THE FREE-MARKET ENVIRONMENTALIST

Environmental Quality/Economic Prosperity - An Achievable Ideal

Volume 1, Number 1

An Introduction

I thought that, perhaps, some personal background would be in order in
this first issue.  Following graduation from the University of
California at Davis in 1979, I was employed as a geologist in an
environmental consulting form.  My career began with the water resources
investigations associated with the Air Force's proposed mobile basing
of the MX missile.  In 1981, Reagan decided to use the existing,
hardened silos rather than mobile basing.  I hope national security was
served because my job certainty certainly wasn't.

I took my walking papers and enrolled in graduate school.  After several
years of graduate studies, I reentered the workplace and began focusing
on ground-water contamination issues.  This entailed interesting
problems, such as oil slicks floating on ground water, surface pond
leakage into subsurface soils, and contaminatiot migration in low-
permeability ground-water aquifers.

Eventually, I realized that our services were being rendered to "the
environment" rather than to human beings.  This is the crux of
environmentalism ("The Toxicity of Environmentalism") George Reisman
has summarized as follows: "The environment is considered to be a
value in and of itself, apart from its relation to humab being."
human being." FME is dedicated to providing an alternative to the
environmental ethic by upholding the principle that the environment
should serve human beings.

Owning the Air: A Market Alternative to the Clean Air Act

The value of free markets is widely recognized as their ability to
produce those goods and services for which property rights are easily
stipulated.  Air has generally not been viewed as being amenable to the
application of property rights.  This article, an extension of the air
rights example in FME December 1990, will demonstrate how property
rights apply to air.

First, let's review the present method of mandating standards.  In late
1990, the Clean Air Act was amended.  Amond other things, the revised
Act mandates reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from
tailpipe exhaust.  The mandate is based on the assertion that VOCs
cause the formation of ozone, one of the principal components of smog.
The EPA has been striving for years to reduce VOC emissions from
automobiles.  In fact, from 1974 to 1988, VOCs were reduced by more
than 40 percent in American urban areas.  However, the average level
of ozone INCREASED slightly during that time.

The EPA has estimated that controls on nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon
emissions will add $100 to the price of new automobiles.  However, a
Brookings Institute study has shown that regulations that raise car
costs slow the turnover of cars, leaving more old cars on the road.
These cars burn fuel less efficiently and generate higher emissions.
Pre-1981 cars now account for 83 percent of all VOC emissions. (Warren
Brooks, "Will Senate Declare War on Family Autos?" Human Events, Feb 3,
1990; and Rose Gutfeld, "Clean Air Proposal Eventually May Add As Much
as $600 to Car Sticker Prices," Wall Street Journal, Oct 11, 1990.)

Air pollution is a complex issue.  As such, it requires a principled
approach that allows the incorporation of new information while insuring
flexibility to address the problem.  These requirements can be met by a
free market.

What Is Pollution?

The first thing required is a better definition of pollution.  Today,
pollution is commonly considered to consist of industrial wastes that
adversely affect human life.  However, this definition is too narrow.
It needs to be expanded to include non-manmade sources because nature
is also a polluter of the environment.  Edith Efron (The Apocalyptics,
Chapter 4) lists numerous examples of natural pollution including the
following:

* Radioactivity of uranium in the earth's crust

* Sulfur dioxide (SO2) that occurs naturally in air.

* Metals such as arsenic, that are emitted from plants and degassing of
the earth's crust

* Asbestos contained in the earth's soil and rocks.

* Hydrocarbon emissions from forests which exceed man's contribution to
the atmosphere sixfold.

These facts may seem surprising, but are understandable when we realize
that, strictly speaking, man does not create new matter; he merely
reforms it.  Elements from wastes in industrial processes are not
created out of thin air; rather, they are merely different forms or
combinations of elements that already exist.

In this context, the question becomes: If pollution exists in nature
outside of man's influence, how do we define it?  Pollutants can be
defined in relation to their affect on human life.  Elements in the
natural or manmade world that adversely affect human life should be
considered pollutants.

Counter to prevailing perceptions, industry, for the most part, reduces
pollution.  When we modify and control our environment, we can reduce
our exposure to pollutants.  In fact, increasing industrialization has
actually increased our life span.  The average American life span has
increased from 47 in 1900 to 74 years today (Elizabeth Whelan, 1985,
Toxic Terror, p. 255.)

