Capitalism to Save the Environment
Ireland has one of the lowest percentages of forest cover in Europe, with less than a third of the EU average for woodland. Of this paltry figure, over 50 percent is the rightly maligned Sitka Spruce, a non-native conifer, popular for use in MDF and WWII aircraft.
Anyone who has had the pleasure of visiting a Sitka Spruce woodland will know that it’s a dark, hellish tangle of closely set trees, free from birdsong. Since these forests cannot support other species, 6% of Ireland’s entire land area is given up to one organism.
I propose that a free market eradicates this and other externalities associated with central planning, resulting in a species-rich island with an increase in recreation, diversity, and productivity.
Capitalism is a system whereby all property is privately owned, and the government is solely responsible for protecting every individual from physical harm. They are completely removed from economic matters. Ireland is already a relatively free country and is “business-friendly”. We succeed in a variety of industries, with a high GDP.
This effect can be clearly seen in the number of multinational corporations basing themselves in Ireland, creating thousands of high-paid jobs in our cities. The government has taken a back seat, through a low corporation tax rate, and the result, ‘Silicon Dock’, is a marvel for a small rock hanging onto Europe’s coattails.
Under true capitalism, the size of government, and therefore the impact on our freedom, becomes almost negligible. They still exist, but only to protect an individual’s right to their own life. All coercive social programs like healthcare, welfare, etc. are stopped, and left to a free market to resolve. All taxes are greatly reduced, allowing individuals greater opportunity to pursue their own interests.
Some of the issues facing Ireland’s ‘green’, postcard-friendly image include the lack of biodiversity, ineffective management of national parks, and over-abundance of aggressively subsidised, harmful farming practices.
As I mentioned above, over 50% of Ireland’s woodland is given to one kind of tree. The other visible suppressor on biodiversity is sheep farming. These are both heavily subsidised industries. According to Teagasc, in 2015 sheep farmers received over 100% of their income from ‘direct payments’, or welfare. Sheep not only heavily graze our mountains, but every year farmers will burn mountainsides to remove pests, which is highly inconvenient to any nesting birds who might be present. If farmers decide to not farm some of their land in order to improve biodiversity, their direct payments can be reduced. (My own grandfather is a small farmer, and every year he is burdened with more and more paperwork, which does nothing to improve anyone’s quality of life)
When somebody might campaign to ban Sitka Spruce for example, not only are they seemingly powerless in the face of ‘Big Government’, but they are actively paying for the very thing they want to outlaw, without any choice in the matter.
Government are faced with an impossible task. They have to appease farmers by continuing to provide payments. They face pressure from environmental groups, so they adjust the payments to improve biodiversity. This results in our Sitka situation, or people cutting down trees to install subsidised ‘bird-boxes’. They will actively manage Sitka plantations in our national parks and call it wild. The spine-bending and contortionism must be excruciating.
Under true capitalism there is no free lunch. If you cannot produce a liveable income from your work, nobody is forced to bail you out. This is as true for bankers as it is for small farmers. Far from a negative, this encourages innovation and prudent risk-taking in order to seek profit, while punishing reckless gambling and entitlement.
As the wealth of individuals increases, they adjust the quality of the food they eat or the nature of hobbies they undertake. The consumer has the freedom to be more discerning about the farming practices they choose to support, the level of pollution they are willing to accept, etc. That is why I see it as a truly democratic system. The decision is made on the individual level and your effect is felt instantly.
Bealtaine Cottage and Beara Rainforest are two great examples of the level of ecological recovery possible on even modest pieces of land by private individuals. These projects are succeeding in spite of our current system.
I imagine this level of care being applied on a national scale, led by local interests. The possibilities are then endless. New habitat means boundless new animal life and new industries. The reintroduction of forgotten species like beaver, boar, lynx, and wolf, the sustainable management of deer numbers through hunting licences, increase in tourism, provision of New Zealand style hiker’s cabins, a positive effect on rivers and lakes leading to better rafting.
I am not saying that the system of capitalism I am proposing is perfect, but I feel that the benefits of implementing it can affect the majority of stakeholders positively. Those producing our food and drink can specialise and diversify to fulfil market demand, which is better for producers and consumers. Our mountains can be replenished, managed by experts, and supported by anybody who cares, and the knock-on effect would be whole new industries available to the general public.
