Comments on: The polluted hand of the market http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/ hopping along the corridors of power Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:25:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: alistair http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12114 alistair Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:48:48 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12114 Quite so, Sam. But I was quite bowled over to see an alleged libertarian falling into the trap of regarding fishing quotas as ideologically OK. He no longer has a leg to stand on if he wants to oppose the Kyoto process or similar mechanisms with respect to carbon credits. Both are in fact nothing to do with property rights : they simply recognize a form of squatter's rights, over fishing grounds and the atmosphere respectively. Ideologically they satisfy nobody. Clearly, a company has no inherent right to pollute. Assigning such a right (air share, fossil carbon ration or whatever) to individual people is cute, but it amounts to an assertion that we humans own the planet, which I have a problem with. But the main problem is that it's just unworkable, because no steelworks or cement factory will shell out the millions required to buy quota, just to be allowed to continue operating. Tradeable fishing quotas are a sort of working prototype of how a carbon-credit system could work. There are all sorts of enforcement problems and perverse effects, but the mechanisms have the advantage of being applicable in the real world, bearing in mind the established positions of the various actors. Quite so, Sam. But I was quite bowled over to see an alleged libertarian falling into the trap of regarding fishing quotas as ideologically OK. He no longer has a leg to stand on if he wants to oppose the Kyoto process or similar mechanisms with respect to carbon credits.

Both are in fact nothing to do with property rights : they simply recognize a form of squatter’s rights, over fishing grounds and the atmosphere respectively. Ideologically they satisfy nobody.

Clearly, a company has no inherent right to pollute. Assigning such a right (air share, fossil carbon ration or whatever) to individual people is cute, but it amounts to an assertion that we humans own the planet, which I have a problem with.

But the main problem is that it’s just unworkable, because no steelworks or cement factory will shell out the millions required to buy quota, just to be allowed to continue operating.

Tradeable fishing quotas are a sort of working prototype of how a carbon-credit system could work. There are all sorts of enforcement problems and perverse effects, but the mechanisms have the advantage of being applicable in the real world, bearing in mind the established positions of the various actors.

]]> By: fastbike http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12110 fastbike Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:34:39 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12110 WRT to CO2 emissions, I'd much rather have a scheme similar to the one mentioned last year in Britain, where every citizen is given a ration for fossil carbon. If you don't use it, you can sell it to someone else. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/02/nrg02.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/02/ixportaltop.html It's interesting that this idea was buried by big Oil and the car companies. WRT to CO2 emissions, I’d much rather have a scheme similar to the one mentioned last year in Britain, where every citizen is given a ration for fossil carbon. If you don’t use it, you can sell it to someone else.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/02/nrg02. xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/02/ixportaltop.html

It’s interesting that this idea was buried by big Oil and the car companies.

]]> By: Sam Buchanan http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12109 Sam Buchanan Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:23:11 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12109 Why give companies property rights over the atmosphere, Alastair? The atmosphere is a global commons and rights to it belong to everyone. We could issue certificates and allow them to rent them to those who want them (if you allow the outright sale you get into inheritance issues as present generations shouldn't be allowed to sell future ownership of a commons). Likewise we could give everyone a right to a certain usage of roads. Since I bike most places (which uses less space, causes very little wear and tear etc.), I'm likely to have a surplus I could sell. We could adopt similar systems to deal with other commons and socially useful institutions such as oceans, fish, national parks, health, education, wildlife etc. Of course, this is utterly absurd. We'd end up putting so much time into trading and resolving disputes the whole system would grind to a halt. There was a policy in the old McGillicuddy Serious Party manifesto calling for privatisation of fisheries by tagging all fish in New Zealand waters, assigning them to individual owners and allowing fisherpeople to negotiate a purchase price with the owner if they were caught, or a catching fee to be paid to the fisher by an owner wanting the fish delivered. The policy envisaged an enormous increase in the police and justice systems to ensure people's fish weren't illegally caught, stolen or damaged before a sale was negotiated. Why give companies property rights over the atmosphere, Alastair? The atmosphere is a global commons and rights to it belong to everyone. We could issue certificates and allow them to rent them to those who want them (if you allow the outright sale you get into inheritance issues as present generations shouldn’t be allowed to sell future ownership of a commons).

