Is it morally selfish to be an environmentalist?

[Green Capitalist]

No one owns the air I breathe, so how can people polute it if it is as much mine as it is theirs?

If a clean environment promotes health (which it does) isnt it basic self interest to be an environmentalist?

[Groovenstein]

No one owns the air I breathe, so how can people polute it if it is as much mine as it is theirs?

1. "No one owns the air . . . "

2a. "t is . . . mine."

2b. "t is theirs."

Do you see a problem here?

If a clean environment promotes health (which it does) isnt it basic self interest to be an environmentalist?

Define "environmentalist."

[punk]

The problem with environmentalists is that they want to preserve nature for the sake of preserving nature. At the extreme end of this are those that view humanity as something that can be expended for the preservation of nature.

Nature can get along just fine without us.

A very real possibility is that we can damage the environment enough that the continued existence of us (humanity) becomes questionable.

An "objectivist environmentalist" would, I suppose, advocate respecting the environment for the sake of preserving humanity. If the environment is damaged enough humanity is gone.

There is a saying: In order command nature you have to obey it.

[y_feldblum]

Technically, there is no internal contradiction within the sentence. Since no-one owns the air, they do not own the air, and to say that it is as much mine as it is theirs is to say that it is not mine at all. Of course, the idea presented is a contradiction: one with reality, though not with its own floating abstraction self.

Green, there are plenty of essays written by Ayn Rand and other Objectivists detailing the Objectivist stand on the environment and on environmentalism, and the facts, reasons, and values behind that stand.

[Green Capitalist]

could you please explain why my position is in contradiction with reality?

[BurgessLau]

If a clean environment [...]

What do you mean by "clean" and "environment"?

[DavidOdden]

could you please explain why my position is in contradiction with reality?

One step would be to look at the part that Groovenstein emphasized: your implied contradiction that no one owns the air, but at the same time it is both mine and theirs. The major problem with your claim, though, is the package deal of "being an environmentalist". What it means to "be an environmentalist" is to oppose use of technology and manufacturing for any aspects of human existence. That certainly precludes any use of petrochemicals, or drilling for oil, for any purpose; it means that a tree can be cut down only as immediate life-saving measures; paved roads are certainly anathema to the movement (and unnecessary since manufacturing would be forbidden). Above all, "being an environmentalist" means that you view the primary purpose of government is to prevent people from having any detectable effect on the planet, even a temporary one. For an environmentalist, the ideal situation is that man is returned to a primitive hunter-gatherer state where we roam in small packs, occasionally trapping small rodents to eat and foraging for nuts, berries and grubs. The contradiction becomes clearer when you remember that in those days -- not so long ago -- when man lived like that, man was not healthier. Disease was rampant, and living past 30 was unusual. This is why it is against your self-interest to "be an environmentalist".

There are some other concrete concerns about pollution that are worth thinking about, but they have nothing to do with "being an environmentalist".

[Groovenstein]

The contradiction becomes clearer when you remember that in those days -- not so long ago -- when man lived like that, man was not healthier. Disease was rampant, and living past 30 was unusual.

Yup. And though they might pay it lip service, some of these folks are actually quite open about health not being their goal. To quote a short passage from the Counting Crows song "Big Yellow Taxi":

"Farmer, farmer, put away your DDT. I don't care about spots on my apples; leave me the birds and the bees."

I don't even need to put anything in bold or italics or anything. It's right there for all to see.

[Hal]

What it means to "be an environmentalist" is to oppose use of technology and manufacturing for any aspects of human existence....

According to who? Would most of those who label themselves environmentalists agree with your definition? I've certainly never heard anyone define the movement in this way before.

[DavidOdden]

According to who? Would most of those who label themselves environmentalists agree with your definition? I've certainly never heard anyone define the movement in this way before.

Mine was not a 'definition' of environmentalism, it was an identification. An identification precedes by observing the essential characteristics that distinguish one group of existents from another, so what you have to do is see what ideas environmentalists have in common, which distinguish them from other, normal humans. The "environmentalists" would probably self-characterize in some other way, but that doesn't matter: what matters is what the essential characteristics of "being an environmentalist" are.

It's also important to identify the totality of their beliefs, and not pick on one or two specific practices. For example, there are simple economic advantages to no-till agriculture, a practice which does not automatically brand one as an eco-terrorist environmentalist hippy. Locally, they have been studying worm science and understanding better how worms aren't just cute little slimy things, they actually are a farmer's friend. The essential question is whether man should be food for worms, or should worms be harnessed to work for man. I vote for the latter.

[RationalBiker]

The essential question is whether man should be food for worms, or should worms be harnessed to work for man. I vote for the latter.

And since worms have yet to figure out the concept of voting, that about cinches it at this point.

Man has my vote too!

Edited June 4, 2005 by RationalCop

[Capitalism Forever]

For an environmentalist, the ideal situation is that man is returned to a primitive hunter-gatherer state where we roam in small packs, occasionally trapping small rodents to eat

Don't forget that many environmentalists are vegetarians, too.

