WOPA051228_D156

Editor’s note: Charles Bedford, the state director for The Nature Conservancy in Colorado, is living and working in China for the next year and will be writing about conservation issues there for Cool Green Science. Read all his posts.

Everywhere I’ve been outside of the United States in the last few years has a property system that looks like the classic regulated “commons,”or resources that are collectively owned. For example:

  • Mongolia‘s lands are owned by the “people” (try doing a title search for that).
  • China‘s land is owned by a variety of government agencies with conflicting mandates, and they are in the midst of their third or fourth land reform, heading toward privatization of some of the “bundles of sticks,” or rights, that make up each parcel of property.
  • The forests and seas of Indonesia are owned by the government and sold off to resource extraction companies to raise funds for government’s general operating budgets.

These shared resources, like all commons, begin to fail when too much pressure is placed on them. But what to do about that?

Garrett Hardin’s influential 1968 Science magazine article, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” seems more prescient now than ever as I witness the mining of the oceans’ protein, overgrazing of the world’s last great grassland to produce wool for the fashion industry, the degradation of clean air and water, and the destruction of forests that harbor enormous biodiversity, protect the watersheds of people and store more carbon than any of the most wildest sci-fi fantasies about carbon capture.

What resource will we have left to leave our children? The bumper sticker cry of the anti-environmentalist backlash of the 1980s (“Earth first, we’ll mine the other planets later”) is beginning to sound like the collective official policy of the governments of the world — most of whom are not thinking about what they leave future generations, but merely how to get re-elected in four years.

China’s land reform steps have each been toward a more vested property rights system. I am now taking a crash course in this movement, since it will truly determine what the country looks like, what wild nature remains, what ecological systems will stay intact, etc over the next 70 years — which is the length of the leasehold interest being offered in many cases for rural land.

One of the great things about the United States is that we have done a reasonably good job of maintaining biodiversity in a strong private property rights system through tools such as:

We evolved these tools from a base of pure private property rights that relied on tort law (or the ability to sue your neighbor for damages that s/he caused your land) as a way to protect the common good.

In China, the evolution is happening the other way around: Since 1949, land has been held by the government for the common good, and government is now tacking on attributes of private ownership to specific parcels of land. It would be easy to layer on the old English private property system and have the common good fade away — allowing one’s neighbor to build a hog slaughter facility next to the preschool.

Many of us, especially in the western United States, believe in a strong private property system, but we also have the luxury of living in a region of low population density and great natural resources. Given the massive population of China and the demand here for natural resources, such unfettered deregulation and privatization would cause further degradation of the air and water resources, of soil stability and of wildlife habitat.

China’s government, in search of what they call “ecological civilization,” seems to be headed down a different path. The country is unclear at the moment what that path will produce — but it certainly knows it’s unable to stay where it is now.

(Image: Thousand Turtles on Laojun Mountain in China. Credit: Deng Jia.)

If you believe in the work we’re doing, please lend a hand.

Comments

  1. Earth First…We will mine the other planets later.
    I have seen t-shirts saying this or something to that effect on Colorado School of Mines’ t-shirts over the last years. Maybe it is not so 80′s anymore. And they think it is funny…
    If we are teaching our students this… can we really complain about other countries?

  2. These T-shirts are supposed to be funny and indeed they are…the CSM is a mining educational institution. It teaches folks how to mine…is this bad? Is mining bad? Mining improves our standard of living…period! Can it be done better, of course? Mining helped build our country…why the hate???

    How many greeting cards, lit sneakers, cool trade show trinkets, throw-away toys, etc. have you bought and thrown away that have little batteries in them? These little battery uses are stupid and pollute our world with heavy metals needlessly.

    Mining’s benefits must be weighed against the disturbance caused as should every other of man’s activity…like cars-SUVs, Starbucks coffee cups, even City marathons (cups, mailers, etc.). hating mining is so hypocritical…so silly. We just need to stop being wasteful.

  3. It is Great!

Add a Comment