Likewise we could give everyone a right to a certain usage of roads. Since I bike most places (which uses less space, causes very little wear and tear etc.), I’m likely to have a surplus I could sell. We could adopt similar systems to deal with other commons and socially useful institutions such as oceans, fish, national parks, health, education, wildlife etc. Of course, this is utterly absurd. We’d end up putting so much time into trading and resolving disputes the whole system would grind to a halt.

There was a policy in the old McGillicuddy Serious Party manifesto calling for privatisation of fisheries by tagging all fish in New Zealand waters, assigning them to individual owners and allowing fisherpeople to negotiate a purchase price with the owner if they were caught, or a catching fee to be paid to the fisher by an owner wanting the fish delivered. The policy envisaged an enormous increase in the police and justice systems to ensure people’s fish weren’t illegally caught, stolen or damaged before a sale was negotiated.

]]> By: richard_p_auckland http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12106 richard_p_auckland Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:21:45 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12106 I'd just like to point out that the Honda Jazz isn't as efficient as a Prius, whatever the dealer told you - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_economical_cars Actually, my MG is more economical than a Jazz - I get 40mpg out of town. Or are you factoring in manufacturing energy usage or something? I’d just like to point out that the Honda Jazz isn’t as efficient as a Prius, whatever the dealer told you - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_economical_cars

Actually, my MG is more economical than a Jazz - I get 40mpg out of town.

Or are you factoring in manufacturing energy usage or something?

]]> By: alistair http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12104 alistair Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:52:35 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12104 Good, we're making progress. A fishing quota is not a tax, but a form of property right. I suggest, therefore, that we handle carbon emissions in a similar way, in order to manage this common resource. The problem here is not strictly speaking one of scarcity, but one of a negative outcome (production of greenhouse gases). Hey, we could introduce quotas for that, too. Companies producing greenhouse gases would have an entitlement to a tradeable quota (a form of property right over the atmosphere), which would give them a market-driven incentive to reduce their emissions. Hey, I wonder why nobody's thought of that before? Good, we’re making progress.

A fishing quota is not a tax, but a form of property right.

I suggest, therefore, that we handle carbon emissions in a similar way, in order to manage this common resource. The problem here is not strictly speaking one of scarcity, but one of a negative outcome (production of greenhouse gases).

Hey, we could introduce quotas for that, too. Companies producing greenhouse gases would have an entitlement to a tradeable quota (a form of property right over the atmosphere), which would give them a market-driven incentive to reduce their emissions.

Hey, I wonder why nobody’s thought of that before?

]]> By: libertyscott http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12103 libertyscott Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:13:05 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12103 Fishing quotas are a form of property rights- which is the appropriate way to deal with what is basically a form of land (ocean area). There are enormous positive externalities from activities that are deemed to be negative - it is largely a matter of opinion. Aviation enthusiasts get great pleasure from lots of planes, others hate the noise and fumes - property rights in the commons are the appropriate way forward when scarcity needs to be managed, but not taxes. Fishing quotas are a form of property rights- which is the appropriate way to deal with what is basically a form of land (ocean area). There are enormous positive externalities from activities that are deemed to be negative - it is largely a matter of opinion. Aviation enthusiasts get great pleasure from lots of planes, others hate the noise and fumes - property rights in the commons are the appropriate way forward when scarcity needs to be managed, but not taxes.

]]> By: alistair http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12102 alistair Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:41:44 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12102 Greatscott: <b>Externalities work both ways, which is why - fundamentally - they are meaningless</b> No, it's your shonky analogy which is meaningless. It completely fails to address the issue, which is one of free access to the commons. An unregulated market is inherently incapable of managing the commons. What about fishing quotas, Scott? I imagine you must be fundamentally opposed to those. The company with the biggest trawler and the finest net MUST be free to drag the ocean till it's empty. Externalities are meaningless, remember? Greatscott: Externalities work both ways, which is why - fundamentally - they are meaningless

No, it’s your shonky analogy which is meaningless. It completely fails to address the issue, which is one of free access to the commons. An unregulated market is inherently incapable of managing the commons.

What about fishing quotas, Scott? I imagine you must be fundamentally opposed to those. The company with the biggest trawler and the finest net MUST be free to drag the ocean till it’s empty. Externalities are meaningless, remember?

