Here's an exercise. Consider the following statements about the Chesapeake Bay for a few seconds:
- Fish kills—more than 40 in Maryland from June to early August alone—due to algae or oxygen-deprived dead zones, ranged in intensity from approximately 50 to more than 20,000 dead fish.
- An algal bloom that lasted for more than two months on the Potomac River eventually killed more than 300,000 fish.
- Fish kills of smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish in the Shenandoah River system (four years running) have now jumped to another watershed - the upper James and its beautiful Cowpasture and Maury River tributaries.
Now before reading below the fold ask yourself: Should we take action?
Those 'facts' were forwarded to me by my father-in-law from an e-mail he received from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation*--an advocacy group for environmental improvements in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In the e-mail, the CBF says:
The situation is urgent. In our recently published Bad Waters report, we collected a summer’s worth of documentation from citizens, scientists, government agencies, and our own employees.
and...
Shockingly, some government officials labeled these conditions average. Our greatest fear is that government will come to view the degraded Bay as acceptable.
Reading the CBF statements of fact may be shocking and may elicit emotional responses--which I'm sure is the goal--but it doesn't answer the question: On what grounds is action warranted?
Economics gives us a framework for answering questions like these. Anytime I see a scientific presentation followed by a call to action, I ask 'why?' I'm not trying to be a butthead, but instead trying to get the presenter to think about the trade-offs involved. A call to action is a call to inaction somewhere else.
With the CBF example, I'm sure there are people out there who immediately read about dead fish and say 'we have to act now.' But, the ability to act has to come from somewhere. Is preventing 'average' fish kills the best use of your money? If so, great, contribute. But failing to consider alternative uses for the money may lead to underfunding of more important projects.
Who can tell you which use of our money is the most beneficial? Well, only you can. But who can remind you that there are tradeoffs? Well, that's why we need economists.
*In the interest of full-disclosure, I have received research funding from the CBF in the past. In my opinion, they are a well-intentioned reputable group with admirable goals.
