A speech by Chuck Olson to the California Libertarian Party, at their convention in Sunnyvale in February, 1993. Revised: November, 1993.
Please listen to the enchanted words of Dr. Seuss:
At the far end of town where the Grickle-grass grows
and the wind smells slow-and-sour when it blows
and no birds ever sing excepting old crows...
is the Street of the Lifted Lorax.
And deep in the Grickle-grass, some people say,
if you look deep enough you can still see, today,
where the Lorax once stood just as long as it could
before somebody lifted the Lorax away.
What was the Lorax? And why was it there?
And why was it lifted and taken somewhere
from the far end of town where the Grickle-grass grows?
The old Once-ler still lives here.
Ask him. He knows. [pp.1-3 of The Lorax (Ref. 1)]
My name is Chuck Olson. I am an environmentalist. I have a deep and abiding love of nature and all of her wonders.
I have never littered. As a boy scout, I learned to always leave a campsite cleaner than it was when I arrived. I still cannot understand those who throw soda cans or candy wrappers upon the ground.
Today I want to tell you about a marvelous book: The Lorax, by Dr. Seuss. It's about: caring about the environment. In Dr. Seuss's own words:
UNLESS someone like you
cares a whole awful lot,
nothing is going to get better.
It's not. [p.58]
The subject of my speech today is the mystery put forth by Dr. Seuss himself: Who was the Lorax? And why was it lifted and taken somewhere?
I must stress that what I tell you today is my interpretation, my own answer to the questions posed by the book. Dr. Seuss speaks only through the book. That being said, let me tell you that, for me, this book is full of symbolism. There are two main characters in the story: the Once-ler and the Lorax. Once-ler is spelled "ONCE-LER". Our task today is to reconcile the Once-ler with the Lorax -- to reconcile humankind with the environment; economics with ecology; our self-interest, or our love of ourselves, with our love of nature.
In the story, the Lorax first appears after the Once-ler chops down a tree. The Lorax pops out of the tree stump and says:
I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees.
I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues. [p.23]
So the question, "Who is the Lorax?" can translate to: "Who speaks for the trees?" Or: "Who protects the environment?" But why was the Lorax lifted and taken somewhere? which can translate to: "Why has the protector of the environment been taken away?
We want to protect nature. To protect something is to say what is or is not done with that something. Those in a position to protect something are by definition able to say how it is or is not to be used. To protect a piece of nature is in essence to claim ownership of that piece of nature.
There are three basic alternatives for ownership: no owner, common or governmental ownership ("We all own it"), and private ownership. No owner means no protector (no Lorax, if you will). And that means anyone can and most likely will use or abuse the resource.
So we are left with private ownership versus common or government ownership. Let's talk about common ownership first.
Aristotle, in his Politics, said: "that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest."
This, by itself, does not bode well for the treatment that commonly owned resources will receive. But there is another more serious problem, which is called: the "Tragedy of the Commons." Let me paraphrase Dr. Garrett Hardin's classic paper of 1968 (Ref. 2), which uses the example of commonly-owned grazing land:
Picture a pasture open to all. Each herdsman will seek to maximize his gain. He asks: "What are the costs and benefits of adding one more animal to my herd?" The profit from the additional animal goes exclusively to the particular herdsman, while a major cost -the additional overgrazing which that animal causes -- is shared by all the herdsman.
The commonly-owned grazing land is inevitably destroyed by overgrazing. It is not rational to destroy a resource, and yet, due to the tragedy of the commons, the rational herdsmen together destroy their land. To quote Dr. Hardin again:
Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush.
I recently heard another excellent and intuitive example of a Tragedy of the Commons: imagine a hot day, and 5 young children, each having a small can of soda pop. Each will drink at what ever pace pleases them. One might guzzle the soda down, another might sip occasionally, a third might save the soda for later. In contrast, imagine pouring the 5 small cans into a bowl, and giving a straw to each of the 5 children. You can see that the bowl of soda pop would empty quickly, probably at an accelerating rate, as the children realize the logic of the situation if they don't drink soon and fast, they may not get any soda at all.
