens on each of us in an effort to get us to change our life styles.

By the way, I am still waiting for just one of the ecological enthusiasts who used to enjoy attacking capitalism so vigorously as the basic source of pollution to have the decency to admit that the communist countries are the worst polluters. In contrast to the dying forests and filthy rivers of Eastern Europe, it is the capitalistic nations of the West that have the resources to devote to improving the physical environment, and they do so.

In a somewhat similar vein, it would be useful to acknowledge what any serious student of environmental degradation in the United States quickly finds: Government agencies are far less “Earth friendly” than the average private enterprise. The most cavalier abuser of the nation’s physical resources is the federal government.

After all, unlike private enterprise, government agencies cannot be closed down by environmental and safety inspectors--and they rarely even pay fines for failure to abide by the restrictions that apply to the private sector. Indeed, the late Adm. Hyman G. Rickover regularly ordered Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors to leave “his” Navy yards.

Finally, I mourn for the many trees that will be cut down to provide the paper for all the flyers and handouts that ultimately will litter the sites of the various rallies on April 22. Earth Day--bah, humbug.