The optimum solution to pollution is usually more technology.  Simply
by living in a house we remove dust and other airborne aerosols from
our immediate environment.  Switching from a 1000-megawatt coal-burning
plant to an equivalent size nuclear plant reduces the plant waste from
3 million tons to 50 tons of waste per year (Dixy Lee Ray, 1990,
Trashing The Planet, p. 134.)

However, let's suppose for some reason, other than government regulatory
restrictions, a switchover to nuclear is not feasible.  Or, alterna-
tively, most of a region's air pollution is from automobiles rather
than heavy industry such as coal-burning power plants.  In this case,
continued population growth and the associated air pollution could
have a net affect on some people.  To prevent this, property rights
need to be established for air.

The Father of Property Rights

John Locke is properly considered the father of property rights.  In the
17th century, he defined two key concepts underlying property ownership:
exclusivity and transferability.  He noted that until there is a demand
for a resource, it belongs to the "commons."  Locke realized that people
who find or develop new resources must develop a method to exclude their
newly claimed property from the commons.  In the case of land exclusiv-
ity, it could be established by fencing the property.  Transferability,
allows owners to trade their property.  This is often facilitated
through the use of legal contracts.

An additional feature of ownership is, of course, liability.  When we
use or sell our property, we must not infringe upon the rights of
others.  For instance, if a piece of machinery malfunctions and injures
someone during normal useage the equipment manufacturer can be held
liable for the injury.

Now we have a framework from which we can apply property rights to air.
To apply exclusivity, we define rights for those aspects of air that
are in demand, such as ozone concentrations, VOCs, etc.  With adequate
foresight, the new owners of an undeveloped area could stipulate air
rights prior to the start of development.  In already developed areas,
one method for initiating a market for air rights is an auction.

Initiating the Market for Air

To initiate the market for property rights a limited government
presence is appropriate.  In a free society, government's function is to
protect individual rights.  If the rate of growth of an area proceeds
ahead of the evolution of the appropriate property rights, some
individuals may have their rights infringed.  Without the stipulation
of rights, people can use a resource without being fully liable for
their actions.  The government, by initiating the auction, in this
limited context, is taking action to prevent rights violations.

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that a few large companies
purchase the available air rights for the area.  At this juncture, the
the rights (exclusivity) and liability belong to those companies.
These companies can, in turn, sell (transfer) those rights in the form
of effluent fees or permits.  (The same principles apply if a large
number of individuals or companies purchase the air rights.  The
difference is that the legal contractual arrangements will become more
complicated.)

Let's use VOCs as an example.  A company owning rights to VOCs can add
or subtract VOCs so long as there is no harm to others or their prop-
erty.  The owner needs to understand the nature of his property in order
to dispose of it responsibly.  In the case of air, this probably means
conducting some sort of scientific investigation to understand the local
physical and chemical reactions that affect VOC concentrations.  The
owner needs this knowledge to know what levels of VOC effluents are
safe.  Knowing this he can use the resource responsibly and thereby
avoid liability problems.

Using this knowledge, the owner can assess an effluent fee to individu-
als wishing to purchase access to this resource.  If the fee is too
low, effluents in an area may become too high and as a result human
health may be adversely affected.  This would cause the owner incur
liability.  His potential liability, therefore, provides the appropri-
ate motivation for him to maintain a monitoring program and optimize
the fee.

Transferability of the air rights can be accomplished by several
methods.  For mobile sources of VOCs, (automobiles, etc.) access to
the resource (transfer) can be accomplished by a highway toll.  For
stationary sources, businesses can be metered as with utilities.

Market competition would insure that fair fees are charged for the air
rights.  Overcharging would make a company vulnerable to competitive
pressures, such as corporate buyouts, as with any other type of
business.

This approach is flexible and open-ended, as is the case in any free
market.  For example, highway tolls may work well in areas of high
density but not in those of low density.  Or, nature's pollution
constributions in a certain area may far exceed man's and rates could
be lowered accotdingly.  The participants in the air market would
determine how best to buy and sell the rights, as with any other
commodity in the free market.

In other instances, the government would need to intercede to provide
further definition to the property rights of the parties involved.  For
instance, during monitoring, new chemical reactions might be discovered
which indicate one owner's effluent is reacting with another owner's
effluent, thereby necessitating redefinition of their respective air
property liability.