[Capitalism Forever]

According to who? Would most of those who label themselves environmentalists agree with your definition?

Does that matter? Can environmentalists be relied on to define concepts objectively?

[skap35]

No one owns the air I breathe, so how can people polute it if it is as much mine as it is theirs?

Because you have given implied concent to pollute the air you breath. There is a demand for things like cars, electricity, and oil. All these things cause pollution when they are produced. So as long as there is a demand for these things, then there will be smog producing factories.

The fact that you purchase these items implies that you accept the cost to manufacture them. This not only includes the monetary cost of production but the hidden costs like the pollution that went into the air when your car was rolling through the factory.

If you believe that these factories don't have a right to pollute the air you breathe, I suggest you boycott all pollution-producing industries at once.

If you simply think that industries need stiffer anti-pollution measures, then you must be willing to pay the higher costs for your goods. And I can safely say that most people are not willing to pay the extra cost.

The point of my argument is that you pay a certain price for living in society. By living in society you have agreed to give up certain freedoms. In my opinion, one of the freedoms you give up by living in society is perfectly clean air. Because by living in society, you depend on things that inevitably cause pollution.

[DavidOdden]

Because you have given implied concent to pollute the air you breath.  There is a demand for things like cars, electricity, and oil.  All these things cause pollution when they are produced.  So as long as there is a demand for these things, then there will be smog producing factories.

The fact that you purchase these items implies that you accept the cost to manufacture them.

From a legal POV, I half-way like that argument. Tomorrow, it might be noticeably more than half. It's a nice counterpart to the concept of implied warranty, and a reinforcement of one of the fundamental principle of contracts, caveat emptor. I'm curious, does anyone know if someone has previously made the argument (in print, in particular) that a person who buys goods when they know (or should have known) that pollution results when they are manufactured, thereby waives any right to claim damages?

[y_feldblum]

I don't like that argument at all.

No one has the right to have the "environment" - i.e., the entire rest of the universe - in exactly the state he wishes it. One has the right to act in order to better his own condition, not to have any condition he wants handed to him. Given that everybody has the right to act in order to better his own condition, nobody has the right to prevent anybody else from so doing, in this case, the right to demand others from acting in a way which changes the environment - again, the entire rest of the universe - in a way which of which the demander does not approve.

A person has the right to appropriate property from its original, unowned state. In the case of early America, the settlers had the right to appropriate property in the West, since nobody owned it before they came along. (Such appropriation must, naturally, follow objective law.) "Public property" is another example. The air seems to be such property, just as many bodies of water are, which is why such conflicts of interest and economic problems arise. They always arise when the context is the contradiction of enforced non-ownership of property. The principle based on which to find the solution, then, is evident.

[JMeganSnow]

Ugh what a mess.

If you don't like smog, no one is stopping you from buying a parcel of land out in the middle of freakin' nowhere, building a cabin, and refusing to have anything to do with anyone. If you choose to live in a city, then you are going to have to suck it up.

The type of air pollution that actually harms human beings (causing asthma attacks and what have you) is too heavy to make it to the upper atmosphere; it's very localized.

Don't like water pollution? Don't buy from companies that cut corners. Or, buy a water purification system for your home and don't drink the raw stuff that comes out of the tap. Or, buy bottled water. Or, don't eat fish out of Lake Erie. Or, shell out some cash for organizations that regularly test water quality to get an email report.

"But Jenni, those are expensive!" Not as expensive as EPA regulations. Not as expensive as telling the government that people don't have the absolute right to dispose of their property as they see fit.

[DavidOdden]

I don't like that argument at all.

No one has the right to have the "environment" - i.e., the entire rest of the universe - in exactly the state he wishes it.

True, but that's not how I understand the argument. Whatever right might be properly claimed, it is abandoned by consent, be it express or implied.

[JMeganSnow]

I think I agree with y_feldblum, though, David. If you have to give consent for pollution, that means that you do have an initial right to an "unpolluted" environment. To be provided by whom? By what means?

It amounts to the right to dictate what other users can do with their property. I am not at all certain it's feasible to apply private-property rights to air, either. It's even difficult with water as far as I understand. Do you know anything about how property rights are applied to water that could help us better understand the idea?

[DavidOdden]

I think I agree with y_feldblum, though, David.  If you have to give consent for pollution, that means that you do have an initial right to an "unpolluted" environment.  To be provided by whom?  By what means?

Still, I feel like sticking with this point just to make it clear. I'm not saying that you have a right to an "unpolluted environment" or that you have to give consent: I'm saying that any such putative right has been waived via implied consent.

