Monday, May 28, 2012
Where is reporting on economic externalities and ownership of natural resources?
A comment in response to NPR's Ombudsman's request for feedback from listeners about what NPR might be missing:
Staff members at my local station say that this is a question that should be put to the ombudsman:
Why is there no reporting on the topic of economic externalities as such?
There is reporting on the consequences of (that is, the problems caused by) economic externalities, such as pollution, resource depletion, economic instability; but there is not any mention that these problems are the result of externalities.
The persistence of externalities means that the problems caused by externalities will also persist. Why no discussion of systemic flaws that underlie the most difficult challenges of our day?
We cannot expect to solve our problems if we don't even talk about their underlying causes.
Why no discussion of public property rights at they relate to questions of how rapidly we should be using limited natural resources? Why do we never see surveys that reveal whether most people feel that overall rates of resource extraction are acceptable, or too rapid, or too slow? Why do we see no surveys that show whether most people feel that pollution levels are acceptable, or too high, or are we too strict in our limits?
Do actual conditions match what people want?
Is this not a basic function of government--of a democratic government, particularly--to manage environmental impacts so that they are consistent with the will of the people at large?
Why is there no discussion of public property rights as they relate to the question of fair compensation to the owners of the resources, the people at large, when industries pollute the air and water, and thereby degrade the value of that which belongs to all?
If there are proposals that have been offered that would mean an end to extreme poverty AND a limit to humans' impact on the environment to levels that most people find acceptable, should they NOT be reported? (They are not reported.) Why not?
Which are among the best of such proposals? Shouldn't we be examining and comparing their relative merits and demerits?
Equal sharing of natural wealth would mean a sustainable and more just civilization (slower depletion of resources (or no actual depletion for renewable resources) AND an end to extreme poverty throughout the world):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
What is not reported:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-do-we-need-to-know-that-news-media.html
Mon May 28 2012 06:51:29 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Thursday, May 24, 2012
We are our own worst enemy - (lack of) attention to moral precepts puts us all in jeopardy
Adapted from a comment to NPR 13.7 Cosmos and Culture blog: On Alien Intelligence, The Supernatural and Divinity
tomlet said: "But we're one of our greatest threats to continued existence..."
I think it is our departure from our basic moral precepts that endangers the health of the environment that sustains us, and that endangers, also, our communities and society.
If moral precepts are a kind of natural law, then our neglect of a whole category of human rights called 'public property rights' constitutes a disregard of natural law...
An inattention to natural law will always bring adverse consequences, as when a person makes a wrong step while on a ladder and suffers a fall as a result. There was a momentary inattention to the law of gravity, which results in a mishap.
The idea that public property rights should be respected reflects a moral precept that says that natural wealth belongs to all and should be shared equally. By neglecting or giving scant attention to this moral precept (this natural law), we perpetuate extreme poverty as a persistent condition for millions of people across the world. This makes for a less just and less stable society.
Neglect of public property rights means depletion of the planet's resources and degradation of natural systems, to the detriment of future generations and the larger community of life.
Respect of public property rights implies some sort of payment to the people by corporations when they take resources or put pollution. This would mean, then, that pursuit of profit (attempts to reduce operating costs) will mean reduced environmental impact. Normal operation of the corporation in the form of profit-seeking behavior is no longer at cross-purposes to society at large. What's good for the corporation is good for the environment, and vice-versa.
Collapse of civilization will follow neglect of natural law.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
tomlet said: "But we're one of our greatest threats to continued existence..."
I think it is our departure from our basic moral precepts that endangers the health of the environment that sustains us, and that endangers, also, our communities and society.
If moral precepts are a kind of natural law, then our neglect of a whole category of human rights called 'public property rights' constitutes a disregard of natural law...
An inattention to natural law will always bring adverse consequences, as when a person makes a wrong step while on a ladder and suffers a fall as a result. There was a momentary inattention to the law of gravity, which results in a mishap.
The idea that public property rights should be respected reflects a moral precept that says that natural wealth belongs to all and should be shared equally. By neglecting or giving scant attention to this moral precept (this natural law), we perpetuate extreme poverty as a persistent condition for millions of people across the world. This makes for a less just and less stable society.
Neglect of public property rights means depletion of the planet's resources and degradation of natural systems, to the detriment of future generations and the larger community of life.
Respect of public property rights implies some sort of payment to the people by corporations when they take resources or put pollution. This would mean, then, that pursuit of profit (attempts to reduce operating costs) will mean reduced environmental impact. Normal operation of the corporation in the form of profit-seeking behavior is no longer at cross-purposes to society at large. What's good for the corporation is good for the environment, and vice-versa.
Collapse of civilization will follow neglect of natural law.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Gas extraction today destroys future options
Comment to the Diane Rehm Show about hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale:
The method of fracking breaks up the rock formations, making them permeable. They will no longer hold gas, so it leaks out.
It does not only leak out into the gas well piping. Gas leaks out to the surface in random locations in the area of drilling. Cows have died, as methane, propane or butane displaced normal atmospheric gasses on the landscape.
What technical fix, I wonder, could be applied to such a problem? (I doubt seriously that a thorough technical fix is possible, because of the nature of the problem.)
The destruction of these geological structures means the loss of natural helium storage capacity, along with depletion of gas supplies. This is a little-mentioned cost of this method of gas extraction.
Helium cannot be replaced by any other material.
Where is the public discourse that includes the idea that emissions should be kept within limits that most human beings agree are acceptable limits?
To what extent do these companies inject poisons into the ground, with the claim that they are trying to force the gas out, simply because they have nothing better to do with the poisons (which they would have to pay to dispose of, otherwise)? I understand that the EPA does not regulate these injections of chemicals into the ground.
(Do these drilling companies fund independently-managed projects that assay or survey exactly what is in the groundwater BEFORE they start operation, so that reliable benchmarks can be gotten for comparison with water quality AFTER drilling has been ongoing for some time?)
A cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
The method of fracking breaks up the rock formations, making them permeable. They will no longer hold gas, so it leaks out.
It does not only leak out into the gas well piping. Gas leaks out to the surface in random locations in the area of drilling. Cows have died, as methane, propane or butane displaced normal atmospheric gasses on the landscape.
What technical fix, I wonder, could be applied to such a problem? (I doubt seriously that a thorough technical fix is possible, because of the nature of the problem.)
The destruction of these geological structures means the loss of natural helium storage capacity, along with depletion of gas supplies. This is a little-mentioned cost of this method of gas extraction.
Helium cannot be replaced by any other material.
Where is the public discourse that includes the idea that emissions should be kept within limits that most human beings agree are acceptable limits?
To what extent do these companies inject poisons into the ground, with the claim that they are trying to force the gas out, simply because they have nothing better to do with the poisons (which they would have to pay to dispose of, otherwise)? I understand that the EPA does not regulate these injections of chemicals into the ground.
(Do these drilling companies fund independently-managed projects that assay or survey exactly what is in the groundwater BEFORE they start operation, so that reliable benchmarks can be gotten for comparison with water quality AFTER drilling has been ongoing for some time?)
A cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Satellites causing erosion of the atmosphere?
Response to Adam Frank's 13.7 blog about commercialization of the space age:
Anyone want to take a crack at explaining why, when satellites collide with air molecules, we shouldn't be concerned that they are accelerating those molecules to more-than-escape velocity and thereby causing a slow erosion of the atmosphere.
No doubt some of those molecules will collide with other molecules in the thin air and be slowed. But some may not. They may continue at that high (35,000 m.p.h.) speed and be lost to interplanetary space permanently.
Is it OK, from a public policy perspective, to cause some erosion of the atmosphere, if the rate is slow enough? Who decides?
How could different designs of satellites reduce this effect?
A cure for what ails the planet: (end to extreme poverty AND an efficient & fair means for controlling humans' impact on the environment):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Anyone want to take a crack at explaining why, when satellites collide with air molecules, we shouldn't be concerned that they are accelerating those molecules to more-than-escape velocity and thereby causing a slow erosion of the atmosphere.
No doubt some of those molecules will collide with other molecules in the thin air and be slowed. But some may not. They may continue at that high (35,000 m.p.h.) speed and be lost to interplanetary space permanently.
Is it OK, from a public policy perspective, to cause some erosion of the atmosphere, if the rate is slow enough? Who decides?
How could different designs of satellites reduce this effect?
A cure for what ails the planet: (end to extreme poverty AND an efficient & fair means for controlling humans' impact on the environment):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
DRShow: Fracking in the Marcellus Shale: Consequences
In response to a comment at the Diane Rehm Show:
Environmental problems have been blamed on capitalism. An ideologue recently told me that 'imperialism' makes corporations want to rape the planet.
Capitalism or 'imperialism' in their current form, perhaps. (I should look up 'imperialism'.)
