NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm wondering if there are any free-market environmentalists here on NS, and if they'd be willing to share their philosophies as well as what their favored policies would be. By free-market environmentalist, I mean pretty much anyone who believes that the market can serve the environment better than the government.

Well it would be difficult to serve it worse.

I had an economics professor in college who argued that if one person owned all the whales, that person would make sure that we never ran out.

Neither the market nor the government “serve” the environment well, at that is a fact. The market uses resources and only preserves enough to sustain itself, which I’m fine with, if they actually do in fact do that.. Lately, they haven’t been with the exception of the US and Canadian lumber industries and a few others. The government preserves the environment for votes.

Both the government and private business have no real, practical solutions to current environmental problems such as global warming and the falling supply of oil, the only current problems which we can say for sure will and already are effecting humanity. Both prefer to use buzzwords like “hydrogen” and “ethanol” rather than finding a feasible alternative to fossil fuels.

I'm wondering if there are any free-market environmentalists here on NS, and if they'd be willing to share their philosophies as well as what their favored policies would be. By free-market environmentalist, I mean pretty much anyone who believes that the market can serve the environment better than the government.
Free market + informed consumers might do the trick.

The free market serve the environment??????

If the environment was left to the market, cement would be just about everywhere.

Free market + informed consumers might do the trick.
Free market and informed consumers is pretty much an oxymoron.

I tell you one thing, I know a guy who has 20 acres of forest land, and it is very nice. He let's people camp out there for a small fee. I've been to government forest land, and it's just crap. trash everywhere.

I'm a free-market enviormentalist. I believe that if a person or organization own the land, then they'll take care of it better than government because they have more to lose if they don't upkeep it than government does.

I tell you one thing, I know a guy who has 20 acres of forest land, and it is very nice. He let's people camp out there for a small fee. I've been to government forest land, and it's just crap. trash everywhere.

I'm a free-market enviormentalist. I believe that if a person or organization own the land, then they'll take care of it better than government because they have more to lose if they don't upkeep it than government does.
But there is always more short term money to be made by trashing the environment.

Free market and informed consumers is pretty much an oxymoron.
:confused:

But there is always more short term money to be made by trashing the environment.
But if we could make people realise the long-run economic negativity of trashing the environment, then we'd have a different situation on our hands, methinks.

Unsustainability is not economically sustainable.

I tell you one thing, I know a guy who has 20 acres of forest land, and it is very nice. He let's people camp out there for a small fee. I've been to government forest land, and it's just crap. trash everywhere.

I'm a free-market enviormentalist. I believe that if a person or organization own the land, then they'll take care of it better than government because they have more to lose if they don't upkeep it than government does.

For the right price, that forest would become lumbar in no time.

But if we could make people realise the long-run economic negativity of trashing the environment, then we'd have a different situation on our hands, methinks.

Unsustainability is not economically sustainable.

Short term gain for self vs long term gain for the community? What do you think most people would choose?

But there is always more short term money to be made by trashing the environment.

But it's only short term. The lumber industry is always replacing the trees that they chop down. Why, because it serves them better to do that in the long run. Like I said, when land is owned by the private sector, it gets better care because whoever owns it has more to lose if he doesn't take care of it than government does.

The market serves people's desires and people want things that harm the environment more than they want to protect the environment.

If people suddenly stopped wanting stuff that pollutes and started wanting to protect the environment, the market would adapt to that. But I don't see people changing like that.

For the right price, that forest would become lumbar in no time.

But the lumber industry replants the trees that they chop down because in order to keep their job, and the industry going, it serves them better to spend a few millions to replace the trees they chop down, so that in a few years down the road they'll still have trees.

Short term gain for self vs long term gain for the community? What do you think most people would choose?

The latter, because it's a long-term gain for themselves, also.

But it's only short term. The lumber industry is always replacing the trees that they chop down. Why, because it serves them better to do that in the long run. Like I said, when land is owned by the private sector, it gets better care because whoever owns it has more to lose if he doesn't take care of it than government does.

Not guaranteed. Look at the case of Pacific lumber. It was as green as you can get for a lumber company. One take over and clear cutting became the practice.

Private ownership only works if the guy loves his land. Otherwise, he can make a ton of money trashing it or building over it.

