It seems like almost everyone who commented on my piece "The 4 E's for environmental improvement" took issue with point #2 -- that we establish property rights for all resources that are open access. (While I stand by this point, please also take some time to digest the other 3.)
The point I was making was straightforward: Resources for which there is no indentifiable ownership or enforceable rights -- whether they be private, governmental, or group -- are bound to be abused. This is true whether it be the open ocean, the atmosphere, or vast swaths of tropical rainforest. That this point was contentious sheds more light on the assumptions and biases of those who have a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of property rights than on an objective reading of what I said or the facts.
For those who continue to misread economics and somehow believe economists are all part of a sinister plot to sell off the world's resources to mad corporations, please take a deep breath and relax.
Now, for all of those out there who are up to it, here's my challenge:
Present a set of policies that you think will lead to greater environmental protection of a. the oceans, b. the atmosphere, and c. rain forests that does not in some way involve assigning them property rights such that the resources can be managed by various actors who can make claims to these resources and limit their use.
I look forward to your responses.
Comments
View as Flat
ffletcher Posted 3:31 pm
18 Jul 2006
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:01 pm
18 Jul 2006
Rather than jump into specific policies for oceans, air and rainforest, I would seek to get at the root of the problem with a more general strategy.
I would update the classic social democratic program with an environmental consciousness. The emphasis would be on reducing energy use and greenhouse gases, since I believe those to be our most critical problems. The policies:
Carbon tax.
Tax policies that would encourage production that is local, low-energy, long-lasting.
Taxing individual autos, especially gas-guzzlers. Taxing air travel heavily. (A carbon tax might do the trick.)
Reducing taxes on environmentally benign activities and products. Organic produce and green construction, for example.
Returning to the graduated income tax schedule of the 50s, when we had a more egalitarian society. Economically polarized societies encourage consumption.
Regulatory bodies that are independent of the industries they are supposed to be regulating.
Universities and institutes that conduct research in the public interest, rather than corporate-sponsered research. Important because we need fair and objective information on which to base policies.
Re-examining subsidies to see whether they are still in the public interest. Many are counter-productive, as you rightly point out. We will need a strong political movement to follow through with this one.
Changing the ground rules that guide corporations.
Putting a lid on lobbying and campaign contributions. It doesn't matter what explicit policies you pursue, if elected officials are at the beck and call of special interests.
With a political system that is more democratic and less beholden to large economic entities, it would be possible to develop specific policies with the confidence that they wouldn't be sabotaged.
Such policies could involve assigning property rights as you propose. In my mind, this mechanism is a tool, not an absolute value. Its effect very much depends on who is wielding it.
An Al Gore administration? Okay, I'll listen.
U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo in charge? Forget it.
Best of all, appoint Uncle Bart and I would be GLAD to implement the privatization! (No need to waste money on an oversight committee.)
Permalink
farnishk Posted 11:08 pm
18 Jul 2006
As for the shared ownership, Jared Diamond puts it very well, essentially using the example of the "Stationary Bandit", i.e. the landowner, who has to ensure the area has a future to retain his investment, and the "Roving Bandit", i.e. the short-term leaseholder or common user, who has no interest in preserving the Commons.
I really can't argue with Jason on the necessity of ownership, although I would say very strongly that non-private ownership such as genuine rights and responsibilities of collective ownership; nationalisation of a resource; or international ownership, such as that which protects Antarctica; is preferable to private ownership, which has the tendency to concentrate on short-term gains. And this, Jason, is a fundamental argument against neoclassical economics, which assumes you can have infinite growth (profit), dispite the obvious finiteness of our natural resources; I would love to hear an economist argue for the morality of this.
Keith
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:51 am
19 Jul 2006
What you lay out essentially only addresses the atmosphere and not fisheries or forests
As to your recommendations, a couple of them I don't quite understand, but the majority seem to be very traditional economic prescriptions that I entirely agree with- especially, the carbon tax (which would make it redundant to tax autos or planes)
I also would like to see less money in politics but the recent Supreme Court rulings make that almost impossible and I'm not sure that less money in the system would directly address most environmental problems anyway
Thanks a lot,
J.S.
Permalink
tonybogar Posted 3:03 am
19 Jul 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:11 am
19 Jul 2006
J.S.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:34 pm
21 Jul 2006
Jason,
I would begin by favoring the use of the term "Property Responsiblities" instead of "Property Rights". The first suggests I'd better take care of it, the second that I can use it. (smile).
Let's not lump atmosphere, land and ocean together. They are different types of things, and needs different answers.
For the oceans, clearly, we need an organization that is responsible for the health and well being of the ocean. It would have enough power to regulate users of ocean resources, and be held accountable to world bodies and governments.
Too fanciful? Maybe (but no more so than the mythical free market (grin)).