I don't really know how to reduce pollution to a rights issue (and I am only marginally interested in doing so, since I think the proper solution is economic persuasion). Let's reduce this to a hopefully clear case. Suppose I decide I want to eliminate some pesky squirrels living on my property, by releasing 10 tons of chlorine gas into the air (on my property). This kills the squirrels -- I'm find since my house us upwind, and I was wearing a gas mask. Unfortunately my downwind neighbor Boris was not wearing a gas mask, so he also died, when the wind carried the gas to his property. Now the question is whether his widow Natasha has the right to some form of compensation from me, and if so, on what basis? The "on what basis" question is really the important one.

[Groovenstein]

Now the question is whether his widow Natasha has the right to some form of compensation from me, and if so, on what basis?

Since you meant to keep this a simple example, I'm assuming that you think wrongful death would be a proper theory of recovery here.

This sounds like straight up, simple negligence to me, and thus all the questions that arise in negligence issues would arise here. Did you know about the downwind? Would a reasonable person have known? Was the death a reasonably foreseeable consequence of your action? What alternative means of disposing of the squirrels were available? Should you have known about them? Would you have been able to obtain them? And so on . . . (Any gripes you have with negligence as it stands would apply to all negligence issues, not just this one.)

The right violated is the same as it is elsewhere. Don't touch my body, so to speak. I don't think you have to "invent" any new right. Something came into contact with Boris' body without his permission, and you made it happen. Your facts don't suggest in any way that Boris expressly consented to your use of the chemicals. And I think implied consent in this case isn't there either. You didn't notify Boris or anything.

I think pollution presents interesting issues only because of proof problems. If you can't show a direct harm, I say no recovery. If you can (like in Boomer v. Atlantic Cement IIRC), then recovery. Air is only the medium through which you commit the act. Whether it's a bullet or toxic chemicals, the harmful object has to travel through something. Are you not responsible for a bullet that you fire because it has to travel through air to do its dirty work?

[DavidOdden]

The right violated is the same as it is elsewhere. Don't touch my body, so to speak. I don't think you have to "invent" any new right.  Something came into contact with Boris' body without his permission, and you made it happen.

...

I think pollution presents interesting issues only because of proof problems.  If you can't show a direct harm, I say no recovery.

Well, once you put it that way, it's pretty straightforward.

[skap35]

It amounts to the right to dictate what other users can do with their property.  I am not at all certain it's feasible to apply private-property rights to air, either.  It's even difficult with water as far as I understand.  Do you know anything about how property rights are applied to water that could help us better understand the idea?

A similar issue, which is fairly common is noise. If I start blasting heavy metal music at 4am, as long as it's on my property, should I be allowed to do it? As my neighbor, do you have a right to peace and quiet on your property?

Legally, as far as I understand it, the noise issue is handled as follows: If I've owned my property for 20 years and someone decides to build a bar next door, I would likely win the court case because I purchased that land, expecting there to not be any sources of loud noise. However, if I buy a house right next to a bar, then try to have it shut down for noise, I have no case. When I purchased the house, I saw the bar, I knew bars were loud, so I consented to the noise by making that purchase.

The same goes for pollution: If I buy a house next door to an oil refinery, or if I move to a big city, I've accepted the condition that the property was in when I bought it. However, if I live up in the mountains and some company decides to build an oil refinery right next to me, then I have a case against them.

[y_feldblum]

The butterfly across the world is actually at fault in the Boris case, since it was the final straw which set a trans-global chain of environmental events in motion which resulted in the death. Some well-meaning person in Japan set the butterfly free in his back yard, the same butterfly which, the same day, his grade-school child caught and brought home. The child should have known better. She should have known catching butterflies can often have these kinds of drastic consequences.

To counter Groovenstein's point, the universe comes into contact with Boris' body every second of the day, whether by his permission or not. Boris does not have the right to his own perfect universe. You have the right to act to better your condition. As part of this general right, you have the right to appropriate any previously unappropriated property you come accross, and if you do not wish to appropriate it, you nevertheless have the right to use it as you wish until someone else appropriates it.

Pollution presents interesting issues because it is today's capitalistic profit or exploitation of labor, which presented interesting issues in its day. There is no such thing, at least under a non-contradictory, capitalistic, rational, private-ownership society. Pollution arises as a consequence of the contradiction that is public or otherwise unownable property, or, in other words, as a consequence of the contradiction that is socialism (in its present incarnation, environmentalism).

The question of full ownership of land, sea, and air is a question for advanced study in the fields of philosophy and law, not really one for this board: I have no answer, nor do I know how to come up with one. However, I do know the principles involved.

[y_feldblum]

As a special case, everybody should be able to blast heavy metal music whenever and wherever he wants, and to demand payment for doing so. The same is not true of any other kind of music.

In general, that law is right. It is the same type of case as what we saw in a previous thread, on the topic of "walling in" one person by buying up all the property surrounding his house and then forbidding him passage. However, it only is valid as far as the pollution is pollution of your property, or as far as the new neighbor's actions adversely affect you on your own property. It should not cover the case of pollution of unowned property.