cian’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  trouble is

  Nuclear isn't a short term solution, as it takes about 20 years for a new power station to come online. At best its a long term solution, but one unfortunately which doesn't really provide the right kind of backup to renewables. I think it takes about 2 days for a nuclear power station to be switched on, or off - in contrast to gas which takes 20 minutes (and which is therefore perfect for handling peak demand). So in practice nuclear power stations remain on - and must either generate all our electricity, or we still have the problems mentioned on the website above (you can't suddenly switch on a nuclear power station if your wind turbines are becalmed). Nuclear in Britain tends to be a solution seeking a problem.On The Brits need power, quick posted 3 years, 11 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  not convinced

  Nuclear power in the UK has been a disaster. Hugely expensive, dangerous and poorly run. Many of the reasons for this are due to huge amounts of secrecy, poor management and a management culture that prefers to spin problems away rather than deal with them. We are told that this time things will be different, but given that the same players are involved I find this extremely difficult to believe.

  Ignoring the problems with Blair (untrustworthy and a shiny eyed believer in the power of the market/industry/business), this is currently a huge distration in this country which ignores such basic facts as:
  We have had a boom in European flights, due to extraordinarily cheap flights ($40 for Rome to London, anyone?). The government are trying to extend our airports
  We have one of the worst records for conservation of energy in the first world. Our houses are poorly insulated, etc, etc. Similarly commercial buildings. The government has ignored calls for them to subsidise this, which would do more for carbon reduction than all the shiny nuclear power stations in the world
  We fly food in from the other side of the world THAT WE GROW HERE. I mean apples for godssakes. We fly in apples from New Zealand. Madness.
  The government are trying to build more roads, and have been pretty stingy (despite promising to do lots) about investing in public transport.

  As for nuclear. well Electricity generation is a small part of our carbon production. Its not that carbon neutral (1/3 of gas). It also would take about 20 years before the power station came on line. Nulcear power stations are also lousy as back up power, unlike gas. So they don't solve the problem mentioned on that website.On The Brits need power, quick posted 3 years, 11 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  criticisms

  "Of course not; however, the worst forms of environmental abuse generally occur in areas where property rights and markets are non-existent, or where the market is distorted by perverse subsidies that encourage over-exploitation."

  Well there is I guess some truth to this, but then plenty of other environmental abuse occur in areas where this is not the case. The destruction of mangroves in Thailand for exmaple - or the massive degredation of top soil due to american agriculture. Similarly, it may not always be obvious until it is too late, what the damage is. Often the problem is change that is too rapid, and not properly studied. How does one protect the rights of the future? What price on sustainability (how do my grandchildren bid in the market?).

  Similarly, what you call property rights, could be more properly considered as self-determination - the right of people affected by something to have a say about what should be done about it. Markets, where one party has a lot of money and the other party has little, will tend to replicate existing power relationships - and it is those power relationships that cause the problems in the first place. The destruction of fishing stocks by farmed prawns in the far east is a good example. Who is going to defend the market rights of the fishermen?

  "While some environmentalists oppose pollution permits on the grounds that they establish a "right to pollute," all industrial activities require some level of greenhouse-gas pollution and tradable permits may provide both the cheapest and most equitable way of achieving targeted reductions. "

  It may, but then again it may not. This is really nothing more than a philosophical position. It might prove to be like the energy markets in California - a good way to scam the system.

  "Privatization of water systems in many instances can bring much needed capital into areas that lack infrastructure and actually improve people's access to clean water, including the poor. "

  Well this is largely theoretical, given that its been disastrous everywhere its been tried. The appropriate response is to ask why it has failed AND NOT TO PUSH IT AS THE SOLUTION until we know. Economics as an analytical discipline aware of its limitations is one thing. Economics as a technocratic discipline, pushing "solutions" onto the world on the basis of inadequate data and theories is quite another.

  "Consider: food is also necessary for life, but no one is waging a battle against farmers who happen to be in the private business of bringing food to your table."

  Neither is it a monopoly, making this a curious choice of comparison.

  "This can bring much needed research money into plant development, with the potential of improving nutrition and productivity in poor regions of the world."

  Except that companies are uninterested in this. The research has been conducted using public funds. Corporations are interested in ways they can control the production of food, or produce food which is better suited for industrial processes (stays fresh longer on supermarket shelves, for example).

  "People often forget that privately-owned does not mean unregulated. "

  Well given that the patent system is regulation... the problem is who creates the regulations. Back to power relations I'm afraid.

  "How do we determine who gets entry or what areas should be off-limits to the public?"

  By using measures of sustainability?

  "Every time one of us gets into a plane to go on vacation, we have decided that the hundreds or thousands of dollars we're spending on leisure is more important than saving another acre of trees or giving money to the poor "

  Except we haven't actually made that decision. We haven't considered those factors. Humans don't work that way.On Placing monetary value on eco-resources helps more than it hurts posted 4 years ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  neoclassical

  Actually I think Tim Haab is wrong about markets. Theories of the firm in neoclassical economics are ridiculous. Firms do not behave the way that theory suggests they should, for example. And traders in financial markets do not behave rationally. Ask an experienced trader sometime.

  The other problem with neoclassical economics, is that it lacks the tools to model complex ecologies (unlike ecology, ironically). This is not a criticism of economics as an entire field. Merely one narrow interpretation of it.On Market mechanisms are your friend posted 4 years ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  well

  John,
  Well acceptance of one's discipline's ignorance would be a good thing in any discipline, not just economics. However I'm not arguing over who understands the most about human behaviour, instead I'm arguing economists are not interested in human behaviour. Neoclassical economics is based upon axioms about human behaviour which are (largely) untested by economists. I'm aware that recently cognitive psychologists have started to do work in this area and this is beginning to make an impact. But economists for the most part do not study human behaviour in the way that other social scientists do - either through long term observation (ethnography, say), or experimentation. The kind of work that some economists should be doing (details analysis of the behaviour/relationships/etc of people in companies. Cross comparative studies of markets) - is done by sociologists, or anthropologists (and much of it contradicts the cosy theories of economists) and economists seem largely ignorant of it.

  "Economists think that people behave rationally. This means that as the benefits of any activity increase (decrease) the pursuit of the activity will increase (decrease). And, as the costs of any activity increase (decrease) the pursuit of the activity will decrease (increase)."

  This is one of those statements that only works in the abstract. What's a benefit? Is my benefit the same as yours? What's a cost? does the cost mean the same to me?

  And then there are the problems with the concept of rational decision making. Am I judging the cost rationally (given our cognitive biases, quite possibly not). Where does emotion enter into this (answer - its a significant factor in decision making). Prior experience (we rely heavily on heuristics, to make rapid decisions)? What criteria am I using to judge (is it right? Is it the same as other people's?). Now you may be able to average all these things out, but you can't assume that.

  Now granted, in some situations people will be able to make rational decisions (and most people will make similar decisions). The distance/recreation site would appear to be one - though its also a largely uninteresting one, being fairly trivial. Demand for other items is hardly so simple, or linear.

  "It seems to me, and others, that this economic behavior is very insightful but not the norm. It explains the anomolies but neoclassical economics still explains the core of economic behavior."

  i don't know about the integratory work (I know the work of a couple of people, because they're psychologists), but cognitive pscyhological work suggests the inverse I'm afraid.On Market mechanisms are your friend posted 4 years ago 13 Responses