How about this, an international body that is responsible for the parts of the ocean that are not "claimed" (in a recognizable way) by any nation. Give it enough money, staff, resources and a charter, and voila!! For the claimed areas, treaties would work if a few things changed.
One, change the methods of ship registering that allow ships to hide their true owners by registering in poor countries. Make this part of the WTO, and allow suits to enforce it. Also, make it part of a UN treaty on the ocean.
Is this perfect, no? But better than what we have now.
Is it in disagreement with you? I am not sure, your arguments are so general it is hard to tell exactly what you mean (on purpose I suspect).
The devil, after all, is always in the details. (smile).
Please come out from behind generalities and give us your details!!
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:48 pm
21 Jul 2006
Based on the existing evidence, rainforests should NOT be allowed to be private property. The likelihood is that allowing them to be private property leads to their doom.
The basic argument for them as private property seems to be the "good king" argument, ie, that if we had a wonderful, kind, caring, selfless and good king, then a kingdom is the perfect form of government.
Ah, yes, but....
For rainforests, two things need to happen, the governments involved need the money and support to preserve them rather than cut them down now.
It doesn't matter if they are cut down for soy or cattle or wood. An economic market system that cares about immediate returns is going to cut them down. Preserving them is never going to be as profitable as cutting them down in the short term.
In fact, the more we cut, the less there is, the more valuable they are, the more incentive to cut!!!
They need to be government controlled, and international support has to go to the governments involved to keep them alive. This means money. The world (if it cares) has to take responsibility and put up enough money that the locally responsible governments can apply the resources to keep them healthy and in existence. They don't have those resources on their own, or not enough.
Secondly the world needs to get serious about poaching and the illegal trade in endangered species. We're not now (especially the developed world). We need to commit ourselves to supporting the efforts by other countries to preserving their forests.
Primarily, this is both an economic issue (will we put up the money) and an attitudinal issue, do we care.
There are places where some organizations have worked with local people to help them make a good living by preserving the environment rather than cutting it down. This seems to work best where the rainforests are owned by the government.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:50 pm
21 Jul 2006
No one can own the atmosphere as near as I can tell (smile).
So, Jason, I challenge you back. How exactly would you prescribe what you call property rights to the air, and how would you see it as working?
I am really unclear what you mean here.
thanks,
patrick
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 2:54 pm
21 Jul 2006
Right. And what's more, the world is in the iron-fisted grip of these short-term profiteers. Each one of them, in their Fortune 500 corporations, is his own little Jim Jones, using the world as his own private Jonestown. Capitalism is just a People's Temple cult writ large.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 10:58 pm
21 Jul 2006
Oh yeah, and, having taught debate before, I can say this: trying to cast the burden of proof onto the "other side" is no substitute for actual argument.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 2:05 am
22 Jul 2006
JS: What you lay out essentially only addresses the atmosphere and not fisheries or forests I think the atmosphere is the key problem right now. If CO2 emissions are not limited, the ocean will undergo increased acidification with v. scary effects on marine life. Forests too are being stressed by global warming (e.g. the plague of pine beetles in N. America forests).
Your market-based solutions for tweaking ownership rights could be useful tools for many kinds of environmental problems, such as forest and fishery management, but only if the political implications are addressed and the process is handled in a democratic manner, without the corruption that usually accompanies the process.
Nice to see that we can agree on some things, JS.
patrick: No one can own the atmosphere as near as I can tell (smile). So, Jason, I challenge you back. How exactly would you prescribe what you call property rights to the air, and how would you see it as working? Actually the process of assigning property rights to the air is taking place now... in the form of cap-and-trade proposals, in which rights to emit CO2 are assigned to owners and can be bought and sold.
The Science editor of The Ecologist magazine is skeptical: This trade in carbon emissions won't combat global warming, but many others, especially economists, are enthusiastic. I think I would prefer a carbon tax, but it certainly would be instructive to see how carbon trading is working out. A non-ideological study would reveal the possibilities and limits of JS's proposals.
One fascinating approach is the idea of carbon credits: The [UK] environment minister, David Miliband, today unveiled a radical plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by charging individuals for the amount of carbon they use.
Under the proposals, consumers would carry bank cards that record their personal carbon usage. Those who use more energy - with big cars and foreign holidays - would have to buy more carbon points, while those who consume less - those without cars, or people with solar power - would be able to sell their carbon points.
Guardian, July 19 Agree with Jason's ideas or not, they are going to be important in the coming years.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:48 am
22 Jul 2006
property rights in fisheries are one of the best and most successful tools at preserving fisheries (there's a bunch of literature on them- they are called ITQ's or IFQ's)
Please, please, please, can everyone stop saying property rights=privitization?? It really makes you sound uniformed.
