If we charge fees to industries that release pollution or take natural resources, and if we set the fees just high enough to cause industries to cut down on environmental impacts--to the point that most people think those impacts are being held to acceptable limits--, we will have accounted for economic externalities AND we will have produced an economic measure of the value of natural resources to the economy and society. We will have fixed the serious defect that causes the economy to disregard the costs of destabilized climate, damage to the environment and depletion of scarce natural resources.
The proceeds from fees should be shared equally to all the world's people. We might decide to reduce or eliminate conventional taxes and require each person to put some portion of this money toward support of public programs of their choosing. Programs and services that many people endorse as good examples of ways to benefit society could qualify to receive funds. (A random poll could show what fraction of the natural wealth stipend should be available for citizens' personal use and what fraction should go to support community needs, in the view of most people.)
A fee amount that is set high enough so that people are discouraged from causing harmful impacts on the environment...discouraged strongly enough to bring the overall extent of environmental impacts of various kinds into line with what most people think is acceptable...would be the amount appropriate for a democratic society. A system of random surveys could tell us what limits people want on various kinds of impact.
Fees would increase when an economy is expanding, to prevent growing demand for pollution permits, etc., from causing the economy as a whole to exceed the limits (in terms of environmental impacts) acceptable to the people. The rising fees would put a damper on the pace of economic activity, thus preventing what otherwise could become an unsustainable boom. This damper on excess activity is a counter-cyclical influence that functions automatically.
Environmental impact fees introduced as a way to efficiently manage pollution and depletion of resources would have the added benefit of stabilizing the economic climate.
With fee proceeds shared to all, everyone will continue to spend in support of their own basic needs, regardless of employment status. This would insulate the sectors of the economy that provide for basic needs from the worst vicissitudes of the business 'cycle'. All people would continue to spend in support of these sectors, even during an economic downturn. Economic slowdowns, then, can never become so severe that they threaten social cohesion and stability. Economic sectors that provide essential goods and services will remain strong.
Within this alternative paradigm, some people may choose to live a very simple life and minimize their need to earn income beyond their natural wealth stipend. When the economy slows, the falling demand for pollution permits, etc., would mean a reduction in fee amounts.
Reduced fees would translate to reduced income for people relying largely or entirely on their natural wealth stipend. During economic slowdowns, these people would feel increased incentive to enter the job market. An influx of additional job-seekers would make business start-up and expansion easier. Again, we see that this paradigm would automatically produce a counter-cyclical influence. When natural wealth is shared, the economic system is less inclined to 'boom and bust'. With pricing of natural wealth, there is an economic incentive, felt by all, to try to reduce impacts on the environment. Civilization is more likely to be sustainable.
We talk more about minimum wage than we do about minimum income. That could change when we start talking about sharing natural wealth equally. We could create a more just society that is also a sustainable civilization.
John Champagne @TallPhilosopher
Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability
Integration of human society and the biosphere
Environmental impact fees introduced as a way to efficiently manage pollution and depletion of resources would have the added benefit of stabilizing the economic climate.
With fee proceeds shared to all, everyone will continue to spend in support of their own basic needs, regardless of employment status. This would insulate the sectors of the economy that provide for basic needs from the worst vicissitudes of the business 'cycle'. All people would continue to spend in support of these sectors, even during an economic downturn. Economic slowdowns, then, can never become so severe that they threaten social cohesion and stability. Economic sectors that provide essential goods and services will remain strong.
Within this alternative paradigm, some people may choose to live a very simple life and minimize their need to earn income beyond their natural wealth stipend. When the economy slows, the falling demand for pollution permits, etc., would mean a reduction in fee amounts.
Reduced fees would translate to reduced income for people relying largely or entirely on their natural wealth stipend. During economic slowdowns, these people would feel increased incentive to enter the job market. An influx of additional job-seekers would make business start-up and expansion easier. Again, we see that this paradigm would automatically produce a counter-cyclical influence. When natural wealth is shared, the economic system is less inclined to 'boom and bust'. With pricing of natural wealth, there is an economic incentive, felt by all, to try to reduce impacts on the environment. Civilization is more likely to be sustainable.
We talk more about minimum wage than we do about minimum income. That could change when we start talking about sharing natural wealth equally. We could create a more just society that is also a sustainable civilization.
John Champagne @TallPhilosopher
Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability
Integration of human society and the biosphere
