When a living system (made up of many interacting, interdependent parts) experiences unsustainable stress, that stress is perceived and an adaptive response is produced that tends to lessen the stress and preserve the health of the organism. An overheated animal will sweat, pant, rest and / or seek shade, and its body temperature will fall. A system that responds to stressful stimuli in a way that reduces stress constitutes a system of negative feedback. Rising temperature causes a change in a physiological process or behavior that then causes a decrease in the stress. The Earth, as a complex system made up of many interacting, interdependent parts, resembles an organism in many ways, but it lacks a system of negative feedback that would cause an adjustment in the system when human economic activity starts to exert unsustainable pressures on the larger ecosystem or when we start to change the chemical composition of the atmosphere to an extent that causes climate to become unstable.
Attaching appropriate fees to the taking of resources and putting of pollution would bring information about ecological impacts into the economy. This would produce a negative feedback mechanism. Fees could keep economic activity within sustainable limits. A democratic society would set fees high enough so that overall impacts are kept within limits that most people agree are acceptable. Fees would be set low enough to ensure that most people agree that they are not too high. The aim would be to bring rates of putting pollution and extracting resources into agreement with what average opinion identifies as most appropriate.
A monetary representation of ecological pressures and degradation, an 'ecological impact cost', would be factored into the prices of goods and services in the marketplace. People would have incentive to change buying habits that are harmful to the environment because they would feel the ecological impact in their pocketbook. Resource user-fees and pollution fees would correct the defect that causes our economy to injure or deplete the larger systems which sustain it and of which it is a part.
No one person or small group of people knows for certain what level of human impacts the Earth can sustain. The question is a highly subjective one which implies qualifiers such as: "At what level of risk, to present and future generations?"; and, "Do we want to slow and stop present trends of degradation, or do we want to go further and reverse these trends and actively work to expand the portion of the Earth's surface covered by forests, other diverse ecosystems, etc.?" "Do we want to bring carbon dioxide emissions back to 1990 levels, or do we want to institute a policy of 'No net increase of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere?'" These are questions of long-lasting import. The answers we give will affect ourselves in the short and long term. They will affect our offspring and generations not yet born. Answers that imply sacrifice today may enable a more prosperous or resilient society in the future.
Some questions that we might ask about appropriate limits to environmental impacts (such as the question of how much light pollution is too much, or how much paving is too much) might be questions that most citizens could give an opinion on. Other questions (such as what would be an appropriate limit for mercury or perchlorethylene emissions) might be on topics that most survey respondents have no knowledge or opinion about. People should be allowed some time to reflect on survey questions and gather information about the opinions of experts in the relevant fields of study. They could adopt the view of the most-trusted experts--essentially delegating their vote to the more knowledgeable citizens.
Management of natural resources through a fee attached to release of pollution and taking of resources would produce a monetary representation of the value of the Earth's air and water, biota and minerals. As these resources can be thought of as public property, as belonging to all (they are produced by natural processes, not the effort of any person), we should share the proceeds of environmental impact fees among all people equally. Such a sharing of the wealth of the commons would secure each and every one of us against the threat of abject poverty. (The value of natural resources is estimated to exceed $45 per day for every person on Earth.) Changes in the economic climate that cause increases in unemployment will be less disruptive socially and personally when all people have an income based on shared natural wealth. A system that combines equal ownership of the commons with free markets and private ownership of man-made capital would embody essential elements of both capitalism and communism.
The magnitude of the challenge we face, the stakes involved and our democratic principles all point to the need to involve as many people as possible in the decision about what human impacts on Earth we will allow. A democratic society will not allow rates of resource extraction or levels of pollution to be much in excess of what most people would say is acceptable. And, in a democratic society, we cannot expect to be able to use the instrument of government as a means of control for holding emissions or taking of resources below levels that the people are willing to accept. A democratic society would set limits on environmental impacts such that about half of the people would consider the levels about right or somewhat too strict while the other half would see the limits as being about right or somewhat too lenient.
(If some of us believe that we know better than others what human impacts should be judged sustainable and acceptable, we will have the instruments of change in a free society to bring our fellow citizens around to our view: reason and sustained pressure, education and the free flow of information.)
