In timeless apocalyptic fashion, California is burning. Over
500,000 acres of thick, dry bushes and trees have been scorched,
leveling over 1,500 homes and threatening 30,000 others.
And, in response to this overwhelming force that we surely
cannot defeat by ourselves, we enlist the government to do the job
for us. To be sure, this faith in government is neither new nor
mysterious. We are all at ease knowing that 10,000 firefighters are
battling the ferocious fires in our name. We will live to see
another day. But, as a more thorough analysis of this issue will
illustrate, it is Uncle Sam himself who has set fire to
California’s forests.
Note the primary locations of these fires: Cleveland National
Forest, San Bernardino National Forest, Los Padres National Forest,
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park ““ in short, public
property. That privately owned forests (which make up 45 percent of
California forestry) have not contributed to this inferno is no
surprise. The reason is simple: Private landowners have more
incentive to trim, cultivate and tend to their forests than the
government has to care for its.
The government should put California forests up for sale. Doing
so would not only benefit the economy but would also protect the
environment. This isn’t a new idea. Throughout the southern
and southeastern United States, private forests take in vast
earnings by selling a big portion of the nation’s lumber.
They have an interest in logging and replanting ““ thinning
forests, selling wood for profit, and planting trees again.
As Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. of the Ludwig von Mises Institute
points out, “The family owned forests of the South are just
as much a part of the free enterprise economy as Silicon Valley or
multinational oil conglomerates. And the South also features huge
private nature preserves like Callaway Gardens. This, too, is part
of the capitalist way.”
It quite simply is in the best interest of private companies to
protect their land. According to the Pacific Lumber Company’s
Web site, “Our current best management practices
significantly exceed state forest practice rules.” And
according to the Coastal Lumber Company: “As careful stewards
of the land, it is our responsibility to take the action that is
best for today’s forests and at the same time best for the
forests of tomorrow.”
Thankfully, the government is starting to realize that private
companies can manage fire risks. President George W. Bush’s
2002 “Healthy Forest” initiative asked Congress to help
“expedite procedures for forest thinning and restoration
projects” by granting private companies the license to manage
forest parcels. A CNN.com article even quotes officials who note
that dry underbrush is often a major cause of fires. By allowing
companies to use the forest while maintaining high environmental
standards, the initiative provides a sound first step to forest
deregulation.
But under pressure from various environmental organizations, the
federal government still maintains control over vast areas of
forestry, aiming to preserve America’s rich environment. But
the law of unintended consequences is unavoidable. Eventually, the
dark side of untamed nature shows its face ““ rampant,
disastrous fires sweep through the forests and into villages and
cities. This is what is happening now.
By transferring ownership of public lands to individuals, this
easily can be avoided. The United States of America is the freest,
richest and most industrialized country in the world, so one
naturally would expect that it has the worst track record for
environmental preservation.
Not so, according to the late economist Julian Simon. In
“It’s Getting Better All the Time,” he writes,
“By some estimates, there are more trees in North America
today than there were the day Columbus arrived on this continent
some 500 years ago. “¦ Currently, the Forest Service reports
that the United States is growing about 22 million net new cubic
feet of wood a year and harvesting only 16.5 million ““ a net
increase of 36 percent a year.”
What this means is that the “anti-environment
capitalist” stereotype is fake. Under a relatively free
market economy, the United States has prospered industrially and
economically; the capitalists who are accused of hating the
environment, in their pure pursuit of profit, also have bettered
the environment.
Again, the explanation for this is no mystery: It lies in the
very nature of governments, individuals and their relation to
property. Government is not as productive as private institutions.
Its profit comes from a constant influx of taxes and is largely
independent of its deeds.
Individuals, on the other hand, do not have an unlimited supply
of money. They must earn it through free, mutually beneficial trade
with others. Companies that use and reuse forests to make wood
products depend on the affluence of the forest for their survival.
With no wood, they have no jobs.
So whereas the government has no interest whatsoever in
minimizing the danger of fire in its forests, the individual has
every bit of interest. The former has nothing to lose; the latter,
everything.
This lesson in economics has yet to be recognized and applied.
The federal government owns nearly one-third of land in the United
States. Public lands and forestry lead to astonishing governmental
power, the downfall of our economy, and the burning of countless
acres of our ecosystem.
George Washington once said, “Government is not reason, it
is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and
a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to
irresponsible action.”
It is time for individuals to reclaim the environment ““
for the environment’s sake and for their own.
Hovannisian is a first-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu.