Our challenge is much like challenges
that all previous societies have had to face:
We must bring our society into accord with moral principles.
We must bring our society into accord with moral principles.
We have an unsustainable society.
Prices are not giving us accurate information about costs. There is
generally no fee (or only a nominal fee) proportional to pollution
put or natural resources depleted, so what appears most profitable to
industry and what appears most affordable to consumers is almost
always an option that disregards environmental impacts.
If we take account of externalities
(the hidden costs that skew business models and consumers' choices toward
more harm) by charging fees when pollution is put or natural
resources are depleted, businesses will have incentive to find
manufacturing processes and business models that bring reduced impacts. There will be more interest in using recycled materials.
Consumers will see lower prices for goods and services that were
produced without causing great damage to the environment. Natural tendencies
for corporations to attempt to increase profits and for consumers to compare
prices will turn all economic actors toward a sustainable path.
Corporate interests and societal interests will converge when prices more honestly represent costs.
If we take random surveys and ask
whether particular kinds of impact on the environment are being held
to acceptable limits, we could increase the fees charged for any
impacts that exceed what most people think should be allowed.
We can adjust fees according to what
random polls suggest is necessary. Alternatively, we could issue a number of permits to match average opinion. The permits, sold at auction, would perform the same
function as an adjustable fee.
This policy of bringing information
about costs to the environment into the economy (in the form of a fee
or permit price) would mean that prices of most products would rise.
The policy will be fair (it will not further disadvantage those who
are less well-off) if proceeds from permit sales or fees are shared to
all people. The money collected would be a monetary representation of
the value to the economy of natural resources. This is wealth not
created through the effort of any person. It is the birthright of
all. It should be shared.
Who owns the view of the stars? We all
do. If some people choose to put outdoor lighting and thereby cause
others to not be able to enjoy the benefit of that which, by right,
belongs to all, then payment of a fee, with proceeds shared to all,
will effectively compensate those who are left with diminished
ability to enjoy natural beauty. (Some people may use this money to fund
occasional trips to places far from city lights. Others may use it to
offset some of the additional cost / inconvenience of living far from
the city. Others still may take the compensation in another form
entirely, such as by going to cinema.) The system of fees, tied to
the results of random surveys, ensures that the lost value in the
form of natural beauty does not exceed what most people think should
be allowed.
A team of scientists estimated the
value of natural resources and services at more than $120 trillion
per year. (Robert Costanza, et al; Nature; 2014) Whether this
number reflects the total of all pollution fees and resource
depletion fees that might be paid by industry, or whether it is an
over-estimate by a factor of two, we might expect that charging fees
proportional to impacts, then sharing fee proceeds to all people,
would result in a Universal Basic Income, a natural wealth stipend,
of about $50 per day for every person on Earth.
Some portion of the (monetary
representation of) natural wealth that is the natural inheritance of
the younger members of society might be used to fund schools, public
parks, museums, public health programs, etc., that society must
provide to ensure a healthy environment for the growth of children.
Some remainder might be put into trust, to be claimed when youth
reach an age when they are able to make decisions about how best to
invest in their future. (They may use the money to pay for college or
for apprentice programs in trades. They may use it to invest in a
business venture, or to save for future needs. Perhaps a portion of the funds held in trust might be drawn on by students in primary schools who want to enhance their education with additional field trips or other costly but worthwhile activities)
What portion of the younger generations' share of natural wealth should be invested in public
programs and services, and what portion should be held in trust, can be
decide by a random poll.
What the appropriate age might be to
begin receiving a natural wealth stipend could be decided by another
random poll. Some people may say that, upon reaching the age of 16
years, a person should start receiving all of their natural wealth stipend. Others might say this should begin at 20 years of
age. Some people may prefer a gradual introduction between 15 and 20
years. We could take the average of views so that the actual policy
will be close to what the largest number of people think is about
right.
Just as we might use a random survey to
decide where pollution fees should be raised or lowered, we could
also survey to learn where people think public funds should be spent.
We might decide (average opinion might indicate) that ~half of all
proceeds from environmental impact fees should be used to fund public
programs. Conventional taxes could be reduced or eliminated
accordingly.
If all citizens could decide how to
spend their per capita slice of the public budget, no person would be
forced to support a program or service to which they had a
conscientious objection. Any program that half of all people agree serves the public interest would quality to receive public funds.
But if a citizen were to put 75% of their share of public funds to
programs that 75% of people agree serve the public interest, that
might be a reason to allow them greater latitude in deciding how to spend
the remaining 25% of the funds. (The requirement then might be that 25%
of citizens agree that the public interest is served by a program for that program to qualify.)
If human beings have a shared right to
decide limits to various kinds of impacts on the environment, this
right must be manifest in reality. Impacts should match what people
say they should be. If we have a shared right to benefit from natural
wealth, the right must be embodied in practice. Moral principles
cannot be mere figments of our imagination or words on a page. They
must be acted out.
Sharing (a monetary representation of)
natural wealth will mean that our shared right to benefit is embodied
in practice.
Producing
the monetary representation will involve charging fees proportional
to impacts on the environment. This is a simple, direct mechanism for
making prices honest (accounting for externalities). We must make
prices honest to embody truth in the functioning of the economy, and to align corporate interests with societal interests. Market prices must embody
truth in order to cause every consumer's tendency to compare prices to turn
their
buying choices toward
sustainable practices.
When we embody moral principles in the
functioning of our political-economic system, we will make a healthy
society. We will make a sustainable and more just society.
