next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Dear Brian I agree that regulation does not seem to be very satisfactory approach to the problem, but the current economic system does not provide the feedback of the costs and benefits in the direct way that it should and until it does, what are we left with? Regulation? A re-writing of the way economists and accountants measure costs and benefits? A good place to start is groups like AIMS promoting the re-writing of our theories of costs and benefits instead of using old economic arguments to dispel old "fear and mongering" arguments made by the environmental lobby. Thank you Brian for taking the time to debate this issue. I have enjoyed the debate. Cheers. ..Alan >Dear Mr. Jean-Joyce, > >Thank you for your message. I was very careful in my reply to set out the >very peculiar circumstances that justify the use of regulation and taxes as >a partial solution to the problem of air pollution. These conditions are >exceptional, and may well be overcome by technology that will render the >regulatory part of the solution unnecessary. This in no way negates my >general argument, and there is no contradiction in recognising that there >are exceptions to general rules. However, I want to make it clear that the >regulatory solution always produces less satisfactory results than one >where people bear both the costs and the benefits of their decisions >directly, rather than trying to estimate them and impose them >bureaucratically. The classic book to read, by the way, is John Dales' >"Pollution, Property and Prices", published, as I recall, the UofT Press. > >Cheers, > >Brian > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alan Jean-Joyce [SMTP:office@whatasite.com] >Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 10:53 AM >To: BrianLeeCrowley@aims.ca >Subject: Re: Human ingenuity! > >Dear Brian > >Thank you for the quick response, but why is it that those same >benefits of increasing fuel efficiency are negated by our desire to >throw reason to the wind to own a large SUV which then balances out >the great gains supposedly gained by our ingenuity? I agree that >alternatives exist and that economics will bring those alternatives >to market in time, but allowing free-enterprise to run un-checked may >kill us in the long-run. I find it interesting that you use the >argument that "we have to use indirect means, including taxation of >automobiles and gasoline, ....to improve fuel efficiency" after >writing: "When those come to dominate our thinking, the result is >policies that restrain freedom, curtail choices, and dampen the >spirit of enterprise and experimentation. Yet freedom, choice and >enterprise are the only forces that can master and overcome >humanity's challenges." So which is it Brian? Restrain freedom >through "taxation of automobiles and gasoline" or is it "freedom, >choice and enterprise are the only forces that can master and >overcome humanity's challenges?" > >Now that you have made your pro-business argument, will you be >following that up with your pro-regulation argument? Or, do you >believe that your quote from Julian Simon "The ultimate resource is >people, especially skilled, spirited, hopeful young people who will >exert their will and imagination for their own benefit and in doing >so, will inevitably benefit the rest of us as well" speaks directly >to the citizens and in effect our governments, that we have to free >ourselves from solving our problems by even talking about doom and >gloom? Is it that our current approach is not a positive force? Maybe >I have missed the point of your argument in my own doom and gloom >outlook on a problem which I believe is ultimately very solvable when >we respect nature and our own ingenuity, rather than nature taking >second place to our ingenuity. I do not believe that "The two >greatest forces now shaping the world are nature and human >ingenuity, and the latter is our greatest natural resource" and that >is where we differ - dramatically. ..Alan > > >>Dear Mr. Jean-Joyce >> >>Thank you for your message. I think that you have misunderstood the >>argument. The point is that human ingenuity is only unleashed when the >>people who benefit from decisions are also the people who pay the costs of > >those decisions. Thus, the Halifax Harbour problem you refer to is caused >>by people treating the harbour (and the oceans more generally) as a common >>property resource. But if everyone were made to bear the cost of their >>decision to dump untreated waste, they would stop doing so and seek >>solutions that reduced the costs of waste disposal. If, for example, >>fishermen owned the lobster and other marine life in Halifax Harbour, they > >would be able to sue the municipality for dumping untreated effluent into >>the harbour and damaging their livelihood. There is a large literature on >>the problems created by this kind of "tragedy of the commons" problem >which >>you might enjoy becoming familiar with. The reason, of course, that >>environmentalists constantly refer to this kind of example as disproving >>the thesis that human freedom improves our natural habitat is that they >are >>among the few exceptions, and generally speaking could be solved by >>extension of property rights and incentives