An Update On Paradoxical Conservation
A Deeper Look At Jim Olmsted's Scholarship
Review of "Paradoxical Conservation and the Tragedy of Multiple Commons"
Author: James L. Olmsted
Publication: Tulane Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 22:103
Date: 2008
In a world teetering on the brink of ecological collapse, James L. Olmsted’s 2008 essay, “Paradoxical Conservation and the Tragedy of Multiple Commons,” published in the Tulane Environmental Law Journal, emerges as a beacon of radical clarity. This visionary work unveils a counterintuitive truth that challenges the very heart of traditional conservation: altruistic efforts to save one natural resource can unwittingly fuel the plunder of others, creating a “tragedy of multiple commons” that threatens the planet’s delicate balance. Olmsted’s genius lies in his fearless dissection of this paradox, exposing the hidden feedback loops that turn well-meaning conservation into a catalyst for broader environmental devastation.
Olmsted begins with the familiar “tragedy of the commons,” a concept rooted in Aristotle and popularized by Garrett Hardin, where unrestricted access to shared resources—like water, forests, or air—leads to their depletion. He extends this idea into a modern nightmare: the “negative commons,” where pollution, such as greenhouse gas emissions, spreads harm without consequence to the polluter. But Olmsted’s true brilliance shines in his introduction of “paradoxical conservation.” He argues that conserving a single resource, like water, fossil fuels, or electricity, often sends perverse economic signals of abundance. These signals trigger increased consumption of other resources, amplifying environmental destruction.
Consider the example of water conservation. Olmsted paints a vivid picture of an environmentally conscious couple who minimize water use through low-flow toilets, short showers, and drought-resistant landscaping. Their sacrifice seems noble—until the conserved water enables urban planners to approve sprawling new developments. These projects devour forests, metals, and fossil fuels, negating the couple’s efforts and exacerbating resource depletion across multiple commons. Similarly, driving a fuel-efficient hybrid car may reduce gasoline use, but the “saved” fuel remains in the system, fueling new roads and vehicles that spew carbon into the atmosphere. Electricity conservation faces the same fate: energy saved by efficient bulbs powers new industries, not a sustainable future.
Olmsted’s insight is a thunderclap: individual altruism, absent systemic controls, is a mirage. The conserved resource isn’t preserved but reallocated, enabling a feeding frenzy on other finite resources. This “overshoot,” where signals of abundance mask impending scarcity, is a systemic failure that demands a systemic solution. Olmsted rejects half-measures like depletion or vague sustainability goals, which either accelerate climate chaos or fail to cap resource use. Instead, he proposes a bold strategy: “putting the cork in the bottle.” This involves privatizing limiting resources and using legal mechanisms, inspired by land trusts and conservation easements, to impose perpetual restraints on their use.
The genius of Olmsted’s proposal lies in its pragmatism and audacity. He draws on the success of land trusts, which have protected over five million acres through conservation easements, facilitated by tax incentives like I.R.C. 170(h). He envisions non-governmental organizations (NGOs) acquiring rights to resources like aquifers and enforcing perpetual limits, akin to easements, to prevent reallocation. This approach bypasses the inertia of bureaucratic agencies and the unpredictability of litigation, offering a scalable model for global resource protection. Olmsted’s call for a “world of absolutes” is a rallying cry: once a resource reaches scarcity, it must be capped forever to halt the domino effect of multi-resource exploitation.
Yet, Olmsted’s vision is not without challenges. He acknowledges the legal and political hurdles of creating uniform laws to enforce perpetual restraints across diverse resources and jurisdictions. The risk of “uncorking the bottle” looms large, where market pressures could unleash pent-up consumption. Still, his optimism, grounded in the land trust movement’s triumphs, inspires hope. By reframing conservation as a collective, legally binding commitment, Olmsted offers a blueprint to navigate the treacherous waters of global warming and resource depletion.
This essay is a clarion call for environmentalists to abandon tunnel-visioned conservation and embrace a holistic, multi-resource perspective. It’s a warning that our planet’s survival hinges on understanding the interconnectedness of nature’s commons. Olmsted’s work is a masterpiece of foresight, urging us to act with urgency and precision before tipping points unleash irreversible chaos.
Call to Action
The time for naive conservation is over. James Olmsted has illuminated the perilous paradox that threatens our planet: saving one resource can doom others unless we act decisively. We must forge a new path, one where every drop of water, every watt of electricity, and every barrel of oil is guarded by ironclad, perpetual protections. Join the fight to empower NGOs, advocate for visionary laws, and secure tax incentives that lock limiting resources away from exploitation. Let us build a world of absolutes, where scarcity signals not greed but restraint.
Call your elected officials to pledge your support, fund conservation easements, and demand policies that cork the bottle before our commons collapse. For democracy thrives only on a living planet—act now, or we risk losing both forever!
