I have been becoming more environmentalist lately. I am not so much against things like logging and things when they are done sustainably, but excessive consumption by Americans (overpackaging everything, going for the disposible model, getting a bigger car than you reasonably need) and pollution. What do you think about valuing nature and seeing a human obligation to protect and perpetuate a healthy environment? It seems a lot of people don't really care one way or another, and they think only about the price of gas or the relative hassle of recycling vs. the deposit you get back, not the environmental concerns.
This is also part of a wider view I'm taking that I only buy things if they are worthwhile or necessary, not just whether I want them and can afford them. I'd like to discuss criticisms of these views but please don't just say you hate treehuggers or evil corporations.
This is also part of a wider view I'm taking that I only buy things if they are worthwhile or necessary, not just whether I want them and can afford them. I'd like to discuss criticisms of these views but please don't just say you hate treehuggers or evil corporations.
I agree 100%. I don't see the need to buy things I don't need. The only reason I'm buying a new computer is because I need a workstation I can edit on. I don't have access to one most of the time. I don't buy clothes unless the ones I have fail to work. I only drive when I need to (ie, when hauling people or travelling more than a few miles). I recycle (though I can't be too sure how eco-friendly recycling is in Houston). Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...
Right now I'm trying to figure out how to become much more self-sustaining. Id est, growing food and the likes.
Right now I'm trying to figure out how to become much more self-sustaining. Id est, growing food and the likes.
> What do you think about valuing nature and seeing a human obligation to protect and perpetuate a healthy environment?
i value nature, and i try to protect and perpetuate a heathy environment to a certain extent. but i almost don't care either way.
i'm an economist and i think that well designed incentives are key to "protecting the environment."
there is something to be said about your comment that people "think only about the price of gas or the relative hassle of recycling vs. the deposit you get back, not the environmental concerns."
this is the ideal, and it isn't a bad thing. people try to maximize utility subject to their budget constraint, and as a society we should strive to reflect social costs in the prices of goods. why aren't there good incentives to recycle in montana compared to new jersey? because land here in montana is so cheap, and landfill technology is good.
define excessive consumption! obviously "excessive packaging" and "bigger cars than you reasonably need" are good to a certain extent. they generate utility. internalizing the social costs of these goods in their prices is a great practice, and we see it with marginal disposal costs and marginal tax on gasoline.
it's rational to only buy the things that you need.. but what you need is defined by your set of utility curves.
for more information, research environmental economics. the internalization of social costs along with well defined property rights and well designed incentives lets people maximize utility as they see with, while making consumption of "environmental goods" sustainable and properly allocated over time.
i value nature, and i try to protect and perpetuate a heathy environment to a certain extent. but i almost don't care either way.
i'm an economist and i think that well designed incentives are key to "protecting the environment."
there is something to be said about your comment that people "think only about the price of gas or the relative hassle of recycling vs. the deposit you get back, not the environmental concerns."
this is the ideal, and it isn't a bad thing. people try to maximize utility subject to their budget constraint, and as a society we should strive to reflect social costs in the prices of goods. why aren't there good incentives to recycle in montana compared to new jersey? because land here in montana is so cheap, and landfill technology is good.
define excessive consumption! obviously "excessive packaging" and "bigger cars than you reasonably need" are good to a certain extent. they generate utility. internalizing the social costs of these goods in their prices is a great practice, and we see it with marginal disposal costs and marginal tax on gasoline.
it's rational to only buy the things that you need.. but what you need is defined by your set of utility curves.
for more information, research environmental economics. the internalization of social costs along with well defined property rights and well designed incentives lets people maximize utility as they see with, while making consumption of "environmental goods" sustainable and properly allocated over time.
I'm not too concerned about politically changing the way America values environmentalism. I can hardly get people to come to my site or call, let alone change their opinion and make them decide to not put money where it is economic for them to do so.
About the case of people who are disillusioned by needing large vehicles, they hold more concern on status within the system rather than how they can benefit trees or the ozone or ocean. Especially here in California the stress on independent transportation is huge, which makes it the place that it is and powers the economy of our state. People should be concerned with the issue of gas prices here because we work to pay for the infrastructure that supports it. But to change the ideology about what we posess or what a home is like in America is pretty much not going to pan out without lots of money and a huge change in mass opinion.
I can imagine some pretty awesome ideal states, but it's another thing for them to be workable with the political gridlocking and bipartisan stuff and all.