I would say that it is the persistence of economic externalities that makes environmental degradation the more profitable option. There is nothing intrinsic to the operation of a business that makes those engaged in it want to mess up the environment. They deplete resources at faster-than-sustainable rates because it is more profitable than the alternative.
If we want conserving resources to be profitable (and we want profligate use of resources to be prohibitively expensive) we need to charge fees (or charge higher fees) to those who take, degrade or deplete natural resources. When industries are paying appropriate fees for environmental impacts, they seek to do what is good for the community (reduce impacts) in order to do what is good for themselves (reduce expenses of environmental impact fees).
Natural complex organisms are made of parts (cells) that serve their own interests by and while serving the interests of the larger organism.
Our economy, as a kind of artificial organism, can work in an analogous way. As long as externalities dominate our economy, we will be somewhat like a cancer on the Earth. But when we recognize an equal ownership of or vestment in natural resource wealth, we will start accounting for externalities and will be more like brain cells of the planet. What is best for the corporation is best for the community. What is best for the individual (vote for higher fees to be paid to citizens by industry for adverse impacts) is also best for the environment (higher fees paid leads to more effort to reduce harmful environmental impacts).
Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Environmental problems have been blamed on capitalism. An ideologue recently told me that 'imperialism' makes corporations want to rape the planet.
Capitalism or 'imperialism' in their current form, perhaps. (I should look up 'imperialism'.)
I would say that it is the persistence of economic externalities that makes environmental degradation the more profitable option. There is nothing intrinsic to the operation of a business that makes those engaged in it want to mess up the environment. They deplete resources at faster-than-sustainable rates because it is more profitable than the alternative.
If we want conserving resources to be profitable (and we want profligate use of resources to be prohibitively expensive) we need to charge fees (or charge higher fees) to those who take, degrade or deplete natural resources. When industries are paying appropriate fees for environmental impacts, they seek to do what is good for the community (reduce impacts) in order to do what is good for themselves (reduce expenses of environmental impact fees).
Natural complex organisms are made of parts (cells) that serve their own interests by and while serving the interests of the larger organism.
Our economy, as a kind of artificial organism, can work in an analogous way. As long as externalities dominate our economy, we will be somewhat like a cancer on the Earth. But when we recognize an equal ownership of or vestment in natural resource wealth, we will start accounting for externalities and will be more like brain cells of the planet. What is best for the corporation is best for the community. What is best for the individual (vote for higher fees to be paid to citizens by industry for adverse impacts) is also best for the environment (higher fees paid leads to more effort to reduce harmful environmental impacts).
Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Friday, May 11, 2012
A starting point for the political system: Make conditions match what the people want
A post to the NPR ombudsman's 'Open Forum':
My mind is so completely boggled by an apparent willingness among my fellow humans 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 (to levels of pollution and limits to 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 for comment 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. Yet I have seen very little comment or feedback, thus far.
My mind is so completely boggled by an apparent willingness among my fellow humans 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 (to levels of pollution and limits to 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 for comment 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. Yet I have seen very little comment or feedback, thus far.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Does probing the laws of nature put the Earth in jeopardy?
A response to a post at NPR's Cosmos and Culture blog: Physics vs. Philosophy:
Within the experimental physics community, the view is that it is OK to operate a Large Hadron Collider because, if it makes miniature black holes, they will 'evaporate'. According to present theory.
But what if theory is wrong. (It has happened before.) Then, the black hole may go into orbit around the Earth, but with part of the orbit going through the Earth. If collisions with other particles cause the orbit to decay and also cause the black hole to accrete mass, then it grows, and it finds its way more and more toward the center of the Earth, where accretion of more matter is ever more likely. So it grows. Then, when the mass is large enough, the whole Earth implodes into the black hole. Is this an inherent risk of trying to probe the laws of nature at their extreme limits?
Can we *ever* answer the question of whether the universe is cyclic, or had a beginning? Can we do it without simultaneously putting the whole Earth in jeopardy?
Recently an extreme gamma ray burst was recorded. It was not known whether it was an extremely distant star colliding with another star or a less distant asteroid crashing into a neutron star. The middle possibility (an imploding planet) was not mentioned.
The Gaia Brain blog
Tue May 08 2012 12:53:33 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Within the experimental physics community, the view is that it is OK to operate a Large Hadron Collider because, if it makes miniature black holes, they will 'evaporate'. According to present theory.
