I am pursuing a masters in Library and Information Science (no, I don’t want to work for a government library) and as an assignment for one of my classes I have to create a list of resources on the topic of environmental ethics (I didn’t pick the topic) and evaluate those resources. One of the books I found is called “Ecology, Economics, Ethics: The Broken Circle” edited by Herbert, Bormann and Kellert. I found one particular passage quite hilarious and thought I would share it with you.
“Free riders in industrial countries include owners and employees of wood-product, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic enterprises based on tropical forest resources, and citizens of industrial countries who benefit from climactic, water, and wildlife protection provided by the forest. Woldwide interests are clearly furthered when Brazil, Indonesia, or Gabon sets aside new areas in parks and forest reserves. It is therefore apparent that the constituency for tropical conservation is worldwide. But because most of this constituency consists of free riders, who cannot be excluded from these benefits (so long as they last), free rides have little incentive to pay for the benefits and may even be unaware they are partaking of the benefits.” ( P. 175 - 176 in the Yale University Press hardback edition.)
Of course privatizing forests would be one way to deal with this “problem” to the extent that it exists; but somehow I do not think that the authors or editors would go for THAT solution.