About the case of people who are disillusioned by needing large vehicles, they hold more concern on status within the system rather than how they can benefit trees or the ozone or ocean. Especially here in California the stress on independent transportation is huge, which makes it the place that it is and powers the economy of our state. People should be concerned with the issue of gas prices here because we work to pay for the infrastructure that supports it. But to change the ideology about what we posess or what a home is like in America is pretty much not going to pan out without lots of money and a huge change in mass opinion.
I can imagine some pretty awesome ideal states, but it's another thing for them to be workable with the political gridlocking and bipartisan stuff and all.
> "About the case of people who are disillusioned by needing large vehicles, they hold more concern on status within the system rather than how they can benefit trees or the ozone or ocean."
wanting a large vehicle doesn't necessarily imply that you want higher status in the system. the benefits of safety, space, and other things can be substantial for people.
> "People should be concerned with the issue of gas prices here because we work to pay for the infrastructure that supports it."
and they are concerned, aren't they? people know that oil prices impact their commute, impact the prices of most other goods, and impact the stock markets (and commodities) instantaneously.
are you claiming that people aren't rational? because i'd definitely give them more credit than that.
wanting a large vehicle doesn't necessarily imply that you want higher status in the system. the benefits of safety, space, and other things can be substantial for people.
> "People should be concerned with the issue of gas prices here because we work to pay for the infrastructure that supports it."
and they are concerned, aren't they? people know that oil prices impact their commute, impact the prices of most other goods, and impact the stock markets (and commodities) instantaneously.
are you claiming that people aren't rational? because i'd definitely give them more credit than that.
> wanting a large vehicle doesn't necessarily imply that you want higher status in the system. the benefits of safety, space, and other things can be substantial for people.
I'm just trying to show a perspective. I don't intend to list all the reasons people buy huge vehicles.
> and they are concerned, aren't they? people know that oil prices impact their commute, impact the prices of most other goods, and impact the stock markets (and commodities) instantaneously.
I'm defending that people quibble about gas prices for a reason. The use of the word 'should' wasn't to imply that they aren't concerned.
I'm just trying to show a perspective. I don't intend to list all the reasons people buy huge vehicles.
> and they are concerned, aren't they? people know that oil prices impact their commute, impact the prices of most other goods, and impact the stock markets (and commodities) instantaneously.
I'm defending that people quibble about gas prices for a reason. The use of the word 'should' wasn't to imply that they aren't concerned.
I disagree with parts of your use of economic man as a model. I agree that prices should be internalized in gas/large vehicles, but it is certainly not happening now. Also, you can't say that just because people are willing to pay for giant cars they are good, because some people will also pay a lot of money for crack. Sometimes the goverment should take a proactive role in changing people's tastes, like incentivizing better mpg on vehicles. Overpackaging is an example where competition is harmful, because the person with the flashiest packaging often gets more sales, but if everyone had to reduce packaging they would still be on a level playing field.
And just because we have a place to throw all our trash doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reuse it. Recycling aluminum saves the huge amounts of electricity required to refine bauxite and plastic never really biodegrades. The current landfill system as a matter of fact keeps things from biodegrading in general because they seal the trash from air.
And just because we have a place to throw all our trash doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reuse it. Recycling aluminum saves the huge amounts of electricity required to refine bauxite and plastic never really biodegrades. The current landfill system as a matter of fact keeps things from biodegrading in general because they seal the trash from air.
> but it is certainly not happening now
prove it. there are large taxes on gasoline.
> Also, you can't say that just because people are willing to pay for giant cars they are good, because some people will also pay a lot of money for crack.
well, i claim that what is good for a person is what they get utility from. i see nothing wrong with this.
> Sometimes the goverment should take a proactive role in changing people's tastes, like incentivizing better mpg on vehicles.
only to the point of remedying market failures, such as pollution externalities and risk of war due to oil dependency. go beyond this, and i will be very disappointed in such a policy taxing people for their tastes for no good reason.
> Overpackaging is an example where competition is harmful, because the person with the flashiest packaging often gets more sales, but if everyone had to reduce packaging they would still be on a level playing field.
overpackaging is very well represented in the environmental economics literature. the best way to remedy this market failure is to implement a marginal user cost for disposal. if the consumer gets charged for every pound of trash he disposes of, he will have an incentive to buy goods with less packaging.