Let me read to you about a tragedy of the commons which really happened. This example is taken from the excellent book Free Market Environmentalism (Ref. 3, pp. 51-52):
Although efforts to reserve millions of acres in the political domain were underway during the late nineteenth century, Mr. and Mrs. W. W. Beck were doing their part to preserve one little corner of the world on the outskirts of Seattle, Washington. In 1887, they bought several parcels of land with giant fir trees reaching 400 feet in height and 20 feet in diameter. The Becks built a pavilion for concerts and nature lectures and added paths, benches, and totem poles. Ravenna Park soon became immensely popular. Visitors paid 25 cents a day or $5 a year ($3 and $60 in 1990 dollars) to enter the park. Even with the fees, 8,000 to 10,000 people visited the park on a busy day.
As the Seattle population grew and conservationist sentiment developed, residents began to lobby for acquiring more public parklands, including Ravenna Park. In 1911, the city bought Ravenna from the Becks for $135,663 following condemnation proceedings. Shortly after the city's acquisition, according to newspaper accounts, the giant firs began disappearing. The Seattle Federation of Women's Clubs confronted Park Superintendent J. W. Thompson with reports of tree cutting. He acknowledged that the large "Roosevelt Tree" had been cut down because it had posed a "threat to public safety." It had been cut into cordwood and sold, Thompson conceded, but only to facilitate its removal and to defray costs. The federation asked a University of Washington forestry professor to investigate. When the women brought the professor's finding that a number of trees had been cut to the attention of the Park Board, the board expressed regret and promised that the cutting would stop. By 1925, however, all the giant fir trees in Ravenna had disappeared. (Ref. 4).
This example illustrates what I call "The Committed Defender Principle". The Becks, as owners of the trees, had an undiluted 100% interest in protecting them. The giant fir trees were protected by the Becks and made accessible for all to enjoy for a span of 24 years.
After the city forcibly acquired the park through condemnation proceedings, the trees became a commons -- the property of "everyone" and thereby lost the one committed defender that they had. Fourteen years later, all the great trees were gone.
The Lorax is a story about the chopping of trees, beautiful Truffula trees, and it is the Once-ler who is chopping them down.
Let me tell you a little bit more about the Once-ler. You never actually see the Once-ler. All that you ever see is a pair of green arms and hands, and eyes peeking out of shutters. He is very thrifty -- he won't turn on the heat in his Lerkim. He makes his own clothes out of miff-muffered moof. And as you'll see later, the Once-ler is a businessman.
Perhaps Dr. Seuss intended the Once-ler to be a caricature of a businessperson. I think however the Once-ler represents something much more general. Throughout the entire story, we never see the Once-ler's face. Perhaps that is because he represents each of us. If you see the Once-ler's face, you see yourself. We are all self-interested. And we all require food and other material resources if we are to survive. You could say that we are each, in our own way, businesspeople.
If you pay him, the Once-ler will tell you his story of how the Lorax got lifted away. It started way back in time when the environment was pure and clean and untouched by man. The Once-ler arrived in his wagon, saw the beautiful Truffula Trees, and realized that he could use their soft tufts to make a useful product: a Thneed!
A Thneed's a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need!
It's a shirt. It's a sock. It's a glove. It's a hat.
But it has other uses. Yes, far beyond that.
You can use it for carpets. For pillows! For sheets!
or curtains! or covers for bicycle seats! [p.24]
Just as the Once-ler is EveryPerson, the Thneed is EveryProduct. Our lives today are dependent on the many thneeds -- the many inventions -- of the past, great and small. We live in a society full of wonders -books, newspapers, video, rapid travel, healthy and varied food, not to mention covers for bicycle seats. our leisure time and indeed our very survival are dependent upon thneeds. Everyone in this room is wearing a thneed. Like it or not, You Need A Thneed. [The Once-ler puts this slogan on his trucks.]
