Socialism Is Bad for the Environment
"All the time we hear socialists say, 'Next time, we'll get it right.' How many next times do you get?"

"Greed of the fossil fuel industry" is "destroying our planet," says Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). Young people agree. Their solution? Socialism.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) says socialism creates "an environment that provides for all people, not just the privileged few."
"Nonsense," says Tom Palmer of the Atlas Network in my new video.
Palmer, unlike Ocasio-Cortez and most of us, spent lots of time in socialist countries. He once smuggled books into the Soviet Union.
What he's seen convinces him that environmental-movement socialists are wrong about what's "green."
"We tried socialism," says Palmer. "We ran the experiment. It was a catastrophe. Worst environmental record on the planet."
In China, when socialist leaders noticed that sparrows ate valuable grain, they encouraged people to kill sparrows.
"Billions of birds were killed," says Palmer.
Government officials shot birds. People without guns banged pans and blew horns, scaring sparrows into staying aloft for longer than they could tolerate.
"These poor exhausted birds fell from the skies," says Palmer. "It was insanity."
I pointed out that, watching video of people killing sparrows, it looked like they were happy to do it.
"If you failed to show enthusiasm for the socialist goals of the party," Palmer responds, "you were going to be in trouble."
The Party's campaign succeeded. They killed nearly every sparrow.
But "all it takes is two minutes of thinking to figure, 'Wait. Who's going to eat all the bugs?'" says Palmer.
Without sparrows, insects multiplied. Bugs destroyed more crops than the sparrows had.
"People starved as a consequence," says Palmer. "People confuse socialism with…a 'nice government' or a 'government that's sweet' or 'made up of my friends.'"
Socialism means central planning. That ends badly.
"What AOC wants to do is basically give the Pentagon, or similar agencies, control over the entire society. She thinks that's going to turn out well," says Palmer. "It's a joke."
China's central planners keep making mistakes.
Many Chinese lakes and rivers are bright green. Fertilizer runoff created algae blooms that kill all fish. A study in The Lancet says Chinese air pollution kills a million people per year.
Wherever socialism is tried, it creates nasty pollution.
In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin wanted cotton for his army. His central planners decided it should be grown near the Aral Sea. They drained so much water that the sea, once the fourth biggest inland lake in the world, shrank to less than half its size.
"Soviet planners caused catastrophic environmental costs to the whole population," says Palmer.
I push back. "That was then. Now the rules would be different. Now the rule would be: 'green.'"
"All the time we hear socialists say, 'Next time, we'll get it right.' How many next times do you get?" asks Palmer.
Yet American media still sometimes say socialists protect the environment. A New York Times op-ed claims "Lenin's eco warriors" created "the world's largest system of most protected nature reserves."
"These are not nature preserves," Palmer responds. "They use it as a dumping ground for heavy metals, for radioactive waste—in what sense is it a nature preserve?"
Capitalists destroy nature, too. Free societies do need government rules to protect the environment.
But free markets with property rights often protect nature better than bureaucrats can.
Private farmers, explains Palmer, are "concerned about the ability of the farm to grow food next year, year after year, [even] after that farmer is gone. Why? Because the farm has a capital value. That's the 'capital' in capitalism. They want to maximize that."
Capitalism also protects the environment because it creates wealth. When people aren't worried about starving or freezing, they get interested in protecting nature. That's why capitalist countries have cleaner air.
Also, capitalists can afford to pay for wild animal preserves.
"When no one has property rights and people are poor, tigers and elephants are considered a burden…. They kill them," says Palmer. "When you're wealthier…you care about the environment."
Socialists say they care, but the real world shows: To protect the environment, capitalism works better.
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There's no question about it. Visit a former socialist Soviet satellite, like Bulgaria.
UPHEAVAL IN THE EAST; A Bulgarian Town's Killer Is Industrial Pollution
By Marlise Simons
Mar 28, 1990
New York Times
What most people here still do not know is that for much of the last 30 years the enormous and shabby industrial compound on a hillside above the town has been poisoning their land and, in many cases, their bodies with lead and arsenic.