But what if theory is wrong. (It has happened before.) Then, the black hole may go into orbit around the Earth, but with part of the orbit going through the Earth. If collisions with other particles cause the orbit to decay and also cause the black hole to accrete mass, then it grows, and it finds its way more and more toward the center of the Earth, where accretion of more matter is ever more likely. So it grows. Then, when the mass is large enough, the whole Earth implodes into the black hole. Is this an inherent risk of trying to probe the laws of nature at their extreme limits?
Can we *ever* answer the question of whether the universe is cyclic, or had a beginning? Can we do it without simultaneously putting the whole Earth in jeopardy?
Recently an extreme gamma ray burst was recorded. It was not known whether it was an extremely distant star colliding with another star or a less distant asteroid crashing into a neutron star. The middle possibility (an imploding planet) was not mentioned.
The Gaia Brain blog
Tue May 08 2012 12:53:33 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Neglected houses are an adverse impact on the environment
From a comment to the NPR report: Should Banks Maintain Abandoned Properties?:
Industries that cause pollution or take natural resources should be required to pay a fee as compensation for damage done or value taken. We can find such a policy mentioned in most basic economics texts.
If we believe that natural resource wealth belongs to all, then the fee proceeds ought to go to all people.
If we believe in democratic principles, then we ought to set the fee just high enough to cause industries to put the right amount of effort into reducing environmental impacts. When most people feel that there is not too much pollution or too rapid extraction of natural resources, then we will know that the fees are set at the right amount.
Such a policy of requiring payment to the people by those who cause adverse impact on the environment could readily be applied to this problem of neglected houses adversely impacting neighborhoods. If most people feel that too many properties are being neglected, to the detriment of the community at large, we could charge a fee to those who hold neglected properties... higher fees for properties that more people point to as blighted. This will give these property owners incentive to keep up their properties and/or find renters or buyers. This will benefit the entire community.
With fee proceeds shared equally with all, no one will live in extreme poverty.
Our present system is one that has many vacant properties and many homeless people. But within this alternative paradigm, all people will have income from their shared 'natural resource wealth stipend'. More property owners will want to offer their property for rent or sale, rather than leave it vacant and risk being liable for a 'neglected properties' fee.
Societies develop ideas of property rights in part to ensure that wealth is put to productive use. Property rights were never defended by political philosophers as a way to give wealthy people a place to park their money. If we respect private property rights to the extent that we allow banks to hold dozens of vacant and neglected houses in a neighborhood, we need to also respect public property rights to allow a neighborhood community to protect itself against the adverse impact caused by a glut of vacant houses.
When those who hold property are more motivated to market their properties, low income people will be more able to find housing. The housing stock will be utilized more efficiently to house people who need shelter. Subjective experience of wealth will increase
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed May 02 2012 11:48:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Industries that cause pollution or take natural resources should be required to pay a fee as compensation for damage done or value taken. We can find such a policy mentioned in most basic economics texts.
If we believe that natural resource wealth belongs to all, then the fee proceeds ought to go to all people.
If we believe in democratic principles, then we ought to set the fee just high enough to cause industries to put the right amount of effort into reducing environmental impacts. When most people feel that there is not too much pollution or too rapid extraction of natural resources, then we will know that the fees are set at the right amount.
Such a policy of requiring payment to the people by those who cause adverse impact on the environment could readily be applied to this problem of neglected houses adversely impacting neighborhoods. If most people feel that too many properties are being neglected, to the detriment of the community at large, we could charge a fee to those who hold neglected properties... higher fees for properties that more people point to as blighted. This will give these property owners incentive to keep up their properties and/or find renters or buyers. This will benefit the entire community.
With fee proceeds shared equally with all, no one will live in extreme poverty.
Our present system is one that has many vacant properties and many homeless people. But within this alternative paradigm, all people will have income from their shared 'natural resource wealth stipend'. More property owners will want to offer their property for rent or sale, rather than leave it vacant and risk being liable for a 'neglected properties' fee.
Societies develop ideas of property rights in part to ensure that wealth is put to productive use. Property rights were never defended by political philosophers as a way to give wealthy people a place to park their money. If we respect private property rights to the extent that we allow banks to hold dozens of vacant and neglected houses in a neighborhood, we need to also respect public property rights to allow a neighborhood community to protect itself against the adverse impact caused by a glut of vacant houses.
When those who hold property are more motivated to market their properties, low income people will be more able to find housing. The housing stock will be utilized more efficiently to house people who need shelter. Subjective experience of wealth will increase
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed May 02 2012 11:48:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)