Earth Day, April 22, is a good

occasion to revisit the question: Do we have to choose between protecting

the environment and growing the economy?

Whether they'll admit it or

not, a lot of environmentalists think that the answer is Yes, that more

factories, jobs and homes, and greater economic freedom, necessarily mean

dirtier water, air and land. So they busy themselves fighting new construction

projects, protesting industrial expansion and trying to micromanage how

property owners can use their land.

But evidence from around the

globe suggests their basic assumptions are off. The truth is, hindering

the economy hurts the environment. In fact, there may be no greater environmental

threat than a stagnant GDP.

At its extremes, this phenomenon

was on display in the old Soviet Union and its colonies. While the economy

was in suspended animation under communism, raw sewage went untreated

in Poland; acid rain dissolved the gold roof of Cracow's famous Sigismund

Chapel; East Germans lived under a permanent, dark fog of pollution; and

Czechoslovakian sulfur dioxide concentrations were eight times U.S. levels.

During these same decades,

the United States and other industrial countries were making great strides

in purifying both water and air.

Recent economic research quantifies

the relationship between health in the economy and the environment. Princeton

University scholars have demonstrated that national environmental quality

begins to improve once per capita income exceeds $9,000. More importantly,

their study finds that the greater the income, the better the environment.

The reasons for this correlation

are simple: economic growth fuels a popular demand for environmental protection

and leads to technological innovations that minimize environmental harm.

Indeed, another study, by University of Chicago professor Don Coursey,

found that for every 1 percent increase in income, the demand for environmental

quality increases 2.5 percent. It should come as no shock that the income

of Sierra Club environmentalists is much higher than the national average.

Economic growth is critical

for advancing material and environmental well-being, but such growth does

not occur spontaneously. An economy that is continually creating more

jobs and opportunities requires a legal system that respects and protects

private property rights. When these rights are guaranteed, individuals

have an incentive to create and build. Certainty of ownership facilitates

the transfer of resources to those who will put them to the most economically

efficient and socially desirable use.

When these rights are absent,

as they are in most third world countries, investment dries up and governments

strive in vain to secure national economic health. No one has the time,

will or means to fix environmental problems.

Uncertain private property

rights imperil the environment. This is because secure ownership carries

incentives to care for property, whether it's a field, a forest, a farm

or a factory. Experiments in collective property ownership in America

and abroad have underscored this truth time and again. Where will you

find more litter, on your private driveway or the public highway? Or compare

rentals with owner-occupied homes. Which are more likely to be clean,

tidy and well-maintained, signaling the residents' engagement, pride and

concern?

More environmentalists need

to open their eyes to the fact that environmental improvements happen

because of, not in spite of, private property and free enterprise. If

they really want to protect the earth, they should support, not subvert,

private property rights, and export this fundamental doctrine around the

world.

feed the hungry, house the poor, and generate the public demand and tools

necessary for cleaner air, land and water.

[J. David Breemer is an

attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation (www.pacificlegal.org), a Sacramento-based

public interest law firm that litigates for a balanced approach to environmentalism.]