> And just because we have a place to throw all our trash doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reuse it. Recycling aluminum saves the huge amounts of electricity required to refine bauxite and plastic never really biodegrades. The current landfill system as a matter of fact keeps things from biodegrading in general because they seal the trash from air.
we SHOULD NOT try to reuse the trash if the marginal social benefits of reusing it is less than the marginal social costs. period. a lot of recycling is subsidized for no good reason. if the marginal social cost of recycling glass is greater than the marginal social cost of producing a new glass product, then recycling glass is inefficient.
what are the social costs of things not biodegrading in landfills? it seems to me that if these landfill areas are deregulated and property rights are well defined, then the costs would be passed on to consumers and social costs would be a non-issue.
recycling aluminum is a great example where the MSC of recycling a can is less than the MSC of producing a new aluminum can. and this is why people have an incentive to recycle. perhaps externalities of new can production aren't entirely internalized, in which case, there might be a need for better incentives for plants to recycle (and therefore for consumers to recycle).
prove it. there are large taxes on gasoline.
> Also, you can't say that just because people are willing to pay for giant cars they are good, because some people will also pay a lot of money for crack.
well, i claim that what is good for a person is what they get utility from. i see nothing wrong with this.
> Sometimes the goverment should take a proactive role in changing people's tastes, like incentivizing better mpg on vehicles.
only to the point of remedying market failures, such as pollution externalities and risk of war due to oil dependency. go beyond this, and i will be very disappointed in such a policy taxing people for their tastes for no good reason.
> Overpackaging is an example where competition is harmful, because the person with the flashiest packaging often gets more sales, but if everyone had to reduce packaging they would still be on a level playing field.
overpackaging is very well represented in the environmental economics literature. the best way to remedy this market failure is to implement a marginal user cost for disposal. if the consumer gets charged for every pound of trash he disposes of, he will have an incentive to buy goods with less packaging.
> And just because we have a place to throw all our trash doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reuse it. Recycling aluminum saves the huge amounts of electricity required to refine bauxite and plastic never really biodegrades. The current landfill system as a matter of fact keeps things from biodegrading in general because they seal the trash from air.
we SHOULD NOT try to reuse the trash if the marginal social benefits of reusing it is less than the marginal social costs. period. a lot of recycling is subsidized for no good reason. if the marginal social cost of recycling glass is greater than the marginal social cost of producing a new glass product, then recycling glass is inefficient.
what are the social costs of things not biodegrading in landfills? it seems to me that if these landfill areas are deregulated and property rights are well defined, then the costs would be passed on to consumers and social costs would be a non-issue.
recycling aluminum is a great example where the MSC of recycling a can is less than the MSC of producing a new aluminum can. and this is why people have an incentive to recycle. perhaps externalities of new can production aren't entirely internalized, in which case, there might be a need for better incentives for plants to recycle (and therefore for consumers to recycle).
>gas tax
the tax rates have never been calculated to try to match the social costs of traffic and pollution. they are made to generate a certain amount of revenue for the government. likewise there is no incentivization on car prices. there clearly are good reasons here, like the ones you mentioned. this also assumes that most people are completely rational about long term behavior, which simply in most cases is not true, which is usually where economics fails. many people continue to deny that global warming exists or is important while the people who study it almost all agree that it is true. also, most people lack a sense of responsibility for the future, and feel that they will die before it is a problem so they don't want to deal with it. politicians do not want to scold people for a problem that is 50 years down the road.
>trash
deregulating landfills would be a disaster. do you really think that would help the environment.
and if making people pay by weight of trash solves all the problems, good.
And all of this is kind of missing what i thought was the main point of my original post. From a moral point of view, do you think we should value the environment more so that we are willing as individuals to forgoe a larger car or overpackaging in order to make less of a mark on the environment? I put this in philosophy for a reason, not politics.
the tax rates have never been calculated to try to match the social costs of traffic and pollution. they are made to generate a certain amount of revenue for the government. likewise there is no incentivization on car prices. there clearly are good reasons here, like the ones you mentioned. this also assumes that most people are completely rational about long term behavior, which simply in most cases is not true, which is usually where economics fails. many people continue to deny that global warming exists or is important while the people who study it almost all agree that it is true. also, most people lack a sense of responsibility for the future, and feel that they will die before it is a problem so they don't want to deal with it. politicians do not want to scold people for a problem that is 50 years down the road.
>trash
deregulating landfills would be a disaster. do you really think that would help the environment.
and if making people pay by weight of trash solves all the problems, good.
And all of this is kind of missing what i thought was the main point of my original post. From a moral point of view, do you think we should value the environment more so that we are willing as individuals to forgoe a larger car or overpackaging in order to make less of a mark on the environment? I put this in philosophy for a reason, not politics.
