Re: save waters & fish from socialism's destruction

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JohnAndrew) writes:

>My first reaction is to get furious at this junk; my second reaction
>is to laugh.
>
>Let's save the Everglades from "socialism" - in Jeb Bush's state of
>Florida.
>
>LOL!!!!
>
>It's appalling that there actually are libertarians, or people calling
>themselves libertarians, who are so block-headed or so ideologically
>obsessed not to see the absurdity in this.
>
>You might as well be detected "socialism" in the New York Stock
>Exchange ... but you're not going to see this, are you?  Because you
>don't want to.  Oh, well.

This is as selective as the original post, merely in the other direction. Take,
say, whaling - left to market forces, this unprofitable industry would be long
dead, yet every whaling nation props it up with government subsidies to
safeguard jobs. Someone interviewed recently in New Scientist magazine went so
far as to assert that more whales are being hunted now under government
patronage than at the height of the historical whaling era. European subsidies
for fishing fleets and for farmers have had disastrous effects in some areas -
the decline in bird populations in the UK as a result of the subsidy-based
Common Agricultural Policy have been a cause for concern for many years.
Large-scale logging is frequently the consequence of government patronage (eg,
Indonesia under Suharto) or large national projects like the Brazilian
initiative to turn a third or half of the Amazon into farmland. Meanwhile,
socialist governments like that in China insist on erecting enormous dams in
environmentally-sensitive areas to provide as much power for as many people as
possible. On the other hand, economic factors have the potential to be hugely
beneficial - the move away from chemical pesticides in developed nations is the
result of consumers' growing desire for organic foods, and the whole concept of
boycotting products over principles relies on the existence of a market
economy. The most effective way to protect areas is to make it economically
attractive to do so for the people in those areas.

Of course, this is also selective - free-market companies like Fortis have also
been behind destructive dams (in this case in Belize). Numerous species have
been hunted to near, and in some cases even complete, extinction in the quest
for profitable furs, shell or meats. The designation of large protected areas
like national parks relies on the existence of a government owning large tracts
of public land, and private organisations can rarely afford to buy sufficiently
large areas. Nationalised organisations like English Nature and the Wildlife
Trusts have proven efficient at managing conservation in their areas - the
example of reduced water pollution in the UK is valid. It's blinkered and
nonsensical to claim that 'capitalism' or 'socialism' is anti-environmental per
se - both can be both environmentally beneficial and destructive, and both are
needed for effective conservation: the free market to generate the money and
the incentive for people to conserve, the national authorities to identify
areas at most risk and to coordinate conservation efforts within their
territories, as well as to provide legislation like the Clean Air Acts.

Philip Bowles