Edward Gonzalez advocates the strict protection of life and property rights against all forms of hazardous pollution.

When discussing the environment, the largest issues are the conservation of natural resources, pollution, and global warming.  Although all related to the environment, these are separate issues which merit their own discussions.

 The conservation of natural resources is, in my estimation, the most straight-forward of the environmental problems.  The fast depletion of natural resources is a direct result of government ignoring the principles of economics and not establishing the basic protection of private property that is essential for a free market to flourish.  I will use water conservation as an example.  In California, the water is government owned and regulated.  They establish the quantity of reservoirs and the price of the water.  Every summer there are water shortages that require the government to implement rationing.    In a free market where the government protects private property, this would not be a problem.

 If an individual or business owned a reservoir and there was not much rain that year, they would raise prices.  The rise in price would encourage people to use less water in their everyday use and there would be no shortage of water.  The government however, does not allow this natural free market process to take place.  The government owns the sources of water and keeps prices artificially low because of political pressure.  This encourages people to over consume thereby leading to shortages which then require rationing.  The free market has the built in price mechanism which encourages conservation of scarce resources.  This concept can be applied to water, forests, oil, and all other resources which people are concerned will run out one day.  No one likes high water or gas prices, but allowing the price of water and gas to move to their free market price levels will naturally encourage conservation without government rationing being required in the future.

 In addition, allowing private business to compete and make a profit will lead to better technology.  California has a very large body of water located on its border, The Pacific Ocean.  Currently, desalinization (the method of turning sea water into drinking water) is an expensive and energy intensive technology.  As a result of government regulation and control, entrepreneurs have no incentive to enter that business and develop new, more efficient technology.  If government removed their own regulations and protected property rights, progress in technology would all happen naturally.

 The problem of pollution becomes more complicated.  I define pollution as contamination of the surrounding environment.  The industrial revolution has brought mankind incredible strides in quality of life, but I believe our legal system has lagged in providing logical protections based in the protection of natural rights.  The foundation of a free society is based on the principle that all men have the equal rights to life, liberty, and property.  Poisonous chemicals entering an individual’s body or private property without consent is an encroachment on these rights and in contradiction to a free society.  Our government must fight against this encroachment.  However, a zero pollution policy would mean that any individual who released smoke from a fireplace or barbeque would be a criminal.  I believe that is an extreme not desirable in society.  So the question then becomes what is an acceptable level of pollution?  This is a difficult question with no clear cut answer.  As we pursue the answer our elected representatives, scientists, and judges must dig into the facts to make logical, sustainable, and healthy conclusions.  All this is certainly in the realm of government.

 I find the current mania that is sweeping the world concerning global warming troubling.  The protection of our environment has become closely linked to “green” technologies and companies all clamoring for government tax money to subsidize their special projects.  These politically minded companies stand to gain billions or trillions of dollars in tax funds, so they lobby politicians vigorously and employ their own scientists to draw certain conclusions.  These conclusions are usually in the form of a grave emergency that needs immediate attention and massive amounts of government funding. Environmental protection has become more about obtaining subsidies than protecting the environment. 

 The solution is to make environmental protection a purely legal matter.  Let us define what the acceptable level of pollution is and hold all accountable to that standard.  Allow individuals and businesses to act accordingly.  There certainly will be a great amount of wealth to be made in green technologies, but free market entrepreneurs should lead the way, not political entrepreneurs competing for tax money. 

 Allow legal scholars and scientist to investigate pollution without the political pressure; allow entrepreneurs to allocate their resources and develop businesses accordingly, and our country will be able to enter a new age of technological advancements.