Arsenic has been found in alarming quantities as far as 25 miles away, but the authorities have kept this secret from the local population. When the plant spilled about 200 tons of arsenic in 1988, contaminating farmland and killing cattle and sheep, the disaster was covered up for nine months.
Deformities and Cancer
At the local hospital, doctors speak of a frightening rise in the number of babies born with deformities, of cancer and chronic mouth and lung disease. They say infant mortality here is almost three times the norm for Bulgaria and they cite an abnormal number of people with high blood pressure and dental problems among the town's 35,000 inhabitants.
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/28/world/upheaval-in-the-east-a-bulgarian-town-s-killer-is-industrial-pollution.html
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
Hurray! Here is a definite removal of pollution from the Planet! Good riddance to bad rubbish!
Unabomber Ted Kaczynski found dead in federal prison in North Carolina
Adam Wagner and Dan Kane, The News & Observer - Yesterday 3:49 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/unabomber-ted-kaczynski-found-dead-in-federal-prison-in-north-carolina/ar-AA1cnLpX
Without sparrows, insects multiplied. Bugs destroyed more crops than the sparrows had.
Commiefucius says correlation is not causation and the Tiennenmen Square massacre is western propaganda.
I essentially make about $7,000-$8,000 every month on the web. It’s sufficient to serenely supplant my old employments pay, particularly considering I just work around 10-13 hours every week from home. I was stunned how simple it was after I attempted it duplicate underneath web………
.
.
—————————————————-⫸ https://Www.Coins71.Com
Ah, so, Grasshoppel! Arr the better to feed the wolrd for the W.E.F.
😉
Not so. Government abrogates prosecution to itself, then does nothing while victims of pollution suffer.
A book on the history of New York City oysters, details of which I have forgotten but may be "The Big Oyster" by Mark Kulansky, tells of New York City sniffer squads, from the 1800s into the 1900s, tracking down pollution sources, and forensic analysts of the late 1800s tracking down pollution, such as soot on clothes drying outside, to show who to sue. This individual responsibility began to be outlawed by courts and legislatures on the grounds it did not take the public good into account; it was up to the government to decide how much pollution the nation could tolerate, and woe betide any individual who thought otherwise (Supreme Court of Georgia, Holman v Athens Empire Laundry Co., 1919: "The pollution of the air, so far as reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of life and indispensable to the progress of society, is not actionable").
Government is always the problem,never the solution.
"Government is always the problem,never the solution."
Why ruin your argument with such axiomatic bullshit?
He's right. Government is the problem.
I'm sure it did alright during the rein of William "Boss" Tweed.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.Apprichs.com
This is so true
Sattva Northland is a brand new residential apartment project by Sattva in the rapidly expanding neighborhood of Hennur Road, Bangalore. The residential enclave, Northland features the very best in Sattva luxury segment. The project offers spacious apartments with luxurious features. Beautiful landscapes all around Sattva Northland make it more special & Elite.
The builder is guaranteed to bring a quality living experience to the community of Hennur Road with brilliant architecture and an equivalent lifestyle in Northland. Sattva Northland Location has excellent connectivity & it is located at the heart of Hennur Road. Amenities at Sattva Northland include a fully equipped clubhouse, landscaped gardens, gymnasium, swimming pool, recreation rooms, outdoor sports courts, children’s play area, party hall, and meticulously planned with utmost importance to state-of-the-art 24/7 securities.
https://sattva-northland.hsource-sales.com/
I'm sold. Moving to Bangalore, guys!
And you can work from home earning $7,950 a month from the Google to pay for the apartment!
John,
To wordy of a title, you should've atopped at 'bad'.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Both socialism and capitalism are bad for the environment, but only capitalism generates enough wealth that people can afford the "luxury" of environmentalism - i.e., taking the long-term view.
Probably better to say that human industrial activity has effects on the environment. I don't think the economic system behind the industrial activity has much to do with it. Except that capitalism produces more wealth and wealthier people can spend more on quality of life issues like environment and conservation.
"wealthier people can spend more on quality of life issues like environment and conservation."
We like to tell ourselves this, but it's not really true. Buying a Tesla will improve noise and air quality where it's driven but at the cost of increased water and soil contamination where the lithium that powers it is mined.
Our carbon offset schemes replace the biodiversity of old growth forests in Africa and the Amazon with mono cropped palm oil plantations, and the original forest dwellers are brutalized, dispossessed and directed to urban slums.
It's a game to make profits off our concerns for the environment. It's true that wealthy people are more susceptible to this scam, but it's also true that it's a scam, and does nothing to improve the environment.
That has nothing to do with the underlying argument. The premise above is that only those with wealth can afford to care about the environment. The desperately poor are more concerned with feeding their children and have no resources to spare for long-term projects like environmentalism.
Being able to care, however, does not automatically mean that you will spend those excess resources wisely. Your examples are not a rebuttal of the premise but a (just) criticism of the often-unwise ways that those who think they are being environmentally friendly are actually doing more harm than good.
" The premise above is that only those with wealth can afford to care about the environment."
What good is caring for the environment if it only make you a sucker for scams like carbon offset schemes?
This line of thinking that only the wealthy care about the environment so we have to make everyone as wealthy as we are is clearly self serving and wrong headed. Environment degradation occurs just the same whether the people responsible for degrading it care or don't care, whether they're wealthy or poor.
"The desperately poor are more concerned with feeding their children "
If that's your greatest concern, you'll be harming the environment a lot less feeding your children than someone who jet sets around the planet. This victim-blaming the poor because they pay no mind to the environment as they struggle to feed their children is self serving propagandistic bullshit.
Like flying from country to country in their private jets, driven about in the limmos and enjoying nice punts on their yachts.
Fuck 'em.
When people own property, they want to maintain its long-term value, to pass on to their heirs or to sell. Polluted and toxic land is hard to sell.
When people own property, they get a little perturbed if someone else pollutes it with toxic chemicals, and will hire lawyers to recover damages.
When no one owns property, users of the property only care about the immediate value it can create.
"When people own property, they want to maintain its long-term value, to pass on to their heirs or to sell. "
When corporations own property they want increased stock prices in the next quarter. The pay the managers receive is often directly linked to the stock market. When people own property, they do indeed take care to keep it in decent shape. This doesn't stop them however from off loading their pollution elsewhere, like land fill sites, the atmosphere, the water table etc.
"When no one owns property, users of the property only care about the immediate value it can create."
Or worse, as in the case of the oceans or atmosphere, this property is seen as a dumping ground that can be exploited with impunity. If we could privatize the oceans and the atmosphere, we may have some solution, but I don't think it's plausible.
Both Capitalism and Socialism have a growth imperative. They require ever increasing energy inputs to function as desired. That's the cause of environmental degradation. The environment doesn't give a shit about how humans divide surpluses among themselves or the rights they give themselves. The key is energy inputs and what must be done to ensure economic growth.
But capitalism has a higher growth rate, because capital accrues to people who are good at increasing it. In socialism, capital accrues to people who are good at seizing political power. Socialist societies can't grow as quickly, so they need to allocate more resources to current production, with less left over to protect the environment.
And capitalism tends to breed freedom, where socialism can’t help but create oppression, and even slavery.
"But capitalism has a higher growth rate,"
A higher growth rate means more consumption of energy which means greater environmental degradation. It may be a bit of an oversimplification, but I think it's pretty spot on as a rule of thumb.
"so they need to allocate more resources to current production, with less left over to protect the environment."
I know it's perverse but I'd argue that our efforts to protect and manage the environment, especially if these efforts contribute to economic growth and increase energy consumption, only serve to degrade and spoil the natural environment.
It's not merely "a bit of an oversimplification" - it's a flat untruth. I will grant that it used to be true (as a very rough rule of thumb) but for the past two decades, the trend has reversed. Higher growth rates are increasingly associated with less consumption of energy.
The reason is obvious (though in fairness, mostly only in hindsight) - energy costs money and saving energy smartly is good for the economy. And again, an increased economy generates excess resources, some of which can be voluntarily allocated to environmental causes. A poor economy, on the other hand, has no excess resources to allocate.
“Higher growth rates are increasingly associated with less consumption of energy.”
On a national basis, maybe. On a global basis, no. The environment doesn’t end at a nation’s borders. It encompasses the entire planet. The same with the globalized economy. On that basis we see both economic growth and energy consumption. There are exceptions, like the covid pandemic, but these prove the rule. When there’s an economic downturn, energy consumption follows suit.
"energy costs money and saving energy smartly is good for the economy."
Not necessarily. Innovation, research, refitting manufacturing processes all cost money, and results aren't guaranteed. If energy costs are cheap enough, it makes sense to leave things be. Automobiles are only some 30% energy efficient and have remained at that level for so long thanks to the relative cheapness of oil.
So, keep the third world living in pre-industrial conditions while elites in the modern countries make donations to stay carbon neutral?
Fuck off.
And as for energy efficiency, advances have been incredible and will continue. Automobiles, by measures that matter, have about tripled in fuel efficiency. And all use of petroleum, measured per capita in the US, is down by 50% over the past 60 or so years.
So fuck off again.
"So, keep the third world living in pre-industrial conditions "
Best result is to leap frog over the fossil fuel fueled industrial development experienced by the wealthy Western economies over the past couple of centuries. Jump into a electricity fueled economy, leaving behind fossil fuels to sit safely sequestered in the ground. Who knows? At some point in the future we may find a better use for them that doesn't involve setting them on fire and fucking up the atmosphere.
I understand your impulse to characterize environmentalists as advocating a return to living in caves and mud huts, but it's caricature, not worthy of discussion except for the right wing talking heads you evidently follow.
"Automobiles, by measures that matter, have about tripled in fuel efficiency."
For high performance engines, like those in Formula One cars, you may have a point. But sadly not if you're referring the kind of car you and just about everyone else is driving.
"measured per capita in the US"
The US is just one corner of the globe. The environment doesn't stop at the US border. It spills out over the rest of the world. I'm reading now about poor air quality in New York from forest fires. Not good old American forest fires but from a whole other country.
So how do we generate the energy for an "electricity fuelled economy"? Little dynamos on hamster wheels for rickshaw boys?
Fuck Off, Watermelon Rickshaw Boy!
"So how do we generate the energy for an “electricity fuelled economy”?"
I'm glad you asked. There's hydro, solar, wind, tidal, nuclear and geothermal. And the future may give us controlled fusion, photosynthesis etc. Reliance on fossil fuels dates back to the 18th century. We've progressed since then and it would be foolish to install outdated fossil fuel based infrastructure in the 'third world' when the rest of the world is switching to an electricity based economy.
And all of those other sources of energy depend upon fossil fuels for manufacture, logistics, and parts, Dummy!
"And all of those other sources of energy depend upon fossil fuels for manufacture,"
Because we live in an age where fossil fuel is king. Have been since the 18th century and the dawn of the industrial age. You would have us remain relying on fossil fuels rather than moving on. Moreover you would have the 'third world' follow our path of reliance on fossil fuels. You can't conceive of an alternative.
Let's look at Kenya. Not a country blessed with abundant reserves of oil. Any fossil fuels they burn will have to be imported from abroad. Say bye bye to energy independence. So they are developing geo thermal and nuclear. They are already Africa's biggest exploiter of geothermal and are set to become the second county in Africa after South Africa with a nuclear capacity. (They could also be 3rd or 4th after Uganda and Egypt depending on the notoriously unreliable projections for nuclear construction around the world.) Point is that they've already chosen their path for future development. The fact that you don't approve is irrelevant.
But soon we will have the new, improved Green socialism. It will look a lot like subsistence feudalism, but with less jousting.
There’s nothing wrong with the environment that exterminating socialism won’t fix.
Like many libertarians,. Stossel FALSELY equates "socialism" with "state-mandated socialism"
This extends all the way back to the "capitalism versus socialism" paradigm and back through Ayn Rand and who knows wherei it started
So how is "The Tragedy of the Commons" any different when the "Commons" is planned and managed by self-scourging Monks and Nuns or Hippies instead of Nazi Gauleiters or Soviet Commissars?
