Indeed, to be fully human, we must exercise our moral sense. Primarily, this means that we must respect the golden rule. In our political life, we have thus far failed to abide by this fundamental moral obligation. This failure produces serious flaws in our systems of government and economics. Social instability and injustice result from neglect of moral principle.
A sincere and thorough commitment to the golden rule implies a strong respect for human rights, which can be understood (and which are understood by many) to include rights to property. But we are neglecting some basic questions that should emerge from a strong respect for property rights. We are neglecting questions that could help us manage, in a sustainable and fair way, the natural resource wealth of the planet. We are neglecting questions that must be asked in order to ensure that our public property rights are manifest in reality.
How much pollution is too much? How rapidly should we deplete natural resources?
When the people are recognized as the rightful owners of the air and water and other natural resources, we will require payments to the people by industries that pollute air and water and that take natural resources in pursuit of profit. These payments will be compensation for damage done to, or value taken from, that which we all own in common.
The fee charged for using that which belongs to everyone should be raised when demands on natural resources exceed what most people polled in a random survey say is acceptable.
Fee proceeds would be a monetary representation of the value of the commons. Sharing this wealth to the entire human population would mean an end to poverty throughout the world. (This will need to be a global policy, lest industries simply flee to the more lax jurisdictions, thus making complex and burdensome "border-adjustment-taxes" necessary in response.)
Does reality match what most people believe is most desirable, in terms of our use of the resources that belong to all of us? In terms of the extent of paving or intensity of light pollution? In terms of the extent to which we encroach on wildlife habitat? Are the rates of taking of natural resources and rates of putting pollution into the air and water acceptable, or are current limits too strict? Or too lenient? These are questions that a democratic society would ask its citizens, if public property rights are respected.
When industries are made to pay an appropriate fee or rent to the people for using resources that belong to all, capital markets, investors and business planners will have the information and incentives that they need to produce the reality (in terms of environmental impacts) that the people consent to. With the right fees, industries will put the right amount of effort into preventing adverse impacts on the environment. The fee will be a kind of lever--a control mechanism--that the people could use to direct the economy to produce more or less of this or that kind of environmental impact, to ensure that we will have the kind of world that we want to live in--a world that is in accord with basic democratic principles.
When prices reflect the value of natural resources used in production, our economy will respond in the most efficient way possible to the urgent need for significant reductions in humans' impacts on the environment, including reductions in carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide and methane emissions are just two examples of the kinds of environmental impacts for which a democratic society must define appropriate limits. Contentious arguments between competing political factions and economic interests about what is appropriate re limits on impacts are sometimes fraught with rancor. Debate continues and policy lags. While the debate continues, actual rates of putting carbon into the air should be brought into alignment with the will of the people at large.
Does reality match what most people believe is most desirable, in terms of our use of the resources that belong to all of us? In terms of the extent of paving or intensity of light pollution? In terms of the extent to which we encroach on wildlife habitat? Are the rates of taking of natural resources and rates of putting pollution into the air and water acceptable, or are current limits too strict? Or too lenient? These are questions that a democratic society would ask its citizens, if public property rights are respected.
When industries are made to pay an appropriate fee or rent to the people for using resources that belong to all, capital markets, investors and business planners will have the information and incentives that they need to produce the reality (in terms of environmental impacts) that the people consent to. With the right fees, industries will put the right amount of effort into preventing adverse impacts on the environment. The fee will be a kind of lever--a control mechanism--that the people could use to direct the economy to produce more or less of this or that kind of environmental impact, to ensure that we will have the kind of world that we want to live in--a world that is in accord with basic democratic principles.
When prices reflect the value of natural resources used in production, our economy will respond in the most efficient way possible to the urgent need for significant reductions in humans' impacts on the environment, including reductions in carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide and methane emissions are just two examples of the kinds of environmental impacts for which a democratic society must define appropriate limits. Contentious arguments between competing political factions and economic interests about what is appropriate re limits on impacts are sometimes fraught with rancor. Debate continues and policy lags. While the debate continues, actual rates of putting carbon into the air should be brought into alignment with the will of the people at large.