> the tax rates have never been calculated to try to match the social costs of traffic and pollution. they are made to generate a certain amount of revenue for the government.
i know that. but for all we know, gas taxes could be higher than the amount necessary to internalize environmental externalities.
> this also assumes that most people are completely rational about long term behavior, which simply in most cases is not true, which is usually where economics fails.
while a lot of microeconomic theory assumes that people are completely rational, there is a large field developing bounded rationality.
> many people continue to deny that global warming exists or is important while the people who study it almost all agree that it is true. also, most people lack a sense of responsibility for the future, and feel that they will die before it is a problem so they don't want to deal with it. politicians do not want to scold people for a problem that is 50 years down the road.
and i agree that this should be correcting so that people are held responsible for the effect they have on the environment.
> deregulating landfills would be a disaster. do you really think that would help the environment.
i don't know. i'm don't know much about how landfills work or how exactly they charge, but i really don't see much of a problem here. generally, deregulation + property rights = elimination of market failures (in the absense of other market failures).
> and if making people pay by weight of trash solves all the problems, good.
well, that's just one way. a "marginal user cost" is the true answer.
> And all of this is kind of missing what i thought was the main point of my original post.
i know i hijacked this thread. but my politico-philosophical moral beliefs are very libertarian, and environmentalism as a philosphical issue seems to be very politically based.
> do you think we should value the environment more so that we are willing as individuals to forgoe a larger car or overpackaging in order to make less of a mark on the environment?
no.
i hate to say it, but i believe in "MC = MB."
> I put this in philosophy for a reason, not politics.
perhaps if you clarified here, i'd be able to discuss this more from a philosophical standpoint.
i know that. but for all we know, gas taxes could be higher than the amount necessary to internalize environmental externalities.
> this also assumes that most people are completely rational about long term behavior, which simply in most cases is not true, which is usually where economics fails.
while a lot of microeconomic theory assumes that people are completely rational, there is a large field developing bounded rationality.
> many people continue to deny that global warming exists or is important while the people who study it almost all agree that it is true. also, most people lack a sense of responsibility for the future, and feel that they will die before it is a problem so they don't want to deal with it. politicians do not want to scold people for a problem that is 50 years down the road.
and i agree that this should be correcting so that people are held responsible for the effect they have on the environment.
> deregulating landfills would be a disaster. do you really think that would help the environment.
i don't know. i'm don't know much about how landfills work or how exactly they charge, but i really don't see much of a problem here. generally, deregulation + property rights = elimination of market failures (in the absense of other market failures).
> and if making people pay by weight of trash solves all the problems, good.
well, that's just one way. a "marginal user cost" is the true answer.
> And all of this is kind of missing what i thought was the main point of my original post.
i know i hijacked this thread. but my politico-philosophical moral beliefs are very libertarian, and environmentalism as a philosphical issue seems to be very politically based.
> do you think we should value the environment more so that we are willing as individuals to forgoe a larger car or overpackaging in order to make less of a mark on the environment?
no.
i hate to say it, but i believe in "MC = MB."
> I put this in philosophy for a reason, not politics.
perhaps if you clarified here, i'd be able to discuss this more from a philosophical standpoint.
I just saw a video of this family in Pasadena where they grow their own foods, solar collection, solar ovens, solar heated low tech showers in the back yard, and are overall proponents of environmentalism. The site is a bit cheesy, and here's the video if you're bored.
http://pathtofreedom.com/
Found a few other videos too about electric cars and the infrastructure that was built to support them in the 90's and the failings of GM and major motor industry to make competetive electric car options. This woman has solar panel system that charges her car and she's off the grid in northern California. I have only seen a handful of electric refueling stations, one I remember seeing most frequently is over in the city of Lakewood at the city hall.
Gas prices are rising around here, I don't think I'd be extremely surprised if we get to $4/gallon in some points during this year for mid octane fuel.
And then I would like to go to other cities that have more incentive programs for being environmentally friendly like Portland! Where they have a nerdy volunteer society for recycling computers. Here's the site that made the video I first linked in this paragraph http://sustainlane.us/ they have done research and articles of cities and what category the top cities are in.
I'm definitely down with self sufficiency, environmentalism, and reuse programs. I'll try to post more on the subject too.
http://pathtofreedom.com/
Found a few other videos too about electric cars and the infrastructure that was built to support them in the 90's and the failings of GM and major motor industry to make competetive electric car options. This woman has solar panel system that charges her car and she's off the grid in northern California. I have only seen a handful of electric refueling stations, one I remember seeing most frequently is over in the city of Lakewood at the city hall.