But it's only short term. The lumber industry is always replacing the trees that they chop down. Why, because it serves them better to do that in the long run. Like I said, when land is owned by the private sector, it gets better care because whoever owns it has more to lose if he doesn't take care of it than government does.
*cough*Amazonianexrainforest*cough*

A free market with consumers who cared could do it. But guess what - they don't. Some of them mouth words like they do, but when it comes down to purchasing power, most consumers vote for continued reliance on fossil fuels, and will continue to do so until they're paying $100 at the pump for gas, if then.

*cough*Amazonianexrainforest*cough*

Shush! Don't wreck the panacea of the beauty of private ownership.

Can you imagine what would happen to the Giant Redwoods if the land was up for sale?

*cough*Amazonianexrainforest*cough*

I didn't say everyone follows that model. There is such a thing as poor business sense here people. I'm just saying what should happen if a business want to stay in the land business for the long haul.

But the lumber industry replants the trees that they chop down because in order to keep their job, and the industry going, it serves them better to spend a few millions to replace the trees they chop down, so that in a few years down the road they'll still have trees.

Replacing the trees is not the best thing for a forest. A fallen rotting tree does more for the ecosystem.

You do realize that it takes more then a few years to recover what was lost.

Replacing the trees is not the best thing for a forest. A fallen rotting tree does more for the ecosystem.

You do realize that it takes more then a few years to recover what was lost.

I know.

A free market with consumers who cared could do it. But guess what - they don't. Some of them mouth words like they do, but when it comes down to purchasing power, most consumers vote for continued reliance on fossil fuels, and will continue to do so until they're paying $100 at the pump for gas, if then.


Exactly. Look at the Exxon Valdez incident. People could have boycotted the Exxon gas stations(it wouldn't have done much to their overall financial picture) but they majority went to them because their gas was cheaper.

1) If someone does own something, he or she will generally look out for it, so it won't run out.
However, it's problematic to assign property rights to things like the atmosphere, or whole species of animals.

2) However, there are two relatively free-market solutions that can help the environment: Firstly, the Coase Theorem can be applied as mentioned above (where the owner of the piece of environment and the potential offender come together and negotiate, hopefully accurately reflecting the costs of environmental damages) and secondly the use of "Pollution Credits" that can be traded between cleaner and dirtier companies. That way, clean companies make extra money, companies where it would cost a lot to go clean could still pollute within reason - and the overall level would be as low as was set by the government.

Exactly. Look at the Exxon Valdez incident. People could have boycotted the Exxon gas stations(it wouldn't have done much to their overall financial picture) but they majority went to them because their gas was cheaper.

Eh, that how the market works. Cheap product will always win out, always. Why do you think Wal-Mart is still around?

Eh, that how the market works. Cheap product will always win out, always. Why do you think Wal-Mart is still around?

We are talking about the environment are we not?

It points to the fact that if you let the market decide the environment, then there won't be much of it left.

Eh, that how the market works. Cheap product will always win out, always. Why do you think Wal-Mart is still around?
Isn't this incompatible with your previous claim that the market will looka after the environment?
EDIT: Volley fire, there ;)

Exactly. Look at the Exxon Valdez incident. People could have boycotted the Exxon gas stations(it wouldn't have done much to their overall financial picture) but they majority went to them because their gas was cheaper.

That's different, though - I wouldn't necessarily expect a broad consumer response to that incident, because it doesn't affect them. If Americans on average cared a lot about the environment, sure, but that caring is much less likely even than caring about fossil fuel shortages on the horizon, because the oil spill won't affect them. Rational self-interest is the fundamental judgement focus, and if American consumers were actually rational, self-interest would be a slam dunk for decreased reliance on fossil fuels. Oil spills, on the other hand, only become a matter of rational self-interest if you attach a lot of value to the environment, and thus consider it a personal loss if thousands of animals die, and again, most Americans just don't give a shit.

Now the greenhouse effect? That's rational self-interest all the way, if once again people were actually rational. No one in their right mind would value a half-point on the GDP now over a malaria-free American Southeast, or Katrina-free 2007, or sea-level-rise-free San Francisco in the future. Yet what do Americans say to global warming? They turn away from the scientific evidence and listen to the local Republican leadership who tell them the comforting bullshit that it's all a lie, it's just an evil conspiracy of scientists and liberals who hate your small business.

......
2) However, there are two relatively free-market solutions that can help the environment: Firstly, the Coase Theorem can be applied as mentioned above (where the owner of the piece of environment and the potential offender come together and negotiate, hopefully accurately reflecting the costs of environmental damages) and secondly the use of "Pollution Credits" that can be traded between cleaner and dirtier companies. That way, clean companies make extra money, companies where it would cost a lot to go clean could still pollute within reason - and the overall level would be as low as was set by the government.
I second the second.

Well, I was talking about the cosumer side and the company side. I'll give yall an example. Let's say North Carolina decides to privatize their parks, and thus companies get control of two parks. Let's call them Park A and Park B. Let's say Park A keeps a very nice park, no trash, clean cut grass, the camping sites are always kept clean etc. Also, their prices for attedance is about $5. Now Park B is trashy, there is weed everywhere, the camp sites are a mess. Now they offer $3, but after awhile people stop going because of how poorly kept the park is. Now Park A is thinking long term. They spent a few extra dollars per months/year for the upkeep of their park. While Park B will have to invest thousands of dollars in a short amount of time to clean up their park. When that happens Park B will raise their rates up to $7. So Park B royally screwed themselves by now thinking long term, but short term.

The lumber company who don't replants the trees, they're only thinking short term, pretty soon they'll be out of trees, and they'll be out of business. Another logging company that does replants the tree will buy out of the first one and replants those trees, so that in about 10-20 years they'll have more trees to cut down, and thus stay in business.

.....
The lumber company who don't replants the trees, they're only thinking short term, pretty soon they'll be out of trees, and they'll be out of business........
They move on to the next forest.

They move on to the next forest.

If they can afford it and if it isn't owned by another comapny.

When they reach the end of the forest, they will have a decrease of product, when you have a smaller product yield, in order to stay in the black is to raise prices. When you raise prices, fewer people will buy because, like I said, people like cheap product. When the company realize that they can no longer compete with their dwindling reasources, and that all other private forest land are brought out, then they're screwed.

Until they're on the last one, at which point the executives quietly sell their shares and retire, all the while jabbing their fingers at corporate propoganda claiming that they're not really running out of forests, and even if they are it won't affect you for 50 years anyway, and by the time the public wakes up and smells the coffee, they've retired to a low-law, high-corruption Third World country with billions of dollars, and you can't touch them.

Well, I was talking about the cosumer side and the company side. I'll give yall an example. Let's say North Carolina decides to privatize their parks, and thus companies get control of two parks. Let's call them Park A and Park B. Let's say Park A keeps a very nice park, no trash, clean cut grass, the camping sites are always kept clean etc. Also, their prices for attedance is about $5. Now Park B is trashy, there is weed everywhere, the camp sites are a mess. Now they offer $3, but after awhile people stop going because of how poorly kept the park is. Now Park A is thinking long term. They spent a few extra dollars per months/year for the upkeep of their park. While Park B will have to invest thousands of dollars in a short amount of time to clean up their park. When that happens Park B will raise their rates up to $7. So Park B royally screwed themselves by now thinking long term, but short term.



The problem with your examples are the throughput of people. You compare your little 20 acre guy to something like Yellowstone? Way more people which means higher probability of trash.

It could be argued that the fees will continusly rise inorder to hire staff to keep the trash picked up or they too will not make it a high priority.


The lumber company who don't replants the trees, they're only thinking short term, pretty soon they'll be out of trees, and they'll be out of business. Another logging company that does replants the tree will buy out of the first one and replants those trees, so that in about 10-20 years they'll have more trees to cut down, and thus stay in business.

I guess you haven't heard the phrase "Not my problem, it's my successors problem" Pacific lumber didn't care.

Replanting trees means crap when you take away old forests.

Replanting trees means crap when you take away the dying rotting trees from the ecosystem.

Until they're on the last one, at which point the executives quietly sell their shares and retire, all the while jabbing their fingers at corporate propoganda claiming that they're not really running out of forests, and even if they are it won't affect you for 50 years anyway, and by the time the public wakes up and smells the coffee, they've retired to a low-law, high-corruption Third World country with billions of dollars, and you can't touch them.
"What? I didn't break any law!"

If they can afford it and if it isn't owned by another comapny.

When they reach the end of the forest, they will have a decrease of product, when you have a smaller product yield, in order to stay in the black is to raise prices. When you raise prices, fewer people will buy because, like I said, people like cheap product. When the company realize that they can no longer compete with their dwindling reasources, and that all other private forest land are brought out, then they're screwed.

Ah well you might want to look into Japans lumber actions in Malaysia.

All short term profit. Again "Not my problem....."

"What? I didn't break any law!"
Or if I did, I had no knowledge of doing so - and I can't remember anyway.

- Otherwise known as The Enron Defense