Pro-Environment & Anti-Capitalism
Most people want a cleaner environment. Very few people want more pollution or a worse environment. This is based on the assumption that people would prefer cleaner water and air over polluted water and air, ceteris paribus. Meaning if everything else would stay exactly the same people would want less pollution, not more. They prefer a cleaner environment over a polluted one. This brings up two questions: Does that mean everyone is an environmentalist? Why do companies and countries pollute?
The first question was a bit of a joke. But to a degree, based on my assumption, yes, everyone is an environmentalist. If we all prefer a clean environment over not a clean environment, we are all environmentalists. But answering the second question, people care more about other things more than the environment.
A country pollutes to ensure its economy continues to function, including promoting jobs and low inflation. A company pollutes to keep costs down and increase profits. Many environmentalists (at least from my experience, which isn’t much, but enough to get an understanding) blame capitalism for pollution. And thus blame capitalism for the destruction of our climate.
This is a fair argument. What’s destroying our earth? Using too many non-renewable resources and pollution. What entities are using these resources and which are polluting? Companies that are built in a capitalist country looking for a profit. Therefore, pollution and degradation of the environment are due to “greedy capitalists”. Makes sense.
These people still prefer a cleaner environment over a dirty one. But they prefer the profits they gain from their business even more. And these businesses happen to pollute. These companies would not pollute if it didn’t make them any money to do so.
This is where environmentalists go wrong. They make a few common claims which are not grounded in a lot of logic.
1. If we didn’t have capitalism we would have a clean environment
This could be true, I guess based on how much pollution was created since the industrial revolution you could claim it is capitalism, but could just be a coincidence. But what we do know is that without capitalism millions of people would starve to death. And I can confidently say these people would prefer life over a clean environment.
2. We need to tax or put restrictions on companies to prevent pollution and the use of nonrenewable energy
This is a good start, incentivizing companies to not do the thing you want them to do less of. The sin tax! The problem is that the sin tax only works when you don’t have any other options than to pay the tax or don’t the thing. Instead, businesses move their production to other countries to do their polluting, where there is no tax or restrictions. And this is what has been happening.
We try to limit CO2 emissions in the United States through taxes and restrictions. So what did many businesses that emitted CO2 in the United States do? They moved their production to China. As long as the cost of the production and shipping from China to the United States is less than the tax incurred by the CO2 they will move their production. Therefore, we see a decrease in CO2 emissions in the United States! But an equal increase in China. So the sin does not work here.
The next claim would be to have a world law restricting pollution. This could work through cap n trade laws. The problem is how do you create such an entity that can coerce others to its will without creating a world government? A world government brings a whole slew of problems that I won’t get into here.
3. Businesses need to not be so greedy and need to care more about the environment
This is the worst, yet I feel, a most common argument from environmentalists. The argument is grounded on business owners’ need to be more empathetic. That they need to not care so much about profits but about the damage their production produces.
Our economy, business, and investors run based on making a profit. It doesn’t matter how many protests, speeches, or chants you do. Business owners, first and foremost, care about profits. That’s how the world works, that’s how we have food on our table, a phone or computer you are reading this on, a roof over our head, transportation, entertainment, that’s how we have everything.
Trying to pull on the empathetic strings of business owners is just the wrong approach. Instead, focus on the claim that businesses are greedy. Use that to your advantage. Why do businesses pollute? It maximizes profit. What if, not polluting, increases profit? A subsidy for example.
Read here about why people are inherently apathetic.
If a business doesn’t pollute and uses renewable resources the government gives them a tax break or funds them for using environmentally friendly practices. If the tax break or subsidy is great enough the business will stop polluting and stop using fossil fuels. This is because businesses are greedy and try to maximize their profits! Use their greediness to your advantage, environmentalists!
I mention this in What’s Wrong with the EPA’s Poor Agenda?
Businesses don’t understand empathy, but they do understand profits. Focus on what the business wants and reward them for it by doing what you want, in this case, reward them for cleaning up the environment.