]]> By: alistair http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12101 alistair Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:28:18 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12101 UKK: <b>Give me one good reason why I should pay for carbon emissions when China dn the USA are not.</b> Well, give me one good reason to pay income tax, when that beggar XXX or YYY cheats on his. There's no answer to that. In the end, you're either a moral entity or you're someone who will only do the right thing through coercion or normative social pressure. UKK: Give me one good reason why I should pay for carbon emissions when China dn the USA are not.

Well, give me one good reason to pay income tax, when that beggar XXX or YYY cheats on his.

There’s no answer to that. In the end, you’re either a moral entity or you’re someone who will only do the right thing through coercion or normative social pressure.

]]> By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12100 bjchip Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:45:36 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12100 The invisible hand is infallibly correct and efficient IN RETROSPECT, it is incredibly fallible and inefficient when prevention and prediction are required. Since nobody on the right has any interest in preventing anything until it has already happened, the problems of the future go unanswered and the quality of life OF OUR CHILDREN will be diminished by their stupidity. UK-Kiwi... if we don't embrace a market solution, even one that is pushed into being by government intervention to PUT a price on the damage we do, then there is NO chance that the US will be able to generate the political will to do so. However, there is a more important legacy I leave to my children, and that is that I did MY best to mitigate the problems to them. That obligation is NOT dependent on the willingness or lack thereof, of ANY other person to do their duty to future generations. My decisions and my responsibilities are MINE, and responsibility is something you TAKE. It can't be thrust upon you. There are people in the USA who are trying to turn it around, but if "clean green NZ" isn't willing or able to meet its obligations, those efforts MUST fail. Even if we do our best, those efforts may not succeed, but WE have to lead, not follow. respectfully BJ The invisible hand is infallibly correct and efficient IN RETROSPECT, it is incredibly fallible and inefficient when prevention and prediction are required.

Since nobody on the right has any interest in preventing anything until it has already happened, the problems of the future go unanswered and the quality of life OF OUR CHILDREN will be diminished by their stupidity.

UK-Kiwi… if we don’t embrace a market solution, even one that is pushed into being by government intervention to PUT a price on the damage we do, then there is NO chance that the US will be able to generate the political will to do so. However, there is a more important legacy I leave to my children, and that is that I did MY best to mitigate the problems to them.

That obligation is NOT dependent on the willingness or lack thereof, of ANY other person to do their duty to future generations. My decisions and my responsibilities are MINE, and responsibility is something you TAKE. It can’t be thrust upon you. There are people in the USA who are trying to turn it around, but if “clean green NZ” isn’t willing or able to meet its obligations, those efforts MUST fail. Even if we do our best, those efforts may not succeed, but WE have to lead, not follow.

respectfully
BJ

]]> By: sallymcara http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12094 sallymcara Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:40:25 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/04/12/the-polluted-hand-of-the-market/#comment-12094 Well, I'm glad hybrid cars are becoming popular, in terms of reduced greenhouse gases -- but they don't address the main car-related problems - It takes a vast amount of energy to manufacture and distribute cars to the saleyard. Cars of any sort (green halo or not) still kill people in car crashes, and they still cause congestion, and they still don't give you the health benefit of exercise. They still require vast amounts of land for motorways and parking, like the gas-guzzling variety. People will still use them to drive to the dairy when they could really do with walking or cycling...(around 60% of car trips in NZ are still under 6km, a very easily bikeable distance) And so on... Get on your bicycles, folks! see www.can.org.nz cheers Sally Well, I’m glad hybrid cars are becoming popular, in terms of reduced greenhouse gases — but they don’t address the main car-related problems -
It takes a vast amount of energy to manufacture and distribute cars to the saleyard. Cars of any sort (green halo or not) still kill people in car crashes, and they still cause congestion, and they still don’t give you the health benefit of exercise. They still require vast amounts of land for motorways and parking, like the gas-guzzling variety. People will still use them to drive to the dairy when they could really do with walking or cycling…(around 60% of car trips in NZ are still under 6km, a very easily bikeable distance)
And so on…

Get on your bicycles, folks!

see http://www.can.org.nz
cheers
Sally

]]>