Polls have consistently show that Millennials and Generation Z rank climate and environmental issues among their top political concerns. The next generation is environmentally conscious, as evidenced by youth marches, school strikes and trending Instagram graphics. Interestingly, polls also show that younger generations are fond of big government, top-down legislation and even socialism, with 70 percent saying they would vote for a socialist. The voting habits of Millennials and Gen Z indicate that despite their deep environmental concerns, they still do not know how to care for our environment, often advocating policies and approaches that will not achieve the desired result: a healthy and prosperous planet.
Environmentalists and center-left politicians whose interest in environmental issues is rhetorical often prioritize preservation, while those who work closely with natural resources prefer preservation.
To understand the different approaches, imagine an outdoor enthusiast who has purchased land hoping to spend time with nature.
A conservationist would argue that the outdoorsman can access their land and enjoy its inherent natural beauty, but any alteration to its ecosystem would disrupt its intrinsic value; therefore, the land should be left alone.
A conservationist, on the other hand, would encourage the outdoorsman to actively steward the earth. He might plant a grove of native fruit trees or hunt to make sure the local wildlife doesn’t overpopulate. Conservation efforts require the outdoor enthusiast to participate and improve their environment, for the long-term benefit of both.
If the outdoorsman chooses conservation, its responsible management will increase the value of the land – a definite plus for a landowner. This incentive holds the outdoor enthusiast accountable, acting like a check. Clearly defined property rights discourage the misuse or mismanagement of resources.
Illustrating this dynamic is Garret Hardin’s classic 1968 article “The tragedy of the commonsin which he describes a shepherd faced with a choice about the use of a common pasture.
The shepherd, noting that the land was open to all, assumed no responsibility for the upkeep of the pasture. Realizing this, he concludes that adding an animal to his herd would increase his profit at no additional cost to himself. His fellow shepherds each come to the same conclusion, and each acting in their own interests, the pasture is soon overgrazed, resulting in underdeveloped livestock and barren land, at great cost to all.
“Therein lies the tragedy,” concludes Hardin. “Every man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination to which all men rush, each pursuing his own self-interest in a society that believes in Freedom in the Commons Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
Hardin’s story demonstrates that effective resource management relies on good incentives, which are best derived from ownership. Owners have an incentive to use resources sustainably, because failure to do so would bring their own misfortune. In Hardin’s parable, environmental degradation occurs because no shepherd owns the pasture, so no one has the incentive to ensure it is used sustainably.
Young people are right to be concerned about environmental challenges, including climate change, plastic pollution of the oceans and the National Park Deferred Maintenance Backlog. What these challenges have in common, however, is that no entity is made to feel the consequences of their neglect. The tragedy of the commons demonstrates why, for all their concern, activists should not rely on the federal government to adequately address environmental issues.
The strongest incentive to protect property is ownership, where individuals must face the consequences (both positive and negative) of their actions. Simply Explain according to the philosopher Aristotle, “people pay the greatest attention to what belongs to them; they care less about what is common. This is why environmental approaches favoring preservation and common property pale in comparison to the results obtained by private conservation.
As young people around the world continue to advocate for a healthy planet, they would do well to adopt clearly defined property rights and conservation practices. By encouraging interaction with our surroundings, we will not only achieve better environmental outcomes, but we will also foster a culture rooted in a love of natural places.