Therefore, a simplistic answer of "Chopping trees is wrong" will not do. We must chop some trees, or we cannot survive. The question is which ones to chop, and who decides?
The most extreme case of common ownership of trees and other natural resources was the long experiment with communism in the former Soviet union and Eastern Europe. These governments did have laws against pollution, but to enforce them would have been an economic cost. It is widely acknowledged that the ecological damage in the former communist countries far exceeds the damage in the Western "capitalist" countries.
In our United States, we also have very extensive "common" ownership of land and natural resources: The U.S. Forest Service has a 2 billion dollar budget, 40,000 employees, and controls 190 million acres.
Let me quote environmentalist Randal O'Toole:
In 1980, 1 blamed all the deficiencies in the markets on greed and big business and thought that government should correct these deficiencies with new laws, regulatory agencies, rational planning, and trade and production restrictions. When that didn't work, I continued to blame the failure on greed and big business.
About 1980, someone suggested to me that maybe government didn't solve environmental or other social problems any better than markets. That idea seemed absurd. After all, this is a democracy, a government of the people, and what the people want they should be able to get. Any suggestion that government doesn't work was incomprehensible.
But then I was immersed in the planning processes of one government agency for ten years (sort of like taking a Berlitz course in bureau-speaking). I learned that the decisions made by government officials often ignored the economic and other analyses done by planners. So much for rational planning. Their decisions also often went counter to important laws and regulations. So much for a democratic government.
Yet I came to realize that the decisions were all predictable, based mainly on their effects on forest budgets.
I gradually developed a new view of the world that recognized the flaws of government as well as the flaws in markets. Reforms should solve problems by creating a system of checks and balances on both processes. . . . The key is to give decision makers the incentives to manage resources properly. (Ref. 5; quoted in Ref. 3, pp. 6-7).
This is a very powerful example because it captures the experiences of ten years and extracts a guiding principle: government employees, just like individuals in the private sector, work to increase their salaries and budget, improve their status, and protect their job security. Where do the environmental resources, the vast forests that the government manages, fit into these incentives? Sadly they don't; just like taxpayer dollars, they are a commons and consequently they are treated with the same lack of respect and forethought.
Is their an alternative to common or government ownership? Yes. It is that each natural resource have a specific private property owner:
I have already said that such an owner gives the resource a committed defender. Another protective aspect of private ownership is: liability.
Liability restrains private property owners from harming others. A fundamental principle of English common law, which we inherited in this country, is that property owners must not use their property to harm others or the property of others. If harm is done, the offender must pay restitution to his or her victims.
Thus, liability punishes harmful behavior and discourages risky behavior.
Let me give you an example of liability at work, and of our government at work.
In the 1950's the federal government wanted a private nuclear power industry to develop ("Atoms for Peace"). However, private nuclear power plants were not economically viable. How come? Private investors would not risk their capital without insurance, and the insurance companies insisted on extremely high insurance premiums for what they viewed as a risky technology. This is how the market puts a natural check on risky enterprises. Unfortunately the government passed a law to circumvent this "problem": to "encourage" the building of private nuclear power plants, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act (in 1957) which severely limited liability in case of a nuclear accident (thereby making full insurance against an accident unnecessary).
You've probably all heard of Love Canal, and all those chemical wastes from Hooker Chemical seeping into neighborhoods. You might be surprised however to hear that Hooker Chemical actually did a very good job of sealing those wastes so that they would not leak out, in fact far better than any environmental regulations required. How then did they seep out? The local school board wanted the land to develop it. Under threat of condemnation, they purchased the land for one dollar. They developed the site, removing the clay seal put in place by Hooker. Also, during the school board's ownership, the city pierced the sealed canal with sewer pipes on a gravel bed and covered with gravel, allowing the wastes to seep out.
They were concerned about their liability if the wastes seeped out. In contrast, the school board, being agents of the government, were and are immune from prosecution, and thus did not have the fear of liability restraining their actions.
The true story of Love Canal would never have emerged were it not for the investigative reporting of Eric Zuesse (See Ref. 6).
But what can a lone property owner of modest means do when confronted with a big wealthy polluter? Let me give an example - and I think that this example is the real heart of my speech because it is not about something that went wrong or about some piece of property that was ruined, but rather it is an example of something that works.
The Angler's Co-operative Association in England defends private fishing rights, thereby maintaining streams and rivers in pristine quality:
For centuries, the Common Law of this country [England] has enabled private citizens to take legal action against anyone who causes pollution.
But, until the ACA was formed in 1948, hardly anyone took this course of action -- for the simple reason that, if the action was unsuccessful, it could cost the person who brought it thousands of pounds. The formation of the ACA provided a simple and effective answer to this problem. By contributing a small sum of money each, thousands of anglers shared -- and minimised -- the risk of losing an action against polluters.
In fact though, the ACA has lost only one case among the hundreds which it has fought. And that was on a technicality.
The ACA has teeth. And polluters know it.
Often a letter form the Association is enough to stop a would-be polluter in his tracks.
The ACA has also recovered hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages to enable polluted fisheries to be cleaned up and re-stocked. (Ref. 7).
The ACA is supported financially entirely by its members: it receives no government grants of any kind.
So: What is the role of the government in this example?
* The government did not create the ACA.
* The government does not support the ACA.
* The government does not own the fishing rights.
* The government does not monitor the water quality.
All the government does is define and enforce the property rights. It upholds the law equally to all, big and small, that none may violate the rights of another. And it works.
And it can't happen here in our country because our rivers and streams are a commons.
What exactly is pollution? Pollution is created by a simple two-step process. I call it "the pollution two-step".
Let me give an example. When I eat a watermelon, I have a big rind left over. This is step one: the creation of waste material. Is there pollution? Not yet: I might choose to chop the rind into small pieces and use it to compost my garden: no pollution. Alternatively, I might decide that it is easier and more convenient to toss the rind over my fence into my neighbor's yard. Do we have pollution?: yes (Air pollution with a high particulate level). That would be step two: the involuntary transfer of the waste material onto someone else's land, water, or air.
Notice that step two is absolutely essential for pollution to occur, whereas step one is highly subjective. You could say that "Waste is in the eye of the beholder." Or "One person's waste is another person's compost material." The point is that: the problem is not with the waste itself, nor with the creation of the waste, nor even with the transfer of the waste; the problem is with the involuntary nature of the transfer. My neighbor might agree to accept all watermelon rinds tossed over the fence for a fee. He or she might even pay me -- perhaps he or she does watermelon rind sculpture. When the transfer is voluntary, there is no pollution. [You might see watermelon rinds flying over a fence, and think: "Ah, the economy at work"]. Likewise, if all of our factories retained, recycled, detoxified, sold or otherwise used or voluntarily transferred their waste materials, then we would not have pollution from them.
I'd now like to mention four additional advantages of private ownership:
1) Property rights diffuse power and responsibility. Knowledge is diffuse -- spread among all of us. A homeowner will know a lot about his or her own particular yard, and will be aware of any damage done to it soon after it occurs. A fishing enthusiast -- let's call this person Uncle Fred -- might know a particular stretch of a river like the back of his hand, observing it on a daily basis. Centralized planners cannot access Uncle Fred's knowledge. Private property rights decentralize political power and responsibility to the Uncle Fred's of the world -- to specific individuals who have the relevant knowledge. Uncle Fred is well-positioned and motivated to monitor any changes in his water quality. Give Uncle Fred a property right, and he can and will protect that river.
2) Competing solutions. Private property owners choose among competing products to solve their environmental problems. If Uncle Fred sees a device on the market which will make it easier to monitor his water quality, he can buy it if he judges its cost to be less than its benefit. In contrast, centralized planning usually enforces a single monolithic solution on everyone.
3) Property rights are transferable, so the responsibility and use can pass to those with interest and ability. Let's say Uncle Fred passes away and leaves me his property deed to that small stretch of river. If I don't have the time or desire to use and protect that stretch of river, it is in my interest to sell or lease it to someone who will -- to someone else's Uncle Fred.
