Tim Worstall

George Monbiot Says Something Sensible Shocker!

Very much a surprise today:

Could it be true, as the neoliberals insist, that markets can do more to change the world than governments?

Yes George, as the rest of your article goes on to prove. And that’s liberals please, no neo- about it.

We environmentalists developed a picture of the world that seemed to be
repeatedly confirmed by experience. Big corporations destroy the
environment. They are the enemies of society. The bigger they become,
the less they can be constrained by democracy or consumer power. The
politics of scale permit them to bully governments, tear up standards,
and reshape the world to suit them.

Right, right, remote big business doesn’t listen to the consumer.

But hardly anyone believed that change could happen so fast. Through
the 80s and 90s, they brushed us off like dust. Then, as a result of
powerful campaigns against sweatshops in the US and Europe, some of the
big clothing and sports retailers broke ranks. Soon after that, the
energy companies started announcing big investments in renewable
technologies (though not, unfortunately, any corresponding
disinvestments in fossil fuel). But the supermarkets have shifted
faster than anyone else. Environmental campaigners are partly
responsible (listen to how the superstore bosses keep name-checking the
green pressure groups); even so, their sudden conversion leaves us
reeling.

Oh, you mean they do listen? More than politicians do?

If so, it reflects democratic failure as much as market success. Held
back by forces both real and imagined, politicians have failed to
confront the environmental crisis, just as they have failed to tackle
inequality, or to challenge the power of the White House, the media
barons, the corporations and the banks.

I’m sorry, politicians have failed to challenge the power of the White House? Err, George, the White House is politics.

The big retailers are competing to convince us that they are greener
than their rivals, and this should make us glad. But we still need
governments, and we still need campaigners.

Sure. We need governments, just as we need campaigners. But as you note, retailers (not just big ones) listen to consumers and react faster than politicians and governments. Excellent, now that you’re onside can we have more of this please? Free market environmentalism it’s called and it works.

In

7 responses

  1. sanbikinoriaon Avatar
    sanbikinoriaon

    It only works if the consumers care. That’s the real challenge.

    Reply
  2. Gus Abraham Avatar
    Gus Abraham

    Tim – can you give us a top ten of “free market environmentalism” working? Okay, a top five would do. In other words when a serious environmental problem was stopped or seriously improved without recourse to legislation or regulation. I can think of any. CFcs in aerosols maybe, I think that was after threatened legislation. The problem is the market. The market can’t be the solution.
    Tim adds: Well, as it happens, I’ve just been asked to do a book on this very subject. Out in the summer, assuming I get it written. Without recourse to any legislation or regulation? Certainly not: that’s making the assumption that “free markets” means something entirely free of any regulation, whether legislative, communal, societal or customary. Markets are created, built, by human beings: we cannot have a market in land without there being clear rules about property ownserhip and its transfer now, can we?
    But putting aside that, working on the basis that we have two methods of solving an environmental problem: we can regulate or legislate to try and directly control or limit the activity, or we can regulate or legislate to create markets, which will do the controlling, then yes, easy to provide examples.
    Enclosure and private ownership of agricultural land solved the over use of common land. The private ownership and trading of fishing rights (Norway, Faroes, Iceland) works better than the CFP. The SO2 pollution permits market in the US brough that pollution down faster than anyone had even hoped would be possible.
    The system of collection and recycling of car batteries in the UK pre 1990 was an entirely private sector affair. Had higher recycling and lower fly tipping rates than we do now. Same with car scrapping.
    Ronald Coase pointed out that private property rights have indeed been successfully used to compensate for and limit pollution from mine tailings.
    The ultimate environmental problem a few decades ago was thought to be the population explosion. That’s been solved by free market means: people have got rich and so have fewer children (90% of changes in fertility are to do with changes in desired fertility, not availability of contraception, let alone regulation or legislation on the number of children you may have).
    Environmental problems you didn’t know we had which are solved by free markets? Well, seen any abandoned Ferraris around recently? Or are they recycled? Seen those piles of discarded gold jewelry all over the place? Or are they all dealt with by a thriving private sector?

    Reply
  3. Gus Abraham Avatar
    Gus Abraham

    Not a lot of Ferraris round here Tim!
    I’m assuming that the ‘privatising the commons’ is a joke but I’ll take your recycling of car batteries as one, though of course the problem may be that we have to stop using cars, not that we have to recycle their toxic waste by-products better?
    Here’s another way to look at it.
    Is oil sustainable? If so what would be a ‘free market’ solution to fossil fuels. I’m guessing you’ll have a stab at carbon trading.
    Or another – fags and seatbelts? Lets say that you could at some point have a diminishing market, so I suppose it would get back to the old Tory adage (was it Nigellas dad?) on unemployment, a price worth paying.
    So for your book you’d have to factor in a) scale of environmental problem b) timescale for solution c) cost of this timescale.
    Tick tock.
    Tim adds: The free market solution to fossil fuels? I thought everyone knew that one? hydrogen powered solid oxide fuel cells of course. That I’m a salesman for one of the vital components of solid oxide fuel cells that use hydrogen has nothing, of course, to do wtih that being the right solution.

    Reply
  4. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    All of the supermajors have pretty strict environmental procedures, and often these are more stringent that the government regulations of the country in which they are operating.
    The reason for this is that the major private oil companies have a reputation to uphold, and set themselves higher standards than those required in order to protect it. Indeed, several countries – the UAE for one – adopted the Shell environmental regulations lock, stock, and barrel as its governmental regulations.

    Reply
  5. HJHJ Avatar
    HJHJ

    It was Norman Lamont who described unemployment as “a price worth paying” to reduce inflation. It was not an ‘old adage’.
    Harsh though this might have seemed, Lamont was correct. He is also given insufficient credit for his achievements. The ERM fiasco was not his policy – it was forced on him by John Major – and, of course, the Labour party’s only criticism was that we didn’t enter sooner and at a higher rate. The subsequent policy of inflation rate targetting (for whch Brown claims credit) was actuallly put in place by Lamont.
    As for free market environmentalism, we can all debate whether a true free market or a regulated one is best. What is clear, however, is that either is better than the non-free market approach practised in, for example, the Soviet Union.
    My personal view is that a more free (i.e. less regulated) approach would probably work better than at present. At the moment, we expect (government) regulation and rely on this to control companies. If we did not expect regulation, then I suspect that direct consumer pressure would be stronger. Companies would provide services to other companies to work out how they can become more environmentally friendly and to demonstrate it to their customers. Independent assessments (with all the free market benefits of being non-state controlled) would become a big business.

    Reply
  6. Gus Abraham Avatar
    Gus Abraham

    Ah – it was Norman of course, your quite right.
    When you say ‘the major private oil companies have a reputation to uphold’ – what do you mean exactly? Shell in Ogoni? Brent Spar? Exxon greenwashing?
    The irony of course of citing Russia is galling. People used to say “if you like communism so much why dont you go and live in Russia?” Now I can say the same to capitalists.
    Oliver James is good on the psychological aspect of this disastrous course your defending:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1997280,00.html
    Tim adds: Well, of course, it turned out that Shell were right about Brent Spar and Greenpeace wrong. Oliver James? Keep an eye on The Times for my views on that.

    Reply
  7. Gus Abraham Avatar
    Gus Abraham

    Hi Tim – in relation ot Brent Spar – is this the old “dumping at sea creates reefs and shelter for fish” notion?
    No comeback on the environmentalism of Exxon Mobile or Ogoni Shell? Is Ken Saro-Wiwa’s family aware of the benefits of free market environmentalism? I think we should be told.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading