@b c (bcs89):
Fossil fuel can be called efficient only if we do not include the cost of the destabilized climate when we calculate the cost of fossil fuel.
Whether and how much human activity (such as adding carbon to the atmosphere) contributes to climate instability can be debated. A starting point for public policy ought to be that the reality should match what the general opinion among the people says is acceptable (in terms of carbon release or other impact). A democratic society would limit emissions of various chemicals into the air and water so that the overall amounts do not exceed what most people would agree is OK.
Even though there may be many trillions of tons of carbon in the Earth's crust, we may decide for public policy reasons to NOT allow all of that to be mined and transferred to the atmosphere.
If most people feel that we should slow the rate at which we are releasing carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and methane, then the rate should be slowed. We should continue our debates about what effect human activities have on the climate and whether such changes are good or bad after we put policy in place that brings actual impacts into line with the will of the people at large.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed Apr 25 2012 11:38:05 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Looming water crisis threatens our wellbeing
(In response to Sheril Kirshenbaum's guest blog about the need for water conservation at the NPR 13.7 Cosmos and Culture blog.)
Water quality is threatened by what is now common practice: injection of highly poisonous chemicals into the ground. There are tens of thousands of points where this is happening around the nation. (Hundreds of thousands around the world?)
Putting a fee on the taking of water or other natural resources is the best (most efficient and fair) way to give incentive to conserve the resources. Natural wealth belongs to all. This method of managing natural resource wealth is fair if fee proceeds are shared with all people.
Sharing fee proceeds will ensure that, in adopting a policy to provide necessary information and incentives to economic actors, we do not impoverish the people at large.
Information about potentially harmful stress to ecosystems caused by excess taking of water (and other resources) from the natural environment is transmitted through the human economy and society in a way analogous to the way that information about other kinds of harm enters other kinds of neural networks. Fees on environmental impact function as signals of a global neural network, acting so as to reduce harm to ecosystems. Like a sensory nervous system for Earth.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Wed Apr 25 2012 08:36:58 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Water quality is threatened by what is now common practice: injection of highly poisonous chemicals into the ground. There are tens of thousands of points where this is happening around the nation. (Hundreds of thousands around the world?)
Putting a fee on the taking of water or other natural resources is the best (most efficient and fair) way to give incentive to conserve the resources. Natural wealth belongs to all. This method of managing natural resource wealth is fair if fee proceeds are shared with all people.
Sharing fee proceeds will ensure that, in adopting a policy to provide necessary information and incentives to economic actors, we do not impoverish the people at large.
Information about potentially harmful stress to ecosystems caused by excess taking of water (and other resources) from the natural environment is transmitted through the human economy and society in a way analogous to the way that information about other kinds of harm enters other kinds of neural networks. Fees on environmental impact function as signals of a global neural network, acting so as to reduce harm to ecosystems. Like a sensory nervous system for Earth.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Wed Apr 25 2012 08:36:58 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Treating beings as things
In response to the NPR Ombudsman's comments about a report on raw milk
The photo depicts beings being treated as things--as milk-producing machines--owned as property by milk 'producers'.
Treating a being as a thing is tantamount to slavery. It is wrong.
(This is not to take anything away from the fact that enslavement of human beings stands (even today, in some places) as among our most egregious examples of oppression and exploitation.)
There's not much said in news reports about the ethical implications of an animal agriculture industry that is not only unsustainable, but is also apparently at odds with fundamental moral precepts that teach us to consider the interests of others and treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. What does the animal slavery industry say about our attitudes toward our fellow inhabitants of Earth?
http://Earthlings.com
Diet choice is a moral choice:
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com/2011/06/diet-choice-is-moral-choice.html
Cure for what ails the planet (REALLY!):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
(Please tell me where I am wrong on this, or help carry it forward... share it with others. Thanks.)
Sat Apr 21 2012 17:04:34 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
The photo depicts beings being treated as things--as milk-producing machines--owned as property by milk 'producers'.
Treating a being as a thing is tantamount to slavery. It is wrong.
(This is not to take anything away from the fact that enslavement of human beings stands (even today, in some places) as among our most egregious examples of oppression and exploitation.)
There's not much said in news reports about the ethical implications of an animal agriculture industry that is not only unsustainable, but is also apparently at odds with fundamental moral precepts that teach us to consider the interests of others and treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. What does the animal slavery industry say about our attitudes toward our fellow inhabitants of Earth?
http://Earthlings.com
Diet choice is a moral choice:
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com/2011/06/diet-choice-is-moral-choice.html
Cure for what ails the planet (REALLY!):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
(Please tell me where I am wrong on this, or help carry it forward... share it with others. Thanks.)
Sat Apr 21 2012 17:04:34 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Extreme disparity reflects a systemic flaw
Response to an NPR story about disparity of wealth in Panama:
The wealthy have more ability to maneuver into the most advantageous positions from which to exploit the commons or externalize costs.
The rich get richer.
Our society respects *private* property rights, but not *public* property rights, so it is possible to amass more and more personal wealth (and those with some wealth find it relatively easy to amass more), but there is no countervailing tendency that assures that some wealth will flow to all people, even though natural resource wealth is made through natural processes and cannot legitimately be claimed by one person any more than by another.
Natural resources belong to all. Natural law *requires* sharing of natural wealth.
Extreme disparity of wealth, economic 'cycles' of boom and bust and the “arc of civilization” of thrive and collapse are all the result of, they are caused by, our unequal sharing of natural resource wealth.
If we charge fees to industries when they take natural resources or put pollution, we will see them put more effort into reducing their impact on the environment. We need not leave an unstable civilization to the next generation. Natural resource wealth need not be depleted so rapidly that the sustainability of civilization is put at risk.
If fee proceeds were shared equally among all people, then no one would live in abject poverty. The disparity between rich and poor would be less of a problem. Within a paradigm of respect for *public* property rights, the part of the economy devoted to meeting basic human needs would be insulated from the worst vicissitudes of the business 'cycle'. If people get a significant fraction of their income from a natural resource wealth dividend, then employment status would have a less pronounced influence on people's psychological state (their confidence) and their willingness (and ability) to spend in support of their basic needs.
Boom and bust is made less severe, and 'thrive and collapse' is eliminated, when we charge fees to those who take or degrade natural resource wealth and give the proceeds to the people.
When will news reports mention equal ownership of natural wealth as a systemic solution to systemic problems?
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Biological model for politics and economics (a cure for what ails the planet):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Tue Apr 17 2012 20:28:39 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
The wealthy have more ability to maneuver into the most advantageous positions from which to exploit the commons or externalize costs.
The rich get richer.
Our society respects *private* property rights, but not *public* property rights, so it is possible to amass more and more personal wealth (and those with some wealth find it relatively easy to amass more), but there is no countervailing tendency that assures that some wealth will flow to all people, even though natural resource wealth is made through natural processes and cannot legitimately be claimed by one person any more than by another.
Natural resources belong to all. Natural law *requires* sharing of natural wealth.
Extreme disparity of wealth, economic 'cycles' of boom and bust and the “arc of civilization” of thrive and collapse are all the result of, they are caused by, our unequal sharing of natural resource wealth.
If we charge fees to industries when they take natural resources or put pollution, we will see them put more effort into reducing their impact on the environment. We need not leave an unstable civilization to the next generation. Natural resource wealth need not be depleted so rapidly that the sustainability of civilization is put at risk.
If fee proceeds were shared equally among all people, then no one would live in abject poverty. The disparity between rich and poor would be less of a problem. Within a paradigm of respect for *public* property rights, the part of the economy devoted to meeting basic human needs would be insulated from the worst vicissitudes of the business 'cycle'. If people get a significant fraction of their income from a natural resource wealth dividend, then employment status would have a less pronounced influence on people's psychological state (their confidence) and their willingness (and ability) to spend in support of their basic needs.
Boom and bust is made less severe, and 'thrive and collapse' is eliminated, when we charge fees to those who take or degrade natural resource wealth and give the proceeds to the people.
When will news reports mention equal ownership of natural wealth as a systemic solution to systemic problems?
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Biological model for politics and economics (a cure for what ails the planet):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Tue Apr 17 2012 20:28:39 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Arguing whether humans cause climate instability, as a political issue, is a distraction.
In response to an Al Jazeera story about climate change:
Any political discussion of climate change ought to be within the context of an explicit recognition of a primary function of government: to manage environmental impacts in a way consistent with the will of the people. We should have rates of taking of resources and of putting pollution that do not exceed what most people would say is acceptable.
This needs to be our starting point. What does a random survey say? Should we have faster extraction of resources? Or slower? Or are we using things up at about the right rate?
Slower taking of resources would mean an easier transition for society (and easier for individuals) because resource availability will be extended farther into the future. There will be more time to learn to adapt to their absence.
The conversation about whether humans are causing climate instability can continue after we assess a fee to carbon and methane emissions, high enough to keep emissions within acceptable limits in the eyes of most people, and give the proceeds to all the world's people.
As citizens, it is our shared responsibility to see to it that our political system functions so as to manage this natural wealth in a way that reflects our will and also in a way that reflects our shared vestment in this wealth. We need to attend to the functioning of the political system, or to its replacement, to ensure that the *economic* system reflects a shared ownership of natural resource wealth. When the economy reflects a shared ownership of air and water and other natural resources, abject poverty across the world will no longer exist. (Natural wealth is estimated to be worth about $33 trillion per year. That's about $10 or $20 per day, per person, even if we cut or cut out other taxes and have each person spend a portion of their share of this 'natural resource wealth dividend' toward public programs that most people agree provide a valuable public service.)
'Economic externalities' are what economists call those hidden costs, like pollution and resource depletion, that are not usually part of the cost-benefit analysis. These costs can and must be taken into account. There needs to be a willingness on the part of reporters and editors to start reporting on the various forms of externalities, on their consequences, and on various ways of accounting for them. We'll particularly need to look at which ways of accounting for externalities are most efficient and fair.
Any political discussion of climate change ought to be within the context of an explicit recognition of a primary function of government: to manage environmental impacts in a way consistent with the will of the people. We should have rates of taking of resources and of putting pollution that do not exceed what most people would say is acceptable.
This needs to be our starting point. What does a random survey say? Should we have faster extraction of resources? Or slower? Or are we using things up at about the right rate?
Slower taking of resources would mean an easier transition for society (and easier for individuals) because resource availability will be extended farther into the future. There will be more time to learn to adapt to their absence.
The conversation about whether humans are causing climate instability can continue after we assess a fee to carbon and methane emissions, high enough to keep emissions within acceptable limits in the eyes of most people, and give the proceeds to all the world's people.
As citizens, it is our shared responsibility to see to it that our political system functions so as to manage this natural wealth in a way that reflects our will and also in a way that reflects our shared vestment in this wealth. We need to attend to the functioning of the political system, or to its replacement, to ensure that the *economic* system reflects a shared ownership of natural resource wealth. When the economy reflects a shared ownership of air and water and other natural resources, abject poverty across the world will no longer exist. (Natural wealth is estimated to be worth about $33 trillion per year. That's about $10 or $20 per day, per person, even if we cut or cut out other taxes and have each person spend a portion of their share of this 'natural resource wealth dividend' toward public programs that most people agree provide a valuable public service.)
'Economic externalities' are what economists call those hidden costs, like pollution and resource depletion, that are not usually part of the cost-benefit analysis. These costs can and must be taken into account. There needs to be a willingness on the part of reporters and editors to start reporting on the various forms of externalities, on their consequences, and on various ways of accounting for them. We'll particularly need to look at which ways of accounting for externalities are most efficient and fair.
What counts as news -- What does not count.
This is not the world I want to live in.
-- What does it mean to be an athlete with a Pampers - P & G sponsorship?
-- It means that I strive to be my best, and I get to do events like this.
The reporter may believe she is reporting news. But the athlete knows that *she* is earning points toward her obligation to promote the product.
If Mr. Schumacher-Matos were able to spend some time explaining, I would hope that we could gain some understanding not so much of why this is considered news, but rather, why mention of the various instances of, consequences of and solutions for economic externalities are not reported as such.
Or, even better, tell us when and how this serious omission will be corrected.
Accounting for externalities in ways that are efficient and fair would mean, possibly, a sustainable society. Accounting for externalities would *likely* mean a sustainable society. Currently, we do not have a sustainable society. Does that matter? Should that be mentioned?
Accounting for externalities efficiently and fairly would mean an end to extreme poverty across the world. Does that matter? Who cares?
What reporters are not reporting: Systemic flaws and their solution:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/08/systemic-flaws-are-not-reported.html
-- What does it mean to be an athlete with a Pampers - P & G sponsorship?
-- It means that I strive to be my best, and I get to do events like this.
The reporter may believe she is reporting news. But the athlete knows that *she* is earning points toward her obligation to promote the product.
If Mr. Schumacher-Matos were able to spend some time explaining, I would hope that we could gain some understanding not so much of why this is considered news, but rather, why mention of the various instances of, consequences of and solutions for economic externalities are not reported as such.
Or, even better, tell us when and how this serious omission will be corrected.
Accounting for externalities in ways that are efficient and fair would mean, possibly, a sustainable society. Accounting for externalities would *likely* mean a sustainable society. Currently, we do not have a sustainable society. Does that matter? Should that be mentioned?
Accounting for externalities efficiently and fairly would mean an end to extreme poverty across the world. Does that matter? Who cares?
What reporters are not reporting: Systemic flaws and their solution:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/08/systemic-flaws-are-not-reported.html
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Open Forum: Ombudsman wants to know what's missing
NPR Ombudsman blog invites feedback. Here's my response (part of a series of responses to this periodic feature):
I want to chime in on several of these comments. But my mind is so completely boggled by an apparent willingness to let pass an opportunity to create a sustainable and just civilization. 'Just' as in more egalitarian. 'Just' as not so much disparity between rich and poor. No one in extreme poverty.
'Sustainable' perhaps. I suppose that, even if we limit impacts to what most people would say is acceptable, we might exceed capacity... (more likely as we delay the transition).
Shouldn't this be a starting point? The result of the functioning of the political process ought to be to bring about those limits in reality of levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources that the largest number of people would say is about the right amount. This ought to be recognized as a primary function of government, but it is not even talked about as a policy option.
Of all blog communities on the web, NPR might be among the best places to come for some comment or feedback on this proposal:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
and on the idea that the problems and solutions relating to economic externalities ought to be discussed, and ought to be a normal part of the reporting process.
I want to chime in on several of these comments. But my mind is so completely boggled by an apparent willingness to let pass an opportunity to create a sustainable and just civilization. 'Just' as in more egalitarian. 'Just' as not so much disparity between rich and poor. No one in extreme poverty.
'Sustainable' perhaps. I suppose that, even if we limit impacts to what most people would say is acceptable, we might exceed capacity... (more likely as we delay the transition).
Shouldn't this be a starting point? The result of the functioning of the political process ought to be to bring about those limits in reality of levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources that the largest number of people would say is about the right amount. This ought to be recognized as a primary function of government, but it is not even talked about as a policy option.
Of all blog communities on the web, NPR might be among the best places to come for some comment or feedback on this proposal:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
and on the idea that the problems and solutions relating to economic externalities ought to be discussed, and ought to be a normal part of the reporting process.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Removed (censored?) from the NPR Blog
This was removed from the Comments section of a blog post about April Fool's Day
What rule violation caused this comment ... to be removed?:
We live in a civilization that is sustainable and just (I realize now).
There is no need for NPR and other news media to report systemic flaws, since there are no flaws to speak of. The system is working well.
Economic externalities are really a pretty good way for corporations to make more profit at the expense of the larger society, future generations and the larger community of life.
Higher profits is a good thing. It means shareholders have more money to spend. And the businesses can grow larger.
Now I don't know *what* I was thinking with that 'share natural wealth equally' idea. To try to make our society reflect some kind of equal distribution of natural wealth would have been a lot of trouble for nothing. We probably would have been worse off, since things are working so well just as they are.
I feel better now. The stress was really getting to me, what with thinking we needed to change society, yet knowing that changing institutions and people's minds is inconvenient and even rather difficult.
What a relief!
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
http://socratesfriend.blogspot.com
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com
What rule violation caused this comment ... to be removed?:
We live in a civilization that is sustainable and just (I realize now).
There is no need for NPR and other news media to report systemic flaws, since there are no flaws to speak of. The system is working well.
Economic externalities are really a pretty good way for corporations to make more profit at the expense of the larger society, future generations and the larger community of life.
Higher profits is a good thing. It means shareholders have more money to spend. And the businesses can grow larger.
Now I don't know *what* I was thinking with that 'share natural wealth equally' idea. To try to make our society reflect some kind of equal distribution of natural wealth would have been a lot of trouble for nothing. We probably would have been worse off, since things are working so well just as they are.
I feel better now. The stress was really getting to me, what with thinking we needed to change society, yet knowing that changing institutions and people's minds is inconvenient and even rather difficult.
What a relief!
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
http://socratesfriend.blogspot.com
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)