[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)



George Antony Ph 93818 wrote:
 
> It also misses the possibility of not putting forward such a
> general hierarchy and deciding on issues of conflict between
> conservation and economic activity on a case-by-case basis.
> Which, incidentally, is the way it works in practice.

Please explain how the problem of OVERSHOOT -- which is an
 AGGREGATE PROBLEM -- can be solved on a case by case basis?

A worldwide problem can only be solved at the worldwide level
(e.g., The Montreal Protocol).

I include a synopsis of Hardin's TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS for
your reference.

Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/ 
---------------------------------------------------------------
             THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS 

Garrett Hardin's essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons" (1968),
is a modern classic in environmental literature. The "commons"
refers to the common resources that are owned by everyone. The
"tragedy" occurs as the result of everyone being free to
maximize one's own profit by exploiting the commons. 

Hardin's essay goes something like this: Visualize a pasture
as a system that is open to everyone. The carrying capacity of
this pasture is 10 animals. Ten herdsmen are each grazing an
animal to fatten up for market. In other words, all the grass
that the pasture can produce is now being consumed by the 10
animals. 

Dewey (one of the herdsmen) will add one more animal to the
pasture if he can make a profit. He subtracts the original
cost of the new animal from the expected sales price of the
fattened animal and then considers the cost of the food. Adding
one more animal will mean less food for each of the present
animals, but since Dewey only has only 1/10 of the herd, he
has to pay only 1/10 of the cost. Dewey decides to add an
animal and take a profit while the other herdsmen suffer
losses. These losses are known as "externalities." There is
no "technological" solution to this problem. Theoretically,
"political" solutions are possible, but with no genuine
political system, there are no genuine solutions.
  
Shrinking profit margins force the other herdsmen either to
go out of business or add more animals (more runaway positive
feedback). This process continues until overgrazing and
erosion destroy the pasture system. 

Although Hardin's essay describes a problem inherent in an
unregulated public pasture, it serves as a metaphor for our
entire society. Our communities are the commons. Our schools
are the commons. Our roads, our air, our water; we all are
the commons! 

Our commons are being polluted by runaway positive feedback
in the economic system. For example, a century ago CFCs did
not exist. But once the first company incorporated them into
its products, competition forced other companies to follow.
As more and more products with CFCs entered the market, more
and more CFCs were designed into new products. These chemicals
are now widely used in air conditioners, refrigerators,
solvents, plastic packaging, and foam insulation. 

NASA researchers have found conclusive evidence showing that
CFCs are the cause of the Antarctic ozone hole. The Earth has
lost about three percent of its protective stratospheric ozone,
resulting in a six percent rise in ultraviolet radiation.
Another three percent loss is expected by 2000. Even with a
complete phase-out of CFCs, the ozone layer is not expected to
return to pre-CFC manufacturing levels until 2060. Worldwide,
a billion (a thousand million) skin cancers are expected to
result from ozone loss—including 17 million deaths [RHWN,
#380].


References: