As a kid, I was often told "to leave a place better than how I had found it," and as someone who lives on this planet, I want to make sure that when I leave, our planet is in a better state than when I arrived. Brandeis is filled with passionate people who care about reducing our country's impact on the environment. However, simply caring about the environment is not enough. Actions need to be taken. I believe the best way to give people the opportunity to reduce our damage to the environment can be found through the free market.

Free market environmentalism is a philosophy that believes that property rights, tort law and the free market are the best way to preserve our environment. Before I explain why Free market environmentalism is the best option for protecting the environment, I need to clear up several assumptions people make about the free market. Firstly, in a free market, people are not going to automatically choose the option that produces the greatest profit, regardless of the societal costs. 

Rather, capitalism is a system in which people have the freedom to choose what they desire. For some, this is choosing the option that maximizes profits, but for others, it is about using your money to buy products that reflect your values. 

Secondly, there are assumptions that a free market conflicts with environmental protections. It is assumed that companies will pollute more because it is cheaper to do so. In reality, several studies have been done which illustrate that countries that are more economically free have a stronger economic performance. A study done in 2012 by Yale University and the Heritage Foundation proved that "Economically freer countries throughout the world continue to outperform their repressed counterparts on environmental protection." Moreover, it is important to note that in a free market, the government has a role, which is to protect the private property of individuals. 

This does not conflict with the free market because this is not interference in the market, rather guaranteeing that people are free to choose what course of action they wish insofar as it does not harm another. 

One of the biggest questions revolving around environmental damage is who takes responsibility for a common good. For example, what is stopping a company from polluting a river that feeds through a major town because it is cheaper to dispose of their waste as opposed to finding a greener alternative? In a totally free market, which protects everyone's private property, companies would invest money in controlling their pollution so they do not harm someone else's property. Currently, regulations serve as an excuse to pollute. As long as the company passes its inspections, its pollution is considered acceptable. In a private market, companies would be held directly responsible for their actions and would have to pay for the excessive damages. The liability that companies face because of their pollution is a strong deterrent against harming the environment, as long as the entity is privately owned.
Once the good becomes a common good, there is no longer as strong of an incentive to protect the environment. If someone owns something, he or she is going to do whatever is necessary to protect it and prevent it from harming others. They feel responsible for it. People care about things that they have a claim to. By eliminating private property, the individual's stake in maintaining his or her property is reduced. 

A perfect example of this is the Love Canal neighbourhood in Niagara Falls, N.Y. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Love Canal was a waste dump operated by the Hooker Chemical Company. The company was so concerned about making sure that the waste did not run onto other people's property, so that it would not have to pay the damages, that its environmental protections at the time met the 1980 standards of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

In 1953, the Niagara Falls City school district needed to build new schools for a booming city. It decided that its school would be located on this dumpsite. When the school board approached the HCC to buy the land, HCC declined, citing the safety concerns of having a school on a toxic waste dump. 

However, the school board threatened HCC with condemning or expropriating the property. HCC then agreed to sell the property to the school board, but only for one dollar and with a large caveat in the sale about the dangers of building on the site. The government not only ignored this statement, but also built low-income and single family residences on adjacent properties. The building of these properties unearthed toxic waste that had been buried for safety. 

The damage this caused was unknown for about 25 years, until studies found horrifying statistics about the people living around this area. One study found that 56 percent of children born near Love Canal between 1974 and 1978 had at least one birth defect. Another found that 33 percent of the residents had chromosomal damage. Voles in the area were found to have a lifespan of about half as long as compared to voles that were not exposed to this toxic waste. 

All of this was caused by government interference in the marketplace. If not for the government, HCC would have continued to protect its property from harming others because its welfare was concerned. 

Its aim may not have been to protect the environment, but because of a free market system, in which the only role of the government is to protect property, the environment and the people were better off. While I sincerely and honestly wish that this were just a one-time occasion of government interference destroying an ecosystem, that is not the case. Overwhelmingly, private interests are better at caring for the environment than government bureaucrats. 

In 1920, a government bounty was put on seals and sea lions on the Oregon coast. Bounty hunters would have earned over $120,000 a year in 2010, directly because of this government incentive. After all, the sea lion and seal populations were eating a lot of fish that was needed to feed people, which was hurting their economy and environment. This was just the government interfering in the economy and the environment to help the environment and economy.

In 1927, R.E. Clanton purchased the largest sea cave and protected sea lions from bounty hunters. A few years later, he opened up the Sea Lion Caves to attract visitors. Now, each year over 200,000 people visit the Sea Lion Caves, and since 1964 the sea lion population has quadrupled. By privatizing a cave, previously a "common good," one person has been able to essentially save sea lions in Oregon. This freedom to acquire and protect private property has been both economically and environmentally beneficial.

I was often told to leave a place better than how I had found it, and as a free market environmentalist, I plan on leaving this world both economically and environmentally better than when I arrived.
*