Phosphorus comes into the picture in the form of agricultural runoff that pollutes Lake Erie, recently making the Toledo water supply temporarily undrinkable. Krugman blames this kind of thing on libertarians, who, he says, endorse an idea of freedom that includes the freedom to pollute one’s neighbor’s water supply.
Sadly, Krugman’s knowledge of the libertarian position on environmental economics seems to be limited to what he hears on talk radio and what he reads on conservative web sites like Red State. That is problem No. 1: Krugman pretends not to understand the difference between conservatism and libertarianism. He should start by reading Friedrich Hayek’s classic essay “Why I am Not a Conservative,” but maybe he can’t tear himself away from Red State.
According to Krugman, libertarians believe that “anyone who worries about the environment is engaged in scare tactics to further a big-government agenda.” In truth, real libertarians care very much about environmental issues. They just see them through a different lens than Krugman does.
Libertarians view pollution and other environmental harms as violations of property rights. Dumping phosphorus in your neighbor’s drinking water, they say, is no different than dumping a can of garbage on her lawn. As libertarian writer Roy Cordato puts it, environmental issues are “not about harming the environment, but about human conflict over the use of physical resources . . . It is logical that both the origin and the solution of the problem is to be found in a lack of clearly defined or enforced property rights.” That theme is developed at great length by libertarian environmentalists such as those at the Property and Environmental Research Center (PERC). And by the way, when libertarians talk of “property rights,” they include the rights to protect one’s own lungs and blood stream from pollution and other harms, on the principle that we are all “owners” of our own bodies.
Just how do libertarian environmentalists propose that we protect ourselves and our property from polluters? Surprise, surprise! Libertarians do not all agree, just as Krugman and his liberal friends do not all see eye-to-eye on, say, how best to implement healthcare reform.
Some libertarian writers emphasize the use of tort law to sue polluters for damages or to obtain cease-and-desist orders. As Krugman notes, many of them advocate tort reform—but not, as he would have it, reforms that weaken tort law. Instead, they want reforms that would make it easier for pollution victims to prevail in court.
Others favor the use of market-based mechanisms like pollution taxes and cap-and-trade mechanisms. Libertarians who advocate these approaches to protecting the rights of pollution victims find many allies among liberal environmentalists like Gernot Wagner of the Environmental Defense Fund, author of the book “But Will the Planet Notice.” Many of my earlier posts, most recently this series, have explored the pros and cons of the differing approaches that libertarians propose for protection of the environment.
The bottom line: Anti-environmentalist rants like those found on conservative talk radio and web sites like “Red State” are not representative of libertarian thinking on the environment. The sad truth is that Paul Krugman is probably not really ignorant of that fact. It’s just that he can’t avoid the temptation to take a cheap shot.