WAC-DC

Last evening April 27^th the World Affairs Council of DC hosted Dr. Paul Collier at CSIS to speak on his most recent book The Plundered Planet.  Dr. Collier spoke before a crowd of council members and local university students on the subjects of economics, environmentalism and where the two seemingly contrary ideologies must cross paths in the future.  The event drew a substantial number of university students, perhaps a result of the importance of environmental issues in this rising generation.

As one might have expected after browsing through Dr. Collier’s book, his words focused heavily on the economic and socio-cultural repercussions of our use of natural assets.  Interestingly much of the material presented would likely be hard to swallow for those dedicated to either environmental or economic studies.  So often these schools of thought seem almost destined to clash but by Dr. Collier’s interpretation the clash of these ideas not only detracts from the value of each school of thought but also endangers both our present and our future.

The Oxford professor explained very clearly how critical it was that ethical debate (second nature to environmentalist) take some role in the field of economics while at the same time expressing how environmental theory is relatively worthless without a grasp of economics.  Part of Dr. Collier’s foundation for his argument lay in the reality that it would be unreasonable to assume that humanity would ever cease using natural resources and that thus preservation purely for the sake of preservation was a flawed and ultimately unjust goal.  He argued that the problem lay in economist’s failure to truly understand and express the “value” of natural resources.

So much of economic theory is stretched out of shape when applied to natural resources.  Typically through the process of creating an asset one is granted ownership of said asset, this principle of ownership is what justifies much of economic thought.  Unfortunately in the case of natural assets application of this principle is flawed, as the assets are not created by anyone they must be recognized as belonging to the many.  The best we can hope for in applying economics to assets of this sort is to spread the rights to this property evenly.

Unfortunately this is not the only problem faced by applications of economic theory to natural assets, there also lays the difficulty of the rights of the future over the rights of the present.  Economists’ views of the future are strange to say the least argued Dr. Collier, here concepts like the “util” and utilitarianism struggle and ultimately fail to properly address the issue.  Where a strict environmentalist might require that nature be preserved, an economist would require only that the “value” of these assets must be passed down rather than the assets themselves.

While in the wealthiest nations of the world preservation holds a strong sway, in the poorest nations of the world the ability to use and develop from these natural resources is often the only road to potential progress.  Due to the importance of natural assets in these nations it is even more critical that the value of these assets be preserved.  Presenting examples of misappropriated natural assets in several African nations and the failure of local governments to preserve resources for the future, Dr. Collier spoke on the importance of just government and an informed citizenry in relation to environmental issues.

After expressing the theories supported in his book, Dr. Collier accepted questions from those in attendance, further illuminating the ideas on which his economic and environmental theories were based.  Attendees fielded questions ranging from the dangers of misinformation and the impact of corruption in governance.  Realizing the difficulties present in creating an informed populace, Dr. Collier responded effectively to the questions presented even in cases where there was ultimately little in the way of definite answers.  The conflict over plundered natural resources is not one likely to disappear overnight, but certainly is a conflict worth fighting.