[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
-
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
-
From: "D. Braun" <dbraun@u.washington.edu>
-
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:07:07 -0800
-
Article: 17043 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
-
In-Reply-To: <587ohm$lt6@news.inforamp.net>
-
Newsgroups: alt.agriculture.misc, alt.org.earth-first, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.greens, alt.save.the.earth, alt.sustainable.agriculture, sci.agriculture, sci.econ, sci.energy, sci.environment, talk.environment, tor.general
-
Organization: University of Washington
-
References: <574h3l$b6h@cybernews.cyberus.ca> <AEBB37A7-5002F@128.112.44.101><5784p6$fbg@news.inforamp.net> <01bbd9ab$03898600$89d0d6cc@micron-p133><579q46$5o@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com><JMC.96Nov24091753@Steam.stanford.edu> <32A11634.519@mail.snet.net> <JMC.96Dec5154714@Steam.stanford.edu> <Pine.A41.3.95b.961205151120.42692A-100000@dante24.u.washington.edu> <587ohm$lt6@news.inforamp.net>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture.misc:6706 alt.org.earth-first:7212 alt.politics.economics:94801 alt.politics.greens:24401 alt.save.the.earth:27125 alt.sustainable.agriculture:17043 sci.agriculture:16893 sci.econ:61536 sci.energy:59772 sci.environment:114120 talk.environment:80238
On 6 Dec 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:16:18 -0800, "D. Braun"
> <dbraun@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I have looked at it in the past, though probably not at everything.
> >> As I have said before, I consider Hanson and many of the people he
> >> quotes to be crackpots.
> >
> >Hmm. The illustrious, logical John McCarthy name-calling?
> >Can we call him a crackpot too for suggesting such remotely possible
> >things as an earth with 10s of billions of people living in a western
> >lifestyle, or melting all the ice in antarctica in the name of progress a
> >crackpot too? If I remember rightly, doing so in the past would merit a
> >lifetime snub. Do we have to take Mccarthy seriously any more?
>
> I don't know whether McCarthy has ever suggested that melting the
> Antarctic ice-cap would be a good idea. Certainly would be expensive
> putting dikes and berms all around Bangladesh, southern New York
> state, and other places close to sea level.
>
> As a logical proposition, however, the possibility that McCarthy may
> have said something silly in the past does not in any way encroach on
> the question of whether Hanson is a crackpot.
>
> My own feeling is more like this: I think Jay made a good living as a
> freelance writer for some years out of running a schtick. A few
> facts, some of them from avant garde but respectable sources, plus a
> lot of panic, retailed with his good command of grammar and typing,
> and passable control of paragraphs, added up to a saleable product.
This is an opinion based on generalizations about his alleged style. It
has no weight with me, or anyone else that would rather see constructive
debate about factual issues. Could you be specific?
>
> Now a reaction has set in: many people have looked at what went on
> under the aegis of "environmentalism" over the last thirty years, and
> found much of it lacking. There was a certain haste on the part of
> the US Congress to Be Good, and there was a great deal of absolutism
> among the self-proclaimed leaders of environmentalism, and much of
> this became visible.
I really don' believe that this is generally true; it mught be in a few
specific cases, like...? Rachel carson has been derided as an ill
credentialed Henny Penny from the day Silent Spring was published, right
up until a month or two ago on the newsgroups. I have yet to see a
substantive charge that has shown her to be a charlatan.
>
> Hanson, however, has not yet seen the curve in the road. He's still
> trying to sell the same old product, and he gets hysterical when
> criticised by well informed and judicious environmentalists (like
> myself, among others).
He may overreact. However, are you clearly differentiating
psuedo-scientific, wise -use propaganda from honest scientific skepticism?
Lot's of enviros, self-styled or labeled as such, have plenty of reasons
to feel paranoid and abused.
> Perhaps in a few months we shall see a new Jay Hanson, one attuned to
> the new realities of the market out there. He has to make a living
> after all. At that point we shall have an eloquent journalistic voice
> for cost benefit analysis, freer and more rational markets, payment
> for takings, and so on.
And why should he agree with these things? Maybe you could provide a
framework for payment for takings which would not bankrupt the country,
through unscrupulous people that want to be payed for every "development"
proposal that they can dream up that might run afoul of any number of
state and federal laws, e.g., ESA, CWA, CAA, local zoning, worker safety,
pollutant reporting, etc.? I always thought that responsibilities went
along with property rights, and that what is regulated by the above
examples are justified in the name of the common good. That's just
a bit on "takings".
Cost benefit analysis is only as good as present knowledge, and
what we know now about costs and benefits. Unknown costs and benefits are
left out, although there is reason to believe that these are not zero. Sure,
we make decisions in many areas based on cost benefit, such as pollutant
levels; however, that dosen't mean that these are the proper decisions.
Perhaps decisions which impact the environment can be
made on the basis of cost-benefit if a conservative "buffer" of
additional, unkown impacts are factored in, as well as benefits.
Endangered species are another matter; once species, and the ecosystems
on which they depend, are gone, that's it; additional knowledge won't
help. The beauty of the ESA is that it nearly avoids CBA entirely--
except for the "God Squad" provision, and the HCP process which allows
some "take". Has any takings analysis actually taken into account the
role of a species in the ecosystems in which the reside?
Doubtful; and for most, this is little understood, anyway. Yet we depend
on resilient ecosystems for many "free" services.
We can adapt to other economic pathways for making a living; whereas the
decision to allow an ecosystem to unravel or dissappear is permanent and
irrevocable. Because we all share ecosystem benefits, we should all share
in the responsibility to maintain biological and ecological richness, AKA
biodiversity. Many people don't believe that they have this responsibilty,
and want to be paid to carry it out; I couldn't disagree more.
Recent proposals in Congress sought to basicly eliminate the ESA. On the
other hand, an NPR report yesterday (Wed, Dec 5th.) had someone on from
the Environmental Defense Fund who suggested that targeted tax breaks
could be an effective and fair way to encourage private land owners to
maintain endangered species habitat.
This sounds good to me; its a far cry from typical takings
legislation that has been proposed. Certainly, if the feds can subsidize
destruction of primary forests, the feds could also subsidize, through tax
breaks, privately held endangered species habitat. Pay someone not to fill
a wetland with toxic waste? No way.
So, am I hysterical? Not attuned to the realities of the market?
> He won't necessarily understand it all, but he'll run it
off by the > ream as long as it pays.
>
>
> -dlj.
>
>
Dave Braun
References: