If truth is important, then prices that do not honestly represent costs are a problem. When industries put pollution or deplete natural resources, they often do so without incurring any legal obligation to pay a substantial fee proportional to the degradation of environmental quality or depletion of natural wealth. This means that they feel no strong incentive to try to reduce harmful impacts on the environment.
Economists call the shifting of costs (such as environmental costs) off of the Profit and Loss balance sheet "negative externalities". These are the harmful effects on the environment or society that do not show in prices.
When corporations do not face substantial environmental impact fees, business planners adopt business models and manufacturing processes that are more harmful to the environment.
Because prices do not show true costs, consumers do the wrong thing. We buy more of those things that harm the environment than what we would do if prices were honest.
Dishonest prices harm the interests of future generations and the larger community of life. They make UN-sustainable business models appear as the more profitable option.
If we account for externalities by charging appropriate fees, industries will try to reduce harmful impacts. Pursuit of profit will be synonymous with pursuit of sustainable business models. Corporate interests and societal interests will be aligned rather than at cross-purposes.
If journalists report environmental problems, climate instability or pollution disasters, they should report an efficient policy for resolving those problems (charge a fee proportional to emissions or resource depletion).
If fairness is important, then we should expect that industries will compensate the people when pollution is put or natural resources are depleted. Proceeds from pollution fees and from natural resource user-fees should be shared to all the world's people. Sharing (a monetary representation of) natural wealth would end poverty throughout the world.
If reporters tell us about poverty, social instability or disparity of wealth, they should mention a fair policy of sharing proceeds from environmental impact fees. We should understand that extreme poverty persists alongside opulence only because we fail to share natural wealth equally.
If environmental challenges and economic justice issues can both be resolved with one policy, then the issues are related. It doesn't serve the public interest to continue to report these as entirely separate issues.
A commitment to the moral values of honesty and fairness can resolve environmental challenges and economic justice challenges together. News reports should tell us so.
John Champagne