And don't the planners and managers either depend on wealth from the outside world or eventually become a coercive State all their own?
Socialism requires authority, or your system falls apart. Those in charge of the socialist system are in charge of the state, de facto or otherwise.
When I hear people remark about socialism, saying "they just didn't get it right". usually means, "they just didn't exterminate enough of those who opposed socialism in the first place."
Because in order for socialism to become the predominant social construct, you have to murder anyone who opposes it.
Just as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pott, Castro. It makes sense that you have to do exactly that if you want socialism to succeed.
Leaving ideologues to deal with reality on any practical terms is a mistake.
If Capitalism has any marginal advantage at conservation, it's that market-based systems are more likely to eventually move toward what actually makes things better, while command-based systems will generally view any lack of improvement as a failure of the surrounding world to fall in line with "The Plan".
In the case of the western left, they're great at making symbolic or "ideologically correct" stands as long as they can either ignore or stay in denial about the costs of those moves. Look to SF banning plastic drinking straws while relaxing rules on "needle exchange" operations to the point where junkies are now given hundreds of clean syringes without needing to return any used ones (not so much an exchange anymore); meaning those used needles are likely then re-used some number of times and ultimately discarded in ways which put them on track to a landfill (best case) or just thrown down storm drains and washed into the ocean, where they'll do as much or more harm than the plastic straws which were banned in such a loud and sanctimonious manner a few years back.
Or the "stand" against construction of new oil/gas pipelines (which get routed through indigenous/tibal lands because those areas aren't always subject to the years of paperwork delays applicable to the rest of U.S. territory) and forcing the same quantity of fossil fuel to be transported by trains (which crash/spill more frequently than pipelines and burn additional petroleum in the process to power their engines).
Free-Market Capitalism makes Pur Water Filters, Filtrete Air Filters that catch both particles and odors, Clean Zone Ozone-generating CPAP Cleaners, catalytic converters and mufflers that make cars run clean, The Internal Combustion Engine, which is itself a far less polluting, more efficient method of locomotion than Watt’s Steam Engine or Stirling Engines. The list goes on.
The example you cited of junkie needles polluting more than plastic straws is an externality created by the Statist/Socialist “War On (Some) Drugs”, where The State makes human bodies and crop lands for drug plants into “The Tragedy of the Commons. ”
Were drugs legal for consenting adults, pharmaceutical firms could innovate delivery mechanisms that don’t involve needles, such as pills, syrups, elixirs, foods, or pipes, or if needles are unavoidable, the needles could be shielded in an inner container of the hypodermic like that used for Mounjaro. And because drugs would be much cheaper, intravenous drug users could keep their homes and use in privacy with cheap sharps buckets for disposal, another creation of Free-Market Capitalism.
As for routing oil through Tribal lands, I certainly think oil companies should offer Tribes a cut of the take and offer good-paying jobs to some of the poorest people in the United States. Even with that expense, it would still be a win-win-win for companies, Tribes, workers, and consumers because that expense would be an investment in real estate capital, labor, and good relations.
For a better environment and greater prosperity, Free-Market Capitalism wins hands-down whenever it is tried.
What is it with junkies these days? My junkie friend is of the old school. He was fixated on his glass syringe and spoke admiringly of its shape and contours. Using it was part of his ritual of getting high, and he would feel the excitement of anticipation as soon as he brought it out. Using a disposable plastic 'spike' from a needle exchange just wouldn't be the same.
"Socialism is bad for the environment"....... and only dipsh*t leftarded [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] and their [WE] gov-gun gang-building against you 'icky' people mentality kind think otherwise.
No need to complicate the subject; There are FULL-BLOWN Nazi's in U.S. politics. They ARE destroying the US Constitution and the USA for Nazi-USSA. They don't even hide it from the people. They proudly announce their CONQUER the USA for US'Socialism'A...
Now; will the people decide to save the USA or let it be conquered by treasonous Nazi's??
Hey, who do I sue?