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)