Gas prices are rising around here, I don't think I'd be extremely surprised if we get to $4/gallon in some points during this year for mid octane fuel.
And then I would like to go to other cities that have more incentive programs for being environmentally friendly like Portland! Where they have a nerdy volunteer society for recycling computers. Here's the site that made the video I first linked in this paragraph http://sustainlane.us/ they have done research and articles of cities and what category the top cities are in.
I'm definitely down with self sufficiency, environmentalism, and reuse programs. I'll try to post more on the subject too.
as an "economist" I have mixed feelings about all of this. for one thing I think almost all of the issues surrounding the environment are tragedy of the commons problem. that is if everybody is allowed to use the common resources then they will be overused until the point where private marginal benefit equals = private marginal cost rather than where social marginal benefit = social marginal cost. not only that but I feel that the standard approach of privatization is insufficient to correct for this problem. the difficulty is that so much of the value of the environment is incapable of being attained by the owner of a natural resource.
for instance, say that a land owner has a strip of land out in the boonies that has one of the oldest trees in the world living on it. yes he can open up his property to tourists, but he may only see a total of $100 a year in revenue from ten tourists at $10 a visit and the value of the tree cut down into lumber may be $10,000 dollars. the guy says to himself, “I could make $100 a year for the rest of my life (less than 100 years) or I can cut down this tree and make 10,000.” so he cuts down the tree in buys a new but lower end vehicle. one economists says 'yes', he made the right decision. however I say, “this isn't the whole story”. let's say every sixth person in the world gets $1 of enjoyment out of knowing that that tree exists. that dollar is so small that the cost of extracting the dollar would be greater than the benefit of the revenue to the tree owner. so in actuality though the owner of the tree only receives $100 a year from his tourists and so sees the value of the tree at $10,000 of lumber or $100 a year, the actual value of the tree is closer to one billion dollars a year (yes!) and fucking he goes ahead and cuts it down anyways to buy his shitty little vehicle because he is incapable of realizing the true value of the tree. total societal loss is close to one billion dollars a year!
well obviously this example is hokey, but I am pretty sure there are a lot of resources that work this way: whales, rainforests, and clean air are just a few obvious examples. and that is assuming that people are entirely rational.
I get concerned when I think of the environment and discounting rates. economists assume most people have positive discounting rates meaning that generally speaking a good is valued more highly today than the promise of that good next year (even if the promise is 100% certain). most reasonable estimates of discounting rates make almost all goods that are realized more than 100 years away almost valueless. I think future values of resources become yet another tragedy of the commons problem in the exact same way as the last example. yes people have a willingness to pay to have old growth forests in the future yet the ability for potential loggers to realize that willingness to pay is prohibitively expensive, so the trees are cut down. a second problem may lie in risk aversion of resources owners. resource owners know that there is the potential if they do not use up a resource today (for instance a unique fungus) that there is the potential that in twenty years that resource has much more value. so though the discounted expected value of that land owner’s fungus may be much greater than the gains from destroying it, he may choose to destroy the fungus because a dollar for certain may be worth more to him than a thousand at a 1% chance. This is a non-optimal situation because one hundred landowners in this scenario will destroy all of their funguses if they are sufficiently risk adverse. Yet there is the potential for an agency to step in and pay each of the land owners $2 to not destroy the fungus and in all likelihood the agency will receive $1000 in revue, $200 of which was given to the landowners. but like the previous story perhaps the transaction cost associated with paying each of the land owners is greater than $9, then the fungus will not be saved by a private entity stepping in to pay off the land owners. however if the government stepped in at a cost of less than $9 per landowner to prohibit the destroying of the fungus there is still a net social gain of some amount less than $900 dollars and more than zero. but in the case as in so many cases relating to the future, the problem is heavily compounded by information problems. it is impossible to know what resources will be valued in the future. perhaps the shells of an endangered bird species will provide the cure for aids or a rare fungus, the ability to break down toxic waste. few individual resource owners see their own personal ability to realize the potential value of their rare resources. so they value them at their own personal willingness to pay, which unfortunately is often extremely small.
