The Evidence Against Radical Libertarianism

I was listening to NPR the other day, and I heard some story about the EPA enforcing some standards on a business. In general, I am against the environmentalist agenda (because they make everything a crisis and do not take quality of human life into account much of the time), but out of left field, a thought hit me:

We need the EPA.

What? No way! Government regulation of business practices that a not directly related to criminal offenses? How socialist! If I am anything, I am not a socialist.

But then, I got to thinking some more - always dangerous. Earlier this year I had a great discussion with some libertarian and liberal bloggers I frequent that made me consider the libertarian position on education and a much more limited role of the government. However, when I tried to plug in the idea of environmental protection into the discussion, I couldn't see it happening.

Why not? People are lazy and selfish. I know that sounds terrible, but it's backed up by social science, psychology, and the Bible. Essentially, we do what we think benefits ourselves the most, using the least amount of resources, and focused on right now or the foreseeable future. This works against the environment in a number of ways:

1) What benefits me the most.
a) I recognize that my personal negative impact on the environment, whether it due to vehicle emissions, smoking, aerosol cans, fossil fuel spills and other such events, is infinitesimally small in the grand scheme of things. Hence, on my own, I have little motivation to not pour my oil from the oil change down the sewer, except as I feel morally bound (which as a Christian, I feel I am). Most would not feel so bound if not for laws demanding it.
b) A business is benefited the most by profits. The truth is, that very few people will buy clothes based upon the treatment of the human workers in Indonesian sweatshops - how many do you really think care if I am emitting to much carbon monoxide into the air at my factories? Even less. Hence, there is no compelling reason for me to do anything except the minimum which keeps my workers alive, the product successful and the populace from angrily destroying my plant. Thus, most environmental protections would be ignored.

2) What requires the least resources.
a) It takes a lot less effort to pour the oil down the sewer than to buy the container, seal it up, and take it to a place I can safely dispose of it.
b) Less resources used = more profits - a double whammy. Every dime I don't spend making my product and process "Earth friendly" is a gain for my company. This includes gains for the shareholders, who are the big decision makers.

3) It's all about right now.
a) Generally, we work for the reward we can see or reasonably expect to see. The personal benefits to recycling my newspaper? None.
b) While profit planning for the next 5-10 years is common, profit planning for the next 150 is non-existent. Why do we think that a company would voluntarily pursue a policy that reduces gains now for possible environmental benefits in 150 years, over even over the entire 150 years, but incrementally?

What seems clear to me is that environmental protection is a lost cause without government enforcement. Very few voters cast a ballot based upon the environment, and even less consumers spend their money based upon a company's "green" policies. As environmental protection beyond the short term disaster avoidance are anathema to profits, companies would not be environmentally friendly, in general, on their own.

I would call environmental protection a moral issue. Since I am in favor of legal enforcement of many moral issues, I have no problem with the EPA. What is strange is that those who are most supportive of environmental protection are often most against "legislating morality".