4) Harmonious "multiple use." Environmental resources have a variety of alternative uses which are often mutually contradictory, for example undisturbed wilderness vs. development, hiking vs. hunting, fishing, biking, rafting, off-road vehicles, etc. In contrast to the winner-take-all power struggles of environmental politics, property owners and entrepreneurs seek ways to harmoniously coordinate the various alternative uses of environmental resources.
Even private environmental organizations allow multiple uses of sensitive lands. For example, the National Audubon Society permitted oil extraction on its Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary in Louisiana; likewise the Michigan Audubon Society allowed oil exploration on its Bernard W. Baker Sanctuary. (Ref. 3, pp. 90-91).
Think about it: oil exploration and extraction on the private nature preserves of environmental organizations. The Audubon Society, to be sure, specified how the work was done in order to minimize any disturbance to the wildlife, and made their own judgment of the costs versus the benefits. That is the sort of harmonious multiple use that private ownership makes possible.
At this point, you might ask: "if private property rights are so good at protecting the environment, how come we have all our environmental problems today? Don't we have private property rights in this country?"
Private property rights have not been consistently upheld in this country. Since the early 1800's, when the first court cases arose over pollution and other violations of property rights, the courts have allowed private property rights to be ignored in the name of progress and the public good. By not punishing the polluters, the government changed the incentives to favor those who pollute. Let me quote the economist Walter Block:
[W]ith this series of judicial decisions, even a publicspirited manufacturer would be forced to engage in pollution. If he alone invested in expensive smoke-prevention devices while his competitors invaded the property of their neighbours with dust particles, they would be able to undersell him and eventually drive him from business .
The entire economy was thus encouraged to engage in pollution-intensive technologies. Had the judges found for the plaintiffs in these cases, the economy would have invested more in methods that had less pollution as a byproduct. More research and development funds would have gone into creating better smoke-prevention devices and searching for cleaner burning fuels. Legal institutions that would have diminished the negative effects of environmental despoliation -such as restrictive covenants -- might have sprung up faster and/or been strengthened. (Ref. 8, pp. 284-285).
What I have been discussing today is the radical idea that private property rights are the best way to protect the environment. But private property conjures up images of walls and barbed wire fences and people isolating themselves from oneanother. Who could like a wall?
As the American poet Robert Frost wrote in his poem "Mending Wall" (Ref. 9):
Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it, And spills the upper boulders in the sun; And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
Frost's poem ends with these words:
Good fences make good neighbors.
When the government prohibits fences -- that is, when the government enforces a commons -- the tragedy of the commons results. Voluntarily built private fences, even barbed wire fences, can be a very good thing, as the following example shows: (it is from the journal Science in 1974):
Perhaps the most graphic proof of man's part in the desertification of the Sahel has come from a curiously shaped green pentagon discovered in a NASA satellite photograph by Norman H. MacLeod, an agronomist in American University, Washington, D.C. MacLeod found on a visit to the site of the pentagon that the difference between it and the surrounding desert was nothing more than a barbed wire fence. Within was a 250,000-acre ranch, divided into five sectors with the cattle allowed to graze one sector a year. Although the ranch was started only 5 years ago, at the same time as the drought began, the simple protection afforded the land was enough to make the difference between pasture and desert. (Ref. 10).
Good fences makes good neighbors -- neighbors that will not damage or destroy the grass and trees and nature within. The converse statement is a concise summary of the tragedy of the commons: "No fences make bad neighbors."
Now let's return to Dr. Seuss's story. The Once-ler's business grows and grows, he hires all of his relatives, he chops more and more trees, sells more and more thneeds, and pollutes more and more. The Lorax complains that there's not enough Truffula Fruit for the Brown Bar-ba-loots. The Lorax also complains about the air pollution:
Once-ler, you're making such smogulous smoke!
My poor Swomee-Swans... why, they can't sing a note!
No one can sing who has smog in his throat. [p-40]
The Lorax also complains about water pollution caused by Gluppity-Glupp, and also Schloppity-Schlopp:
You're glumping the pond where the Humming-Fish hummed!
No more can they hum, for their gills are all gummed. [p.47]
And so the Once-ler finally gets angry at the Lorax, and yells at him, saying that he has his rights and he intends to go on expanding his business, chopping more trees and making more Thneeds. But just at that moment, outside in the fields, we hear a loud whack -- the very last Truffula tree being chopped down -the ultimate tragedy of the commons.
And then the Lorax is lifted away -- Who lifts the Lorax away? It was the Lorax himself. It's not to hard to understand why: after the Lorax spoke up for the environment time and time again, it was finally clear that the Once-ler was ignoring him, and was going to go on ignoring him.
This is just what happened in this country. Courts failed to defend property rights, and people stopped trying to use them to protect themselves and their property.
Think how long the ACA would have lasted if the courts in England failed to defend the owners of private fishing rights against pollution.
So now you know who lifted the Lorax away, and why, but -- who is the Lorax?
Some may say that the Lorax is our environmental conscience, and that we need to develop such a conscience within each of us in order to stop pollution. I disagree. That is like the socialists planning and hoping to create the New Socialist Man. I am reminded of what the economist David Friedman said:
"In the ideal socialist state, power will not attract power freaks. People who make decisions will show no slightest bias toward their own interests. There will be no way for a clever man to bend the institutions to serve his own ends. And the rivers will run uphill."
No, You and I are not going to create the New Environmental Person.
The Lorax is not a conscience and not a spirit. The Lorax is real - the Lorax is flesh and blood, the Lorax has hands and eyes, the Lorax thinks and acts. Who is the Lorax?
It is: the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER. For in each owner there is a committed defender who will speak for the trees for the trees have no tongues. In each private property owner is a committed defender of the Swomee-Swans and the Humming-Fish, of the ducks and the whales.
On this planet, we have 5.5 billion people. We need to empower them, to enlist them in protecting the environment, to divide up responsibility among them. Who will direct this great enterprise? The answer is not Bill Clinton, nor George Bush, nor the U.S. Congress, nor the United Nations. The only workable answer is: No one -- the individuals must direct themselves. We need 5.5 billion Loraxes, protecting 5.5 billion small but significant pieces of the environment.
So, when you see a polluted river, don't just look at the polluting institution (which might be private or public, both pollute today), but look at the river itself and ask: "Where is the Lorax? Where is the defender? Who owns this river, and why wouldn't they or couldn't they protect it from the polluters?"
But such protection of the environment can happen only if government fulfills its role of defining and enforcing property rights. Only then can we align that powerful motor, human selfinterest, with the protection of the environment. Private property rights are the way that we each and all can be Loraxes - protectors and guardians of the environment.
I would like to conclude with the final page of the book, in which the Once-ler is speaking to the young child who has been listening to the Once-ler's story all along; and if you listen closely, you just might hear what I hear: An abiding love of nature and all of her wonders, and a way of achieving their protection: transferable private property rights.
"SO..
Catch!" calls the Once-ler.
He lets something fall.
"It's a Truffula Seed.
It's the last one of all!
You're in charge of the last of the Truffula Seeds. And Truffula Trees are
what everyone needs.
Plant a new Truffula. Treat it with care.
Give it clean water. And feed it fresh air.
Grow a forest. Protect it from axes that hack.
Then the Lorax
and all of his friends
may come back." [p.61]
Chuck Olson is a self-employed computer consultant from Palo Alto, California. He has been active in the libertarian movement since 1978, has run unsuccessfully for public office 5 times, and has loved reading Dr. Seuss books since he was a small child. Chuck's speech, which is based on Dr. Seuss's environmental story The Lorax, introduces and explains free market environmentalism. The idea for the speech came to Chuck as he awoke in a small inn on the edge of the Black Forest.
Thanks for visiting.