This new paradigm, built on the principle of democratic ownership and management of natural resources, will have as its most basic political act the citizen expressing a preference about what kind of world we should make, what human impacts on the environment we ought to allow. But this act, this expression, must be in a form that users of natural resources can read so that it can inform their actions. We will need to develop easy to create, easy to read documents that we can use as our 'palate' for painting a picture of the kind of world we want to live in. This is a question that any democratic society asks its citizens, implicitly or explicitly: What kind of society do we want to create?
How can we translate the expressed will of the people into industry action and permit prices without a central authority interpreting what the people said and decreeing what the permit price will be? Such an authority would wield enormous power and would be subject to intense lobbying pressure and might be rather easily corrupted. Can we create a decentralized system that reflects the character of the global communications networks that now make this direct democracy possible?
One possible strategy: Let each prospective polluter or user of a natural resource survey a random sample of the population to determine what the average opinion would deem to be acceptable behavior overall regarding specific kinds of impacts. Citizens would have to be polled on specific emissions levels or pollution limits. (As a practical matter, a company could subscribe to a survey service or share survey costs with other users of the resources in question.)
Prospective users could then declare in a public, electronic forum how many permits they expect to buy and what price they expect to pay. Users would be guessing what the permit price will be, in light of the published projections of supply and demand. This is an inexact science. By surveying others' projected demands and price predictions published in the poll results forums, users of resources could know whether there is a balance between permissible amounts of environmental impacts on the one hand and demand for resources on the other.
When all businesses, on average, estimate a too-low fee for use of particular kinds of natural resources or for emitting particular kinds of pollution, these low estimates will result in declarations of projected use or pollution that exceed the total amount that the people say is permissible. Prospective users of natural resources would have to adjust their estimates. More iterations of public statements of estimated prices, projected demand, and surveys of other buyers' estimates, informed by the results of the previous iteration, would bring the community of resource-users closer to the ideal market-clearing price. This type of auction does not require a centralized authority in order to function.
Far in the past, in a less-populated world, the supply of natural resources generally exceeded any demands that humans placed on them (but for the periodic and episodic times when they didn't and there was famine or forced migration). There was no need for markets to manage the demands placed on the commons. Natural resources were treated as a free good with good reason (except in the case of competition between tribes when claims of ownership were contested). There was an abundance of opportunities opened up on the landscape of this recently-evolved imagining biped who roamed the planet imagining myriad possibilities, to discover what the Earth offers up. People could take what they wanted, when they wanted, because the supply always exceeded the demand. (Well, this is true more or less. The natural environment has so much intrinsic variability built-in that there were periods of scarcity. Human populations would tend to fall during such times, tending to promote a long-term dynamic stability).
But now conditions have changed. Since the advent of civilization, various populations at various times have increased their numbers and degraded their resource base to the point that their civilization collapsed. Now, as technology has tied the world's people together, population pressures and resource depletion are felt simultaneously across the globe.
Whatever level of human impacts on the environment we decide to allow, we will gain the greatest benefit from limited resources if we allow the free market to manage their allocation. Free markets are the most efficient means of allocating resources because, at a given cost of production, they accurately balance supply and demand. In the case where the supply of natural resources is set by vote or survey of the people, we should say the free market offers the most efficient and fair means of reconciling an elastic demand to a limited supply, through a public auction. The resources will go to those for whom they have the greatest value or utility. We can ensure that markets meet a minimum standard of fairness by making sure everyone has access to them by means of a basic income, the shared natural wealth stipend.
This system will mean that capital investments will only turn a profit to the extent that they successfully meet human needs at the lowest cost to the environment--in terms of resources used and pollution released. Anyone who has any money to invest will understand that the place to put it is into clean industries and enterprises. Thus the economic situation changes to one that has money flowing toward people engaged in cleaner industry rather than primarily toward those who control capital engaged in the most advantageous exploitation of a free ride on the commons.
Polluters are now subsidized by everyone: we all, most especially the poor, must pay the price of dirtier air and water and soil: more disease, lost opportunity, lower quality of life. Appropriate fees on use of natural resources and on adverse impacts on the community, with proceeds shared among all equally, would end this injustice.
Within such a system, industries and investors will only make money to the extent that they can conduct themselves in ways that are not offensive to workers, since people who receive their equal share of the Earth's natural resource wealth would be more free to seek better working conditions, more rewarding work, if they find themselves in an unappealing employment situation. They would not be paralyzed by the prospect of abject poverty if they find themselves temporarily without work. And is this not exactly what we want? Psychological rewards of work--meaning and purpose--would become more prominent as an issue of concern. Ecological sustainability would become an integral component of the corporate bottom line. Employers and employees both would be more free to follow their bliss.
Human beings come in many personality and character types. Some people are more inclined by their nature to say, "We will do it this way because it is best for the community... and we make more money". Others will be more inclined to say, "We will do it this way because we make more money this way... and it is better for the community". Our current system tends to exclude from business participation and success those who would be more inclined to the first type. And it forces those who are of the second type to say, "We will do it this way because we make more money, even though it is not really the best thing for the community or environment". When we shift our paradigm to account for externalities in the price of products, every economic decision will accurately reflect the whole mix of costs and benefits of an action. By pursuing profit or low prices, we will be following the path that is best for ourselves and the larger community.
Many people believe that the only reason for government to exist is to protect the individual and community against those (individuals and groups) who would violate the rights and interests of others. A government that is committed to taking action against those who initiate the use of force, and that refrains from initiating the use of force itself, is the best guarantee of individual and minority rights. If putting pollution and taking more than your share of natural resources is recognized as forcing others to live with your pollution and live without, with less of, what you are taking, then this principle of no first use of force by government provides the legal/moral basis for a paradigm of democratic ownership and control of the commons, with users of commons resources compensating the people in proportion to the magnitude of use or degradation.
This paradigm is an integration of libertarian and green politics. We could call it 'left-libertarian'. We may need further shifts in our perception of the boundaries between what we consider public vs. private acts before many people who call themselves libertarian will embrace this paradigm wholeheartedly. Consider: Is it a public act or a private act to do things on your own land that tend to destroy wildlife habitat and diminish biodiversity? Is preservation of biodiversity an issue of public concern? Can a private landowner pave the surface of the Earth without interference from the community at large? What about the water that falls from the sky--as a blessing, if the soil absorbs it and releases it slowly into the streams and rivers; but as a hazard if it comes down quickly and is rapidly shed by asphalt to produce a torrential flash flood downstream.
With significant green fees, conventional taxes may be difficult to support financially. They may also be seen as lacking any philosophical foundation. We may see a system that requires payment to the people in return for the privilege of taking publicly owned resources for profit as fair and just, while the requirement that we make payment to the government in proportion to how much income we earn or goods and services we sell may not seem on the face to be eminently fair. Fees charged against the things that we do that are detrimental to the community might best be thought of as an alternative to conventional taxes, rather than as an addition to them. (We *could* keep an income tax, but let the amount of the tax be decided by random poll.)
We could determine that a portion of the proceeds of the fees on use of the commons will be public funds, dedicated to the support of public and community programs. With each person receiving a substantial stipend as their share of Earth's natural resource wealth, many of the functions of government that are intended to aid the poor and otherwise distribute income would be unnecessary. For those government programs that continue to be seen as necessary or desirable, each citizen could decide exactly which programs are most deserving of support. We could vote on priorities for spending our share of public funds in much the same way that we vote on priorities for moderating ecological impacts.
The people would set the agenda. Money would flow to those who work toward some aspect of the agenda that is set by the community. Money would flow away from those who are working counter to some aspect of the agenda set by the community. If the people say they want less CO₂; less asphalt; less light pollution interfering with our view of the stars, then the people whose decisions run counter to these community-agreed goals will be made to pay a fee.
When emissions levels drop and most people stop saying they want to see less of the economic 'bads', then we will know that the fees are at the appropriate level. What we call externalities today would become internalized into the economic calculus. Actions which produce negative impacts will be performed only in so far as their benefits outweigh those costs.
Many people will not feel qualified to make taxing and spending decisions, at least on some issues. They may choose to delegate their vote to other, more qualified persons. We could have a direct / representative democracy with the option of calling back our proxy if ever we feel it is being used in an irresponsible way. This need not be a formal arrangement. If our votes on how to manage community resources and how to spend public funds are public statements, then we could examine others' votes to find people with whom we agree. We could copy their votes if we are convinced that they are well-informed and responsible. Some people may gain a reputation of being more informed than others. Those entrusted with the responsibility to decide, on behalf of thousands or millions, appropriate levels of emissions and resource extraction would likely enter into that position by virtue of a reputation among members of the public that they do quality work and are people of integrity. Because there may be some social prestige and status, (perhaps even a small stipend from the public funds), for holding such a position, there would likely be some incentive for a person to maintain this reputation, so as to preserve this favored status position. The persons or organizations entrusted with this responsibility for assessment would have every incentive to make their work widely available, both the data-gathering and the analysis, to possibly further increase their constituency. This could only help to improve the quality and relevance of information and materials available to schools, libraries and the public at large.
This paradigm gives each of us an equal voice in sculpting our society. When we ask questions about the quality of environment that we want to create, and translate the answers into reality, we will change our understanding of the role of the citizen in society. We will change our consciousness about our responsibility and our power. We will be invited to consider carefully what we mean by progress and a good life.
A system that charges fees for use of resources, with control of overall levels of use vested in the people at large, could provide the feedback mechanisms that would cause economic activities to adjust to the ecological conditions that sustain them. Control of the proceeds of these fees vested in all people equally would go a long way toward redressing problems of disparity of wealth, and it would ensure that the proceeds would be invested in ways consistent with the interests of the people at large.
This article is posted at Common Assets Headquarters web site.
Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability
With significant green fees, conventional taxes may be difficult to support financially. They may also be seen as lacking any philosophical foundation. We may see a system that requires payment to the people in return for the privilege of taking publicly owned resources for profit as fair and just, while the requirement that we make payment to the government in proportion to how much income we earn or goods and services we sell may not seem on the face to be eminently fair. Fees charged against the things that we do that are detrimental to the community might best be thought of as an alternative to conventional taxes, rather than as an addition to them. (We *could* keep an income tax, but let the amount of the tax be decided by random poll.)
We could determine that a portion of the proceeds of the fees on use of the commons will be public funds, dedicated to the support of public and community programs. With each person receiving a substantial stipend as their share of Earth's natural resource wealth, many of the functions of government that are intended to aid the poor and otherwise distribute income would be unnecessary. For those government programs that continue to be seen as necessary or desirable, each citizen could decide exactly which programs are most deserving of support. We could vote on priorities for spending our share of public funds in much the same way that we vote on priorities for moderating ecological impacts.
The people would set the agenda. Money would flow to those who work toward some aspect of the agenda that is set by the community. Money would flow away from those who are working counter to some aspect of the agenda set by the community. If the people say they want less CO₂; less asphalt; less light pollution interfering with our view of the stars, then the people whose decisions run counter to these community-agreed goals will be made to pay a fee.
When emissions levels drop and most people stop saying they want to see less of the economic 'bads', then we will know that the fees are at the appropriate level. What we call externalities today would become internalized into the economic calculus. Actions which produce negative impacts will be performed only in so far as their benefits outweigh those costs.
Many people will not feel qualified to make taxing and spending decisions, at least on some issues. They may choose to delegate their vote to other, more qualified persons. We could have a direct / representative democracy with the option of calling back our proxy if ever we feel it is being used in an irresponsible way. This need not be a formal arrangement. If our votes on how to manage community resources and how to spend public funds are public statements, then we could examine others' votes to find people with whom we agree. We could copy their votes if we are convinced that they are well-informed and responsible. Some people may gain a reputation of being more informed than others. Those entrusted with the responsibility to decide, on behalf of thousands or millions, appropriate levels of emissions and resource extraction would likely enter into that position by virtue of a reputation among members of the public that they do quality work and are people of integrity. Because there may be some social prestige and status, (perhaps even a small stipend from the public funds), for holding such a position, there would likely be some incentive for a person to maintain this reputation, so as to preserve this favored status position. The persons or organizations entrusted with this responsibility for assessment would have every incentive to make their work widely available, both the data-gathering and the analysis, to possibly further increase their constituency. This could only help to improve the quality and relevance of information and materials available to schools, libraries and the public at large.
This paradigm gives each of us an equal voice in sculpting our society. When we ask questions about the quality of environment that we want to create, and translate the answers into reality, we will change our understanding of the role of the citizen in society. We will change our consciousness about our responsibility and our power. We will be invited to consider carefully what we mean by progress and a good life.
A system that charges fees for use of resources, with control of overall levels of use vested in the people at large, could provide the feedback mechanisms that would cause economic activities to adjust to the ecological conditions that sustain them. Control of the proceeds of these fees vested in all people equally would go a long way toward redressing problems of disparity of wealth, and it would ensure that the proceeds would be invested in ways consistent with the interests of the people at large.
This article is posted at Common Assets Headquarters web site.
Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability
No comments:
Post a Comment