Yes to Protecting the Environment

Amazingly, I read in today's newspaper that government regulation to protect the environment is a conservative/liberal issue. We should reframe the debate to where it is a human/ecological issue, and we should endeavor to broaden our perspective.

I gain insight to this problem sitting at my home along the James River, which marks the navigation route through which settlers began exploring the West in the 17th century. Where I live, the land is privately owned on both sides of the river. There is limited public access. Birds and fish are plentiful, as well as a variety of mammals. Boaters enjoy the river in man-powered and motor-powered watercraft. Man and nature seem to be in pretty good balance. People laugh and have fun, and the wildlife seems to get along with us just fine.

Compare this relatively clean ecological environment to public beaches you have visited. What would the beaches look like after a few days if the government didn't provide clean-up and oversight services? Now, expand your view to our planet, as humans become more and more populous. Why should it surprise anyone that just like the public beach, we need our governments internationally to take reasonable steps to protect the environment?

In economics, we learn that it is appropriate for governments to play a role when a matter of concern is a public good. If there is more of a public good than the environment, where the actions of the Americans, Chinese, Russians and Arabs (and everyone else) affect one another, then I would love to know what it is.

So, I hope that cooler heads will prevail on whether the environment should be embraced by conservatives, or whether it is a liberal issue. In my view, those who refuse to embrace the environmental as a multi-governmental issue are more properly characterized as the small-minded folk, who are parroting parochial opinions in contrast to the big-picture thinkers.

Robert Thalhimer