The Moral Case for Air Rights

Decisions pertaining to the disposal of property are complex.  Evalu-
ation of an action's costs vs. benefits require individual judgement.  A
government agency can never know the values and specific context that an
individual considers when making a judgement.  As a result, when the
government mandates controls it must rely on force to uphold them.  But
force is not a valid substitute for individual judgement.  This contra-
diction is the source of the economic inefficiencies associated with
controls.  The Clean Air Act is one more example of this principle
failing to work in practice.

This is why government needs to be restricted to the principle of
preventing the use of force in human relationships.  Market forces can
flourish when property rights are well defined.  In cases where property
rights are infringed an impartial arbiter, i.e., the government, is
needed.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, FME will challenge the idea that
the environment is a value apart from its relation to human well being.
This idea is the fundamental moral principle underlying the environ-
mental movement.  (George Reisman, "The Toxicity of Environmentalism,"
1990, The Jefferson School of Philosophy, Economics, and Psychology.)

An alternate moral outlook was developed by Ayn Rand.  Her ethical
system is founded on the principle that human beings must pursue values
to sustain life.  In her system, nature is a value only in relation to
human life.  In evaluating the facts of nature, man considers the
conditions of his life, and then places a value on nature.  Depending
on his context, he may want to keep it in its natural state, or pave it
over with a four-lane highway.

What do these moral outlooks have to do with air pollution?  Rand's
system gives a theoretical grounding for dealing with uncertainty in air
pollution issues.  Nature does not provide us with automatic knowledge
of how to pursue our values.  We are not programmed like animals.  No
one knows all of the chemical and physical parameters and reactions
that occur in the atmosphere.  The EPA has proven that by the fact that
when VOCs emissions were reduced ozone levels increased.  Yet, it is in
our nature to continue to try to improve the conditions of our lives,
which in turn means the use of industry with its associated air efflu-
ents.

Earlier is was stated that monitoring of urban areas would be necessary
to establish appropriate levels of effluent.  Deciding the level and
extent of monitoring is a complex issue.  Liability gives incentives
for implementing a monitoring program.  Anyone who disposes of their
property, in this case an air effluent, must be responsible for it.
But at a certain point, the costs of monitoring outweigh their benefit.
Does the owner monitor every street, or every other street, or every
1000 feet, etc.?

Eventually the owner must decide on a level of monitoring considering
the relevant, available facts.  If private property rights for air
becomes a possibility, environmentalists will undoubtedly challenge it
by claiming that no one can know for certain what will happen in the
atmosphere.  And they will be right.  This is where Rand's principle of
acting to sustain life, even in the face of uncertainty, must be invok-
ed.  It allows industry and the owners of air effluent rights to act on
the knowledge they have.  They will be innocent until proven guilty.  It
will be up to the environmentalists to prove that certain levels of
effluent are harmful.

Fortunately, there is a historical practice to support this theory:
namely, the +200 years of industrial development that have occurred
since the industrial revolution.  People in technologically advanced
countries live longer at a higher standard of living than nonindustrial-
ized countries.  Pollution reduction is possible by using higher levels
of technology.  These are facts, and when we combine them with Rand's
moral outlook we have a supporting theory.  In other words, property
rights for air is the appropriate approach based on theory and practice.

Summary

To develop a comprehensive case for air rights we need both a theoreti-
cal basis and practial application.  The theory rests on the idea that
values are rooted in life and the environment is a value only in
relation to human life.  This idea frees us to use the environment even
though there is a level of uncertainty involved in our actions.  In
order to prevent one person's actions from infringing on another's,
the principle of property rights must be applied.  Government's
function is to uphold the institution of property rights and arbitrate
disputes over their boundaries.  The use of property rights allows for
a free market for the use of effluents in air.  Air rights are
economically efficient because they are based on property rights which
allow individual choice in the market.

The Case For Privatizing Science

It is a common perception that scientists represent the highest height
of objectivity and rational thought.  Indeed, to be a scientist
requires an unfailing commitment to the principle of objectivity.
Observation to hypothesis, to experimentation, to peer review, and
eventually to publication can be a grueling process for the scientist
in pursuit of new insights into nature.  Unfortunately, changes in 20th
century philosophy have exacted the price of objectivity from scientific
pursuits.

In the early 20th century, the principle that the individual should
serve society was becoming increasingly accepted.  This principle
formed the basis of political systems in Communist Russia and Nazi
Germany.  Although England lagged somewhat behind, in 1945 Winston
Churchill was defeated and the socialist Labor party came into power.
In the U.S. Franklin Roosevelt and his "braintrust" of the 1930s and
1940s promulgated the "New Deal" and its alphabet soup of government
agencies.  Rex Tugwell, one of the leading architects of the "New Deal,"
commented: "We are turning away form the entrusting of crucial decisions
... to individuals who are motivated by private interests." (L. Peikoff,
The Ominous Parallels, 1982, p. 279)

This thinking began creeping into the world of science in the 1930s.  In
1939, J. D. Bernal wrote that science has a "social function."  This
sort of thinking gained momentum with the realization that technologic-
ally advanced weapons could bring an early conclusion to World War II.
Funding of the Manhattan Project brought scientists such as Robert
Oppenheimer into the public eye.

Subsidized Science Begins

In 1963, the Office of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
recommended the development of a national science policy.  OECD
recommended that scientific activities be "coordinated through a
central agency, and that it be integrated with public policy."
Between 1963 and 1973, federal spending on general science more than
doubled from $263 to $726 million (T.D. Long, ed., 1975, Science
Policies of Industrial Nations, chapters 1 and 7.)

Science and its offspring, technology, can indeed fulfill a social
function.  In terms of national defense, the use of science and
technology protects the public.  That so few American causalties have
occurred in the war with Iraq directly relates to the U.S. military's
overwhelming technological superiority.

Science also has a social function in the context of a free market.
When people are free to apply science and technology to their lives,
products and services can be developed more efficiently and at lower
cost, thus enabling more people to purchase these same good and
services.

However, these are not the functions currently envisioned for science.
By the 1960s, "serving society" had come to mean acting in an altruistic
and nonprofit-seeking manner.  For science to serve, it followed that it
should be Federally funded.

In a market situation, consumer demand drives the flow of resources.
However, when a government funds an activity, that activity is, by
definition, removed from market forces.  Individual choice and the
supply and demand of the market no longer function.  The vacuum they
leave is instead filled by a "consensus."

The Scientific Consensus

In a subsidized area of study, government administrators allocate its
funding.  Since the administrators are not experts in these fields they
must rely on "established" experts.  Because they lack even the know-
ledge to pick qualified experts they must rely on reputation.  (Ayn
Rand, "The Establishing of an Establishment," Philosophy Who Needs It,
1982.)

When the large-scale science funding was beginning in the 1960s the
"established" environmental "experts" included Rachel Carson, Paul
Ehrlich, Barry Commoner, and the like.  According to them, the earth
has an "egg-shell delicacy" and the "unity" of life is very fragile.
These are the principles of holistic biology and resource economics
and they form the foundation of thought for the environmental "scientific
consensus." (See FME Dec 1990 for details.)

Other more general philosophic ideas were also incorporated into the
scientific establishment in the 1960s.  For several centuries, Western
philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, had been promulgating theories
that had undercut man's independent ratioanl faculty.  Kant said the
senses were not valid.  This led to the idea that reality was subjective
rather than objective.  These ideas were being promoted by scientific
philosophers in the early 1960s.

Sir Karl Popper stated that scientific discovery was not a rational
process, but that in validating theories there was objectivity.  Popper's
student, Paul Feyerbend, took thingws even further: "Scientific method
... is but an ornament which makes us forget that a position of anything
goes has in fact been adopted."

In 1962, science philosopher Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions, that has since been widely read in the scientific
community.  Kuhn discussed how scientific paradigms (comprehensive
theories) came to be accepted.  He stated that scientists "...must have
faith that the new paradigm will succeed with the many large problems
that confront it, knowing only that the older paradigm has failed with
a few.  A decision of that kind can only be made on faith." (James
Lennox, 1981, "The Anti-Philosophy of Science," The Objectivist
Forum.)

>From Theory to Practice

Let's review the effects of these ideas on the practice of science.  It
is illuminating to trace their effects in a particular field.  Edith
Efron (The Apocalyptics, 1984) has done this in the field of cancer
research.  (Page numbers enclosed by parentheses in the following
paragraphs refer to Efron's book.)  Efron identified Umberto Saffiotti
as one of the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) leaders in developing
public policy in the 1970s.  Saffiotti developed the regulatory
approach for testing chemicals as potential carcinogens.  The basis for
his approach is exemplified by the following statement:

"I consider cancer as a social disease, largely caused by external
agents which are derived from our technology conditioned by our societal
lifestyle and whose control is dependent on societal actions and
policies." (p. 84)

His use of language should be carefully noted.  He didn't say "the
evidence indicates," but rather "I consider."  The form of his statement
appears to be more of a philosophic pronouncement than a scientific
statement.  What Saffiotti neglected to state is that nature is FULL
of carcinogens.  Carcinogens occur in soil, plants, and the atmosphere.
Cancer existed long before modern civilization.  Evidence of cancerous
tumors have been found in Egyptian mummies and dinosaur skeletons (p.
135-176).  What makes a substance toxic, is the dose (p. 344).  For
instance, sunlight is necessary for human life, but excessive exposure
to the ultraviolet rays in sunlight can cause skin cancer.