to human ingenuity. >> >>The automobile argument is an interesting case. Here, the sources of >>pollution are so widespread and the contribution of each driver so >>minuscule that it is difficult to use market mechanisms to capture fully >>the costs of pollution and to assign them appropriately to each polluter. >>That is why we have to use indirect means, including taxation of >>automobiles and gasoline, regulatory efforts to improve fuel efficiency, >>etc. But it is a mistake to discount consumer preference as a powerful >>force here. You, presumably, are one of the nearly 40% of consumers who >>said recently they would pay thousands of $ more for a car that would be >>less polluting. As a result of these regulatory, tax and consumer >>preferences working in concert, the emissions that cars produce have been >>vastly reduced in recent decades, a good example of exactly the principle >>of the power of the application of human ingenuity to specific problems. A >>far larger number of cars today produces a much smaller overall load of >>emissions that a much smaller number of cars just a few years ago. >>Moreover, the rising cost of regulation, taxes, and consumer pressure is >>causing a tremendous amount of research in alternatives to the internal >>combustion engine. I suspect that within 10 years these alternatives will >>be widespread, and the price of gasoline will fall substantially in >>response. >> >>The vast majority of environmental indicators are improving, not >declining, >>especially where people are free to follow their own priorities, but are >>expected to absorb the costs of their decisions, i.e. in the rich >>industrialised world where property rights and the rule of law prevail. >> >>Cheers, >> >>Brian >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Alan Jean-Joyce [SMTP:office@whatasite.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:19 AM >>To: BrianLeeCrowley@aims.ca >>Cc: sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca >>Subject: Human ingenuity? >> >>Dear Brian >> >>In response to your article (Betting on human ingenuity, March 28, >>2001), you state that the human species is smart enough to correct >>our environmental errors - but what happens if we really do not see >>our mistakes until it is too late? >> >>And, though I agree that humanity's ingenuity is one of our greatest >>natural resources (as per your article >>http://www.aims.ca/Media/2001/prmar2801.htm), it worries me when AIMS >>does not take a pro-environment stand to business operations.Take >>Halifax Harbour as an example:We continue to dump sewage into the >>harbour because the majority of us can not see the immediate (let >>alone long-term) impact of our behaviour.Clearly, the so-called human >>ingenuity to solve our problems is not forth-coming at any rapid >>pace. Yet, if your family filled up your bathtub and started using it >>as an open toilet (that we would rinse out twice per day by opening > >the drain plug and running the shower head for five minutes - to >>mimic the tide's action in Halifax Harbour), it would not take you >>very long to figure out something HAS to be done to fix this >>situation. >> >>When considering the environment of this huge planet, we humans tend > >to lack the information needed to make the decisions necessary to >>react quickly enough to bring our ingenuity to bear. What we have >>instead, as another example, are city-dwellers who continue to >>purchase SUVs that burn gas at approximately twice the rate of a more >>moderate vehicle. These same city-dwellers are willing to pay the >>higher prices for gasoline (which reflect a supply shortage) as they >>blissfully ignore all indications that this behaviour is bad for the > >health of the planet. Because these same people are driving around >>inside the "HUGE garage" that is the earth's atmosphere, they have no >>true indication that they are using up precious oxygen. If these same >>people all stood around in an auditorium and started up one vehicle >>after another until they could not breathe any longer, they would >>soon use their human ingenuity to fix this problem of no fresh air. >> >>In a sense, our difficulty is that we neither use our bathtubs as >>toilets nor run our cars in enclosed spaces. We operate within such a >>huge "building" (i.e. on the face of this planet) that we do not >>understand the problems created by our behaviour and so continue on >>with the false belief that "all will be fine because we humans are so >>intelligent." We should be smart enough to know that our wasteful >>behaviour is very short-sighted. >> >>Alan Jean-Joyce >>L. Sackville, NS >>Ph. 902.497.6599 << File: ATT00014.htm >> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- The preceding message was posted on the Sustainable Maritimes mailing list (sust-mar). http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/lists/sust-mar -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Volunteer moderator: Paul Falvo mailto:sust-mar-owner@chebucto.ns.ca To submit a message to sust-mar, please send it to: mailto:sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca PLEASE SEND MESSAGES TO SUST-MAR IN PLAIN TEXT ONLY MESSAGES CONTAINING HTML (MIME) CANNOT BE POSTED
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects