Editing Neoliberalism (section)

=== Environmental impact ===
[[File:Press conference EU-Mercosul on June 26, 2019 (VII).jpg|thumb|The [[European Union–Mercosur free trade agreement]], which would form one of the world's largest [[free trade]] areas, has been denounced by environmental activists and indigenous rights campaigners.]]
It has been argued that trade-led, unregulated economic activity and lax state [[regulation of pollution]] have led to [[environmental degradation]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Peet |first=Richard |title=Neoliberalism and Nature: The Case of the WTO |journal=[[Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science]] |volume=590 |date=November 2003 |issue=1 |pages=188–211|doi=10.1177/0002716203256721 |bibcode=2003AAAPS.590..188H |s2cid=154566692 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Faber |first1=Daniel |title=Global Capitalism, Reactionary Neoliberalism, and the Deepening of Environmental Injustices |journal=[[Capitalism Nature Socialism]] |date=2018 |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=8–28 |doi=10.1080/10455752.2018.1464250 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Furthermore, modes of production encouraged under neoliberalism may reduce the availability of natural resources over the long term, and may therefore not be sustainable within the world's [[resource depletion|limited geographical space]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Moore |first=Jason W. |date=2011 |title=Transcending the metabolic rift: a theory of crises in the capitalist worldecology |journal=[[Journal of Peasant Studies]] |volume=38 |number=1 |pages=1–46 |doi=10.1080/03066150.2010.538579 |s2cid=55640067}}</ref>

In Robert Fletcher's 2010 piece, "Neoliberal Environmentality: Towards a Poststructuralist Political Ecology of the Conservation Debate"<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fletcher |first=Robert |date=2010 |title=Neoliberal environmentality: Towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the conservation debate |journal=[[Conservation and Society]] |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=171 |doi=10.4103/0972-4923.73806 |issn=0972-4923 |doi-access=free|hdl=10535/8301 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> his premise is that there is a conflict of ideas in conservation; that on one side of things you have deep ecology and protectionist paradigms and on the other side you have community based conservation efforts. There are problems with both approaches, and on either side they frequently fail to do conservation work in a substantial way. In the middle, Fletcher sees a space where social sciences are able to critique both sides of and blend the approaches, forming not a triangle of ideologies, but a spectrum. The relationship between capitalism and conservation is one that has to be reckoned with due to an overarching neoliberal framework guiding most conservation efforts.

According to ecologist [[William E. Rees]], the "neoliberal paradigm contributes significantly to planetary unraveling" by treating the economy and the ecosphere as totally separate systems, and by neglecting the latter.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rees|first1=William E.|author-link=William E. Rees|date=2020 |title=Ecological economics for humanity's plague phase|url=http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/rees_2020.pdf|journal=[[Ecological Economics (journal)|Ecological Economics]]|volume=169 |issue= |pages=106519 |doi=10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106519|bibcode=2020EcoEc.16906519R |s2cid=209502532 |access-date=}}</ref> [[Marxism|Marxist]] economic geographer [[David Harvey]] argues neoliberalism is to blame for [[Holocene extinction|increased rates of extinction]].{{sfnp|Harvey|2005|p=173}} Notably, he observes that "the era of neoliberalization also happens to be the era of the fastest mass extinction of species in the Earth's recent history." American philosopher and animal rights activist [[Steven Best]] argues that three decades of neoliberal policies have "marketized the entire world" and intensified "the assault on every ecosystem on the earth as a whole".<ref>{{cite book |last=Best |first=Steven |date=2014 |title=The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century |chapter=Conclusion: Reflections on Activism and Hope in a Dying World and Suicidal Culture |publisher=[[Palgrave Macmillan]] |page=160 |isbn=978-1137471116 |doi=10.1057/9781137440723_7 |author-link=Steven Best}}</ref> Neoliberalism reduces the "[[tragedy of the commons]]" to an argument for private ownership.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Debunking the Tragedy of the Commons |url=https://news.cnrs.fr/opinions/debunking-the-tragedy-of-the-commons |access-date=December 11, 2020 |website=[[French National Centre for Scientific Research|CNRS News]] |date=January 5, 2018}}</ref>

The [[Friedman doctrine]], which Nicolas Firzli has argued defined the neoliberal era,<ref name="Analyse Financière">{{cite news |first1=M. Nicolas J. |last1=Firzli |title=Beyond SDGs: Can Fiduciary Capitalism and Bolder, Better Boards Jumpstart Economic Growth? |url=https://www.academia.edu/28982570 |access-date=November 1, 2016 |work=Analyse Financière |date=October 2016}}</ref> may lead companies to neglect concerns for the environment.<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 13, 2020 |title=Why Milton Friedman was right and wrong |website=[[Australian Financial Review]] |url=https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/business-real-social-responsibility-is-to-be-a-rule-taker-not-a-maker-20200913-p55v3x |access-date=December 12, 2020}}</ref> Firzli insists that prudent, [[fiduciary]]-driven long-term investors cannot ignore the [[environmental, social and corporate governance]] consequences of actions taken by the CEOs of the companies whose shares they hold as "the long-dominant Friedman stance is becoming culturally unacceptable and financially costly in the boardrooms of pension funds and industrial firms in Europe and North America".<ref name="Analyse Financière"/>

Critics like Noel Castree focus on the relationship between neoliberalism and the biophysical environment explain that critics of neoliberals see the free market as the best way to mediate the relationship between producers and consumers, as well as maximize freedom in a more general sense which they view as inherently good. Castree also asserts that the assumption that markets will allow for the maximization of individual freedom is incorrect.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Castree |first=Noel |date=December 2010 |title=Neoliberalism and the Biophysical Environment 1: What 'Neoliberalism' is, and What Difference Nature Makes to it |journal=[[Geography Compass]] |volume=4 |issue=12 |pages=1725–1733 |doi=10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00405.x |bibcode=2010GComp...4.1725C |issn=1749-8198|url=https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/files/25441023/POST-PEER-REVIEW-NON-PUBLISHERS.DOC }}</ref>

Conservation and management of natural resources has also been impacted by neoliberal policies and development. Prior to the neoliberalization of conservation efforts, conservation was done on the part of governmental and regulatory entities. Although conservation has typically been considered the "antithesis of production",<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Sodikoff |first=Genese |date=December 2009 |title=The Low-Wage Conservationist: Biodiversity and Perversities of Value in Madagascar |url=https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01154.x |journal=American Anthropologist |language=en |volume=111 |issue=4 |pages=443–455 |doi=10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01154.x |issn=0002-7294}}</ref> with the global shift towards neoliberalization, conservation programs have also shifted towards becoming a "mode of capitalist production".<ref name=":0" /> It's done so through the reliance on private entities, non-governmental organizations, resource commodification and entrepreneurship (big and small). Access to the market through natural resource commodification became a neoliberal tool for communities and regions to further develop.

One scholar and critic of neoliberal conservation, Dan Klooster, published a study on forest certification in Mexico which demonstrated the socio-environmental consequences of neoliberal conservation networks.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klooster |first=Dan |date=September 2006 |title=Environmental Certification of Forests in Mexico: The Political Ecology of a Nongovernmental Market Intervention |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00705.x |journal=Annals of the Association of American Geographers |language=en |volume=96 |issue=3 |pages=541–565 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00705.x |s2cid=153930831 |issn=0004-5608|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In this example, global markets and a desire for sustainably-sourced products led to the adoption of forest certification programs, such as the Forest Conservation Fund, by Mexican companies. These certifications require that forest managers make improvements to the environmental and social aspects of harvesting wood and in return they gain access to international markets that prefer the consumption of certified wood. Today, 12 percent of Mexico's logged forests do so under a certification. However, many small logging businesses aren't able to successfully compete amongst the global market forces without accepting inaccessible costs to certification and unsatisfactory market prices and demand. Klooster uses this conservation example to demonstrate how the social impacts of conservation commodification can be both positive and negative. On the one hand the certification can create networks of producers, certifiers and consumers that oppose the socio-environmental disparities caused by the forestry industry, but on the other hand they might also widen further the north–south divisions.