Last week I read Tyler Cowen’s post about an article in the Guardian about the Law of the Sea Treaty which detailed the development that Russia, the US, Norway, Denmark and Canada are going to abide by the 1982 treaty and (they claim), manage the Arctic responsibly. Cowen, with whom I often agree, isn’t a big fan of the Law of the Sea, but Citizens for Global Solutions, with whom I also often agree, is.
The Law of the Sea treaty is an odd animal. On the one hand, it’s opposed by those who dislike government involvement, a change in the status-quo, or anything that might help environmental groups. On the other hand, it’s opposed by environmental groups, who, like the Guardian article explains, thinks that the Law of the Sea treaty would have the effect of ‘privatizing’ the ocean. Ironically, with the Law of the Sea, the only ‘private’ option is control by individual governments, as opposed to the UN.
My general thoughts are begin with the point that private control does not automatically = bad. It’s usually a good thing, given the alternative (tragedy of the commons). And while I’m not a pure market capitalist (more of an occasional Keynesian), I don’t generally see government control as a good thing, ESPECIALLY with regards to environmental issues. Governments are terrible at managing environments, in part because the desired stasis requires surprising dynamism to maintain (I’d cite a study I used in a research paper for American University, but it’s on my other hard drive. Maybe someday).
Admittedly, counter to most private property solutions, the controlling governments have a disincentive to preserve the current environment (also, more here on Aguanomics). In addition to the mineral resources, creating a Northern Sea Route could potentially save billions of dollars, as distances between the western United States and Europe are trimmed by several thousand miles.
I’m not utilitarian enough to think that saving shipping is necessarily a good trade off for the polar ice caps melting. And I think polar bears are lovely creatures, although I would definitely never want to meet one. So while I still agree with CGS’ political reasons for supporting the Law of the Sea (basically the same reason’s Cowen opposes it), I’m now very confused on the environmental aspects of the treaty. It is at this point that I am very glad I read all of the blogs that I do, because I emailed David Zetland of Aguanomics fame, and over the weekend, he put together an answer for me.
The best thing I can say about the Treaty is that it awards property rights to countries. From this baseline, they can destroy, exploit or protect according to their national whims, which is better than a free-for-all.
*******
What if this treaty had not been signed? Then we would have something close to the current disaster of the “bluewater” oceans, where fish stocks are over-exploited (and crashing) and pollution is out of control.
In other words, things are still a mess, and the Law of the Sea isn’t perfect, but it is a step towards cleaning it up. I guess we have to begin some place.
Thanks David!