Anyway, I think this exercise has been great because it has demonstrated that whether some like it or not market-based solutions based on traditional economic analysis have been and will continue to be the dominant form of addressing environmental problems because while imperfect, there is nothing else that makes much sense or has a better track record
J.S.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:22 am
22 Jul 2006
Bart,
You are correct about the love affair with carbon trading. However, the fact that people love it doesn't mean that it will work.
There are two basic problems with it. One, it does not guarantee any real reduction in global warming, only perhaps, at best, a slowing of the rate. This is because energy usage is not a fixed number, but rather a growing number (if we assigned a number to it), and as such, carbon trading does not assure that the total number of "bad" energy usage declines.
Rather, it allows people to buy some "good" energy while continuing to creat "bad" energy. Unfortunately, most of the "good" energy will be "new" additional energy, rather than a replacement for the existing "bad" energy. Is this a good thing? Well, yes, but since we are not at a sustainable point now, it is not sufficient. And since we have around ten years to avoid our worst cast tipping point, it becomes a distraction, as it is put in place and tinkered with.
Certainly, Jason's ideas are "important", as they are much beloved by the advocates of no change. However, it is equally important to speak out and point out their flaws (as you often do (smile)).
Jason,
You are very good at broad sweeping generalizations. How about responding to people's criticisms? Or is that not the point?
Since you don't respond, the "exercise" as you call it, hasn't demonstrated anything as far as I can see, frankly.
I do look forward to your responding if you have time (smile).
thanks,
Patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:30 am
22 Jul 2006
Bart,
Oops, I forgot my second problem with carbon trading. It allows rich individuals and large corporations with more money to choose to spend that money in a way that poor individuals and small businesses cannot.
Why does this matter? Look at a small business trying to enter a new market. It has limited resources, some of which must be spent on "good" energy (this is in and of itself a good thing), meanwhile the large corporation that is already in the market does not have to use "good" energy, it can use some of its excess capital to pay the "carbon tax", while avoiding the (probably) more costly switch to "good" energy.
This will allow it to continue to dominate the market for that particular item, and to keep out the new small producer, who cannot afford to enter and compete.
Thus the market for that item will be controlled by "bad" energy users, with an added fee built into their costs (and passed on, and deducted from taxes).
Thus the carbon tax will lead to further monopolization of markets.
Which further distorts the mythical "free market" that right wing economists love so much.
As for individuals, the plans mostly aren't clear, but will probably be regressive (the free marketers tend to love regressive taxes, and todays' bought politicians go along with them).
patrick
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:11 pm
22 Jul 2006
How very academic of you Jason (if that is indeed your real name, hehey).
I propose we eliminate all corporate welfare to fossil, nuclear, and fuel farming energy production.
Then offer up half the savings to consumers in the form of tax breaks to buy wind, solar, and plugin electric car energy systems. For a period of 10 years, about the time needed to reverse global climate change with these policies.
After 10 years all subsidies would be history. This would attain the same lofty goals using a free market. Carbon taxing and trading schemes that aim to assign ownership to water, air, and public spaces on spaceship earth, will eventually put that ownership in the hands of the worst actors.
Corporate government, the kind we have right here in these united states. Corporate welfare is the connection. Break that bond and free markets will work.
Renewable energy is not only cleaner, it is also much, much cheaper and much, much better at creating a healthy, stable, citizen friendly economy.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:47 am
23 Jul 2006
I propose we eliminate corporate ownership of government through a wholesale public desertion from both dinosaur "major political parties" as a prerequisite for anything of the sort.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:01 am
23 Jul 2006
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:14 am
23 Jul 2006
J.S.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:45 pm
23 Jul 2006
Hi Jason,
Thanks for replying. I do feel that when you include every possible type of government intervention under the category of subsidies, that you are being overly general. Obviously, you feel differently, so it seems we are not communicating.
As to my reactions being "knee jerk" and "juvenile", that is not really a response, but merely name calling. If you don't wish to engage in dialogue with those who disagree with you or have questions, that of course is your right. I thought that the point of posting here for most of us IS to engage in dialogue and discussion. I understand you are busy, so are many of us. But what is your aim? I don't really understand it.
I have never said that either "property rights" or "capitalism" cannot be part of the solution, but merely questioned some of the statements I regard as overly broad. And I also question some of the ideas such as that of the "free market".
I thought I was making my case. And am willing to do so in regards to your comments if you have time and wish. I am sorry that you regard responding to me as a waste of time, but I understand.
You should realize that blogging involves engaging in dialogue with those who disagree with you. Everyone doesn't automatically join your cheering section. It's the nature of the beast (smile).
The blogsphere is the "free market" of ideas, and no one goes unchallenged in this competitive arena (me included).
patrick
Permalink