damn I could just go on. I think that the lives of most people are filled with negative environmental externalities. every time some guy buys a piece of pristine landscape in the middle of a field and builds a house on it he is imposing a cost on all of his neighbors and anybody who passes by that land and anybody who values the wildlife that previously lived on his land. and the biggest problem is that just as it is hard for individuals to realize willingness to pay that is dispersed over many people, so too is it also difficult to measure. so every day environmental externalities are dumped on the shoulders of society, yet nobody has any idea of how large such externalities are (well maybe somebody does, but I certainly don’t).
and I have not even brought up the reservations I have about measuring global public goods in terms of willingness to pay. but that is probably enough for now :)
anyways, what do you all think of Jared Diamond and societal collapse?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jared_diam … lapse.html
damn montana is in trouble! ;)
for instance, say that a land owner has a strip of land out in the boonies that has one of the oldest trees in the world living on it. yes he can open up his property to tourists, but he may only see a total of $100 a year in revenue from ten tourists at $10 a visit and the value of the tree cut down into lumber may be $10,000 dollars. the guy says to himself, “I could make $100 a year for the rest of my life (less than 100 years) or I can cut down this tree and make 10,000.” so he cuts down the tree in buys a new but lower end vehicle. one economists says 'yes', he made the right decision. however I say, “this isn't the whole story”. let's say every sixth person in the world gets $1 of enjoyment out of knowing that that tree exists. that dollar is so small that the cost of extracting the dollar would be greater than the benefit of the revenue to the tree owner. so in actuality though the owner of the tree only receives $100 a year from his tourists and so sees the value of the tree at $10,000 of lumber or $100 a year, the actual value of the tree is closer to one billion dollars a year (yes!) and fucking he goes ahead and cuts it down anyways to buy his shitty little vehicle because he is incapable of realizing the true value of the tree. total societal loss is close to one billion dollars a year!
well obviously this example is hokey, but I am pretty sure there are a lot of resources that work this way: whales, rainforests, and clean air are just a few obvious examples. and that is assuming that people are entirely rational.
I get concerned when I think of the environment and discounting rates. economists assume most people have positive discounting rates meaning that generally speaking a good is valued more highly today than the promise of that good next year (even if the promise is 100% certain). most reasonable estimates of discounting rates make almost all goods that are realized more than 100 years away almost valueless. I think future values of resources become yet another tragedy of the commons problem in the exact same way as the last example. yes people have a willingness to pay to have old growth forests in the future yet the ability for potential loggers to realize that willingness to pay is prohibitively expensive, so the trees are cut down. a second problem may lie in risk aversion of resources owners. resource owners know that there is the potential if they do not use up a resource today (for instance a unique fungus) that there is the potential that in twenty years that resource has much more value. so though the discounted expected value of that land owner’s fungus may be much greater than the gains from destroying it, he may choose to destroy the fungus because a dollar for certain may be worth more to him than a thousand at a 1% chance. This is a non-optimal situation because one hundred landowners in this scenario will destroy all of their funguses if they are sufficiently risk adverse. Yet there is the potential for an agency to step in and pay each of the land owners $2 to not destroy the fungus and in all likelihood the agency will receive $1000 in revue, $200 of which was given to the landowners. but like the previous story perhaps the transaction cost associated with paying each of the land owners is greater than $9, then the fungus will not be saved by a private entity stepping in to pay off the land owners. however if the government stepped in at a cost of less than $9 per landowner to prohibit the destroying of the fungus there is still a net social gain of some amount less than $900 dollars and more than zero. but in the case as in so many cases relating to the future, the problem is heavily compounded by information problems. it is impossible to know what resources will be valued in the future. perhaps the shells of an endangered bird species will provide the cure for aids or a rare fungus, the ability to break down toxic waste. few individual resource owners see their own personal ability to realize the potential value of their rare resources. so they value them at their own personal willingness to pay, which unfortunately is often extremely small.
damn I could just go on. I think that the lives of most people are filled with negative environmental externalities. every time some guy buys a piece of pristine landscape in the middle of a field and builds a house on it he is imposing a cost on all of his neighbors and anybody who passes by that land and anybody who values the wildlife that previously lived on his land. and the biggest problem is that just as it is hard for individuals to realize willingness to pay that is dispersed over many people, so too is it also difficult to measure. so every day environmental externalities are dumped on the shoulders of society, yet nobody has any idea of how large such externalities are (well maybe somebody does, but I certainly don’t).
and I have not even brought up the reservations I have about measuring global public goods in terms of willingness to pay. but that is probably enough for now :)
anyways, what do you all think of Jared Diamond and societal collapse?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jared_diam … lapse.html
damn montana is in trouble! ;)
ted let jared diamond talk? :(
sigh
sigh