These facts had been published in the scientific literature for years
at the time of Saffiotti's pronouncements on how the government should
regulate cancer.  Nevertheless, Saffiotti stated that the most prudent
policy regarding the approval of chemicals for general use is to
"consider all agents, for which the evidence is not clearly negative
under accepted minimum conditions of observation, as if they were
positive... In other words, for a prudent toxilogical policy a chemical
should be considered guilty until proven innocent." (p. 85).  In other
words, industry is bad and nature is good.

But at the time of his statement, in 1976, few industrial chemicals had
been tested for carcinogenic properties (p. 85).  Clearly, Saffiotti
allowed ideology to warp his scientific judgement.  A competent scien-
tist, in the absence of adequate data, does not make wild speculations
about the dangers of industrial chemicals while ignoring the data on
natural ones.

In 1978, Joseph Califano, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
(HEW) released a draft report on the hazards of occupational cancer.
The report was released WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW.  The study
predicted approximately 2 million deaths over the next 30 years among
workers in industries that involved exposure to asbestos.

Initially, the only authors of the study listed were the National
Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS).  Four days after the report's release, list
of "contributors" was issued that included two administrative heads
of agencies.  In terms of scientific convention, this still amounted to
an authorless study since no one took primary responsibility for the
work.  The contributors were merely listed in alphabetical order.

The number of deaths stated in the HEW study was 1,000 TIMES greater
than any risk assessments present in the scientific literature at the
time of the study's publication (p. 437).  The scientific community was
outraged.  At a meeting organized several days later by NCI they vented
their anger and frustration:

* Richard Peto stated that 4 million men said to be employed in the
asbestos industry were "all being treated as though they had been
asbestos insulators for years.  It's comical."

* Michael Shimkin said that the estimates "are a good deal higher than
might be legitimately based on scientific knowledge we now have" and
called the public release of the unreviewed study "a tragic mistake."

The central flaw in the study was that everyone working in the asbestos
industry was assumed to be in the same risk category as those workers
in the highest risk category.  This methodology was so grossly flawed
that the study was quickly discredited in the scientific community.

Releasing an authorless study for publication without peer review
indicates some motivating factor other than the pursuit of scientific
knowledge.  Now let's see who Califano released the report to.  If some-
one thought that an industry was inherently bad or destructive, how
would they go about discrediting that industry?  Why not approach one
of industry's traditional adversaries, the labor unions, and tell them
that the activities of that particular industry were putting workers at
high risk?  And then why not add a heavy dose of media attention to
really stir things up?  Sound good?  Apparently it sounded good to
Califano because that is EXACTLY what he did.  The report was released
to the AFL-CIO and to the mass media on September 11, 1978 (p. 438).

In retrospect, it is clear that Califano's action was blatantly coer-
cive.  He flagrantly disregarded scientific convention by releasing
what was essentially an anonymous study.  He acted on his vested
interest as a government regulator by portraying the government
regulatory apparatus as the protector of the worker.

The trumped up numbers should have caused a scandal.  And, in fact, they
DID cause a scandal, but a peculiarly silent one.  Within several years
of the study's release, several comprehensive rebuttals of the study
were published that recommended that the study be treated as a "contam-
inant" of the scientific literature (p. 446).

Why didn't the public find out?  Because the controversy stayed within
the scientific community.  The environmental consensus had the "moral
high ground" by portraying themselves as protectors of the worker.  The
published rebuttals appeared only in scientific publications and
primarily in foreign countries.  Scientists in the U.S. who might have
publicly criticized the study were kept on a leash by controlling their
funding.  In fact, no scientist on any federal agency payroll publicly
repudiated the study (p. 442).  In contrast to the moral imperative of
the workers, any criticism by industry could be dismissed as self-
serving.  David Rall, head of the NIEHS, simply dismissed the criticism
of the American Industrial Health Council (AIHC) as "what might be
expected from industry." (p. 440.)

This sort of intimidation is not restricted to cancer research.  In
November 1990 the California ballot carried "Big Green," a sweeping
environmental initiative.  Senator Petris and Assemblyman Campbell
warned the University of California that its state financing would be in
jeopardy in research on the economic effects of "Big Green's" proposed
ban  on pesticides was published before the  election ("U.C. Warned  Over
Research on Big Green," S.F. Chronicle, Oct. 31, 1990.)

The Free-Market Antidote

The "socialization" of science has been a disaster in theory and in
practice.  Today, Saffiotti's "paradigm" on cancer risks is accepted as
truth and as a result costs industry and consumers millions of dollars
by impeding the use of industrial chemicals.  The asbestos scare
perpetrated by Califano put the Manville Corporation, the country's
largest producer of asbestos, into bankruptcy.  A personal injury
settlement trust set up by the Manville Corporation is expected to pay
out 2.5 billion dollars over the next 20 to 30 years (Dixy Lee Ray, 1990,
Trashing The Planet, p. 83.)

Ideology entering the halls of science is one of the most dangerous things
that can happen to a society.  Science as a specialized field of study
effectively prevents the layman from having an intelligent opinion on
scientific issues.  Even scientists become layman outside of their
specialized fields.

Science should serve society within the context of a free market.  The
diversity of the free market prevents the establishment of a coercive
consensus.  It will also act as protection against Kuhn's view of
scientific paradigms.  Consumers of goods and services, scientific or
otherwise, are not interested in the intellectual conformity proposed by
Kuhn.  They want a return on their investment.  Scientists who think
independently and are willing to question the ruling paradigms, when
necessary, will be the ones funded by the market.

In a free market, an additional effect will be an improvement in the
quality of scientific research.  Since the beginning of subsidized
science, the quantity of scientific papers has skyrocketed, but the
quality of research has gone down.  In 1958, James D. Watson became an
associate professor at Harvard University while publishing 18 papers,
including a landmark paper on the structure of DNA.  Today it is not
unusual for a scientist in a similar position to have published 50 to
100 papers.

This greater volume of papers has been due to the intrusion of government
funding into scientific research.  With the increased funding, larger
numbers of people have entered the sciences, and coauthorship of papers
has increased enormously.  Yet, most of these papers contribute little
to scientific knowledge.  This is evidenced by the fact that few of
these papers are ever cited again by future researchers (Broad and Wade,
1983, Betrayers of The Truth, p. 54.)

Summary

The effects described above are the result of the attempt to put into
practice the principle that science is a "social product."  If it is a
social product, it follows that scientists should not go against the
prevailing wisdom of society, i.e., scientific paradigms.  And if it is
a social product, it follows that scientists should be responsive to
society's  needs, i.e., be government funded.  So if scientists, in
essence, can't challenge their society, but still must serve it, they
are left with studying issues of marginal importance, and the scientific
literature is left with an ocean of marginal publications.

The theory doesn't work because it can't work.  Just as individuals must
act on their individual judgement to live, scientists must act on theirs
to perform meaningful research.  A commitment to objectivity is the
scientist's greatest research tool.  Nature's laws are not subject to
majority vote.  Science is not a "social product."

There are scientists who will exercise their  independent judgement no
matter what barriers are put in their way.  These heroic individuals
fuel our industrialized society with their ideas and discoveries.  We
need to free these people by privatising scientific research.

Feedback

Several readers of the December 1990 essay took issue with my presentation
of resource economics.  They pointed out that some resource economists
display a free-market orientation.  I agree.  The most well known group
is probably the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Montana.

However, I was referring to the predominant view endorsed by ecologists
and mainstream environmentalists.  Although, free-market environmentalism
is beginning to grow, it is still a minority viewpoint.  I will try to
address issues as comprehensively as possible, but this will necessitate
concentrating on the predominant views to a certain extent and
addressing other views as space allows.

I greatly appreciate the feedback from readers.  Discussion and debate of
issues can lead to new insights.  Please continue to write in.
---------------
Reproduction is permitted for the purpose of bringing the views of FME
to new readers, so long as copies do not serve as a continuous unpaid
subscription to the recipient.

Copyright: The Free Market Environmantalist
1572D Sycamore Ave., Box  329, Hercules, CA 94547
Mike Gemmell - Editor/Publisher
Subscriptions $48/year, single issues $4.50