The Tragedy of the Commons is perhaps one of the most profound and most commonly referenced writings on property rights ever developed, including that of those resources provided by the environment, renewable or not.((Garret Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 SCIENCE 1243 (1968).)) As a result of this and subsequent writings, the debate has followed, and never quite stopped relating the most effective way to manage our environmental resources in the most sustainable and economically freeing way to do so.
We have seen over the history of the United States more and more emphasis on property rights and even the rights of corporations in a similar sense. The treatment of corporations in the United States has evolved over the years in progression. Supreme Court decisions have continued to swing the pendulum on the amount of rights reserved for corporations. These decisions ultimately have dramatic economic implications overall.
The first of the progression of cases begins in 1809 with Bank of the United States v. Deveaux.((Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 9 U.S. 5 Cranch 61 61 (1809).)) This decision meant businesses could only sue or be sued in federal court if all the shareholders, and at least one member of the opposing party, lived in the same state. The rising amount of rights provided grew to where corporations became legal citizens.((Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, 57 U.S. 16 How. 314 314 (1853).)) This meant they did not have the same constitutional rights as actual people, but for litigation purposes, shareholders would be considered citizens of their company’s home state.((Id.))
Several more cases followed leaving to more modern cases including when The Federal Elections Commission blocked the conservative nonprofit Citizens United from airing a film about Hillary Clinton prior to the 2008 election. This was based on a law barring companies from using their funds for election related communications within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.((Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U. S. (2010).))
The organization sued, arguing that, because people’s campaign donations are a protected form of speech and corporations and people enjoy the same legal rights, the government cannot limit a corporation’s independent political donations. The Supreme Court agreed.((Id.)) The Citizens United ruling may be arguably the most sweeping expansion of corporate personhood to date. This decision is still making waves in the current presidential election with one of the leading candidates promising to overturn the ruling.((Sanders, B. Money in Politics. BernieSanders.com. April, 2016. https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics.))
Regardless of your stance on corporations legally being people with the right to free speech, they also have religious rights according to a recent and highly debated ruling.((Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2782 (2014).)) In 2012, Hobby Lobby store chain, sued the federal government, arguing that a provision in the Affordable Care Act requiring it to provide contraception coverage for employees violated shareholders’ constitutional rights to freedom of religion.((Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-354 (last visited Apr 18, 2016).)) The Supreme Court found that corporations can assert the religious rights of their owners, and greatly expanding the power of shareholders.((Id.))
So, what the HELL does this have to do with the conversation on environmental policy?
Well, to start, there can be a lot to compare and contrast from the rights given to corporations and those given to shareholders or the corporate “entity” as a whole. There is an argument that more rights should be given to groups that represent specific resources across the globe or in one particular country. There are already organizations that act on behalf of specific resources when there are violations of acts, and advocate for the purpose of lobbying, or other support activities. However, aren’t we all “shareholders” of the air? Whether or not we “own” stock in air is irrelevant. We all do, so by comparison, why should these organizations not have the same rights as corporate entities? Because there is no “property” rights established for the air? Or is it because there’s no monetary interest, and as such it gets left behind?
There have been several property rights theories thrown around over the years to solve this issue, which boiled down to its most simplistic issue, is the tragedy of the commons, but for less tangible resources. It’s pretty basic why this hasn’t already been solved, the atmosphere and oceans are much more difficult to subdivide than farmland in Wisconsin.
The Trump administration has taken several steps to seemingly negate a lot of the environmental protection acts that have been developed from legacy administrations. It seems to be troublesome for many as they feel like the environment is in dire need of support from the areas that are not inherently protected based on those established through property rights. In an age of technology, the government is also simultaneously trying to “level the playing field” with many foreign countries that are subsidizing industries and that do not have as stringent environmental statutes that the United States has.
This might not be the inherently wrong approach from a macro-economic view, in a similar application to the Tragedy of the Commons. To analogize, the world is our “farm,” and only some of us are doing the right things with the resources we have available from the environment, while others are ransacking the farm to get every little bit they can from the earth. What is the best method for survival in this environment? Join in the ransacking to ensure we at least are able to eat (figuratively speaking) or coordinate across countries to form a cohesive alliance to address these issues to set rules and guidelines so the farmland does not become bare and destroyed. The Trump administration, right or wrong, seems to be moving toward the “ransacking” methodology, which, if analogized, is better than being in limbo of your own rules with no coordination. What is at stake however, is much more impactful than one farm in one economic subdivision of the world. This is THE world, with complexities that cannot be completely translated to that of a farm.