The Environmental Consequences of Commerce
on Plant and Animal Species: Principle versus Pragmatism

Edward J. Dodson

[An unpublished essay, July, 2005]

Georgists stand for "free trade." We have a high level of confidence in markets to result in fair exchanges when the element of coercion is removed. At the same time, we do not suggest that government has no role to play. Moving goods around the world involves many risks - to the health and safety of everyone involved and to the environment.

One of the most serious types of risk is the introduction of environment-disrupting, disease-spreading species into regions where nature has had no time to develop counter-measures. Many of these plants and animals are brought to new environments deliberately, and thoughtlessly. They inevitably escape any initial confinement to create havoc. Here's just a sampling of the more than 7,000 invasive species that plague regions of North America:

• The gypsy moth, which devours trees
  
• The Asian tiger mosquito, which transmits encephalitis
  
• The nutria, which eats three pounds of marsh plants a day
  
• The hyacinth, a floating plant that chokes ponds, rivers and swamps in the Southeast
  
• The European starling, which destroys fruit and vegetable crops
  
• The Zebra mussel, entering the Great Lakes from the St. Lawrence seaway, which are multiplying rapidly and clogging filtration systems and are in danger of entering the nation's river system
  
• The emerald ash borer, which has killed millions of trees in southeastern Michigan and has moved into neighboring states
  

The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates the "economic toll" associated with these invasive species - destruction of habitat, disappearance of native species, costs incurred to control or destroy these invaders and repaid the damage they do -- is around $150 billion annually.

The genie is already out of the bottle, and it will require a degree of international cooperation among people to prevent even more destruction.

An integral component of Henry George's vision was the removal of restrictions against commerce between peoples. However, George would certainly never have stood by on the "principle of free trade" while habitats and peoples' lives were being destroyed because commerce was not monitored and regulated to ensure sustainability of the earth's wealth-producing capacity.