Political acts must be moral acts.
Civilization is doomed to failure when we use powerful instruments (such as the voting booth and political process) in ways that are not consistent with basic moral principles.
If we enter the voting booth and pull the lever for a candidate who promotes policies that would mean government exercizing power against peaceful people, then we have violated the Golden Rule. This fundamental moral principle strongly suggests or even requires that we let people be when they are not bothering anyone. (Don't do to others that which you would not have others do to you. Sometimes called 'The Silver Rule'.)
We need to look not for Republican or Democratic candidates. We need to look for candidates who put libertarian and green together. Republicans and Democrats both support policies that involve coercion against peaceful people. Republicans and Democrats want a government that regulates private behavior. But since no person has authority to compel or coerce another person's private behavior, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to governments.
If we are electing representatives to act in our name but we do not insist that their action be limited so as to keep within the principles that we believe in, then we will have representatives who act on our behalf in ways contrary to our principles. In this situation, it becomes more likely that representatives will be distracted by excessive demands for government action that would impinge on private behavior, to the neglect of necessary action by government to regulate public behavior. This necessary action, which appears to be neglected in today's politics, would include creation of policy to limit the rates of taking of natural resources and the putting of pollution, efforts to limit the extent of paving and monoculture on the Earth, efforts to manage allocation of broadcast spectrum space for various public interest uses, etc.
When I asked my Congressman where is the source of the authority of government to initiate force or violence against peaceful people, I got no reply. (If no individual has such authority, no group of two or twenty has such authority and if no group of 49% of the people has such authority, then how could 50% of the people plus one more person have authority to enact policies that involve coercion against non-offending people? Government gets its power from the consent of the governed, but if the people have no power to initiate force or coercion, then they cannot delegate such power to government.)
My friend says that I can't raise a philosophical point with my Congressman. He says that lawmakers can only understand appeals for concrete action. I think we must be able to raise moral questions if we want a sustainable and just civilization. But if members of Congress can only be addressed in terms of what action we want them to take, then we must refrain from voting for any politician who would use government power to infringe on citizens' private decisions. We must elect politicians who will act so as to make it possible for us to carry out our shared right and duty to limit humans' impacts on the environment.
A cure for what ails the planet
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Pollution credits defraud the people
The practice of putting unwanted materials into the air and water as a way to get rid of them places burdens on the other users of the air and water. The privilege of doing so is valuable to industry. The users of the air and water who degrade this publicly-owned resource ought to compensate the owners--ought to pay the people--in proportion to how much they use it and degrade its quality.
A government that issues a 'pollution credit' that allows the bearer to emit pollution at a specified rate in perpetuity would seem to be usurping a right of the people who will inhabit this Earth in the future to decide what levels of pollution they will consider acceptable. But any government that can decree that a permit allows, say, ten tons of emissions per year, can also later decree that that same permit will subsequently allow only one ton of emissions per year or, perhaps, 7% less emissions each year.
The all-too-common practice of government granting pollution permits to those interests that have historically been big polluters is a travesty. It ought not be true that someone who has a history of fouling the air and water is awarded official permission to continue for some period into the future simply by virtue of their past trespass on the commons. These permits ought to be valid only for limited periods of time, and they ought to be sold at auction to the highest bidder, to ensure that the limited resources are only used for those purposes that the people consider important enough that they are willing to actually pay a price that reflects the environmental costs along with all the other costs involved in the production process.
The problem with 'pollution credits', which give the bearer the right to pollute at a specified rate in perpetuity, is that the market in pollution credits will not involve the public at large, the ultimate owners of the natural resources in question. Any buying and selling of these 'credits' would only reflect changes in activity among polluters and users of resources as they change their impacts relative to one another. The market would not reflect actual use but merely adjustments in relative amounts among industries involved.
A system of fees charged against the taking of resources and putting of pollution avoids this problem. The transaction is between the user of resources and the public at large. The fees paid would reflect actual use of resources, and it includes the people as a party to the transaction. (If ownership of 'perpetual rights' permits were taxed at a rate high enough so that sufficiently few people would want to own such a permit, then a 'perpetual rights' system can be effectively transformed into a system of payment to the people in proportion to actual use.)
Polluters should pay the people when they degrade the value of what we all own in common. In a similar way, industries that take natural resources should pay fees, with proceeds shared to all the world's people.
A Capitalism-Communism Synthesis
Gaia Brain: democratic ownership and free market management of natural resources
Political philosophers say: Share Natural Wealth
Walter Cronkite at the first World Court
A government that issues a 'pollution credit' that allows the bearer to emit pollution at a specified rate in perpetuity would seem to be usurping a right of the people who will inhabit this Earth in the future to decide what levels of pollution they will consider acceptable. But any government that can decree that a permit allows, say, ten tons of emissions per year, can also later decree that that same permit will subsequently allow only one ton of emissions per year or, perhaps, 7% less emissions each year.
The all-too-common practice of government granting pollution permits to those interests that have historically been big polluters is a travesty. It ought not be true that someone who has a history of fouling the air and water is awarded official permission to continue for some period into the future simply by virtue of their past trespass on the commons. These permits ought to be valid only for limited periods of time, and they ought to be sold at auction to the highest bidder, to ensure that the limited resources are only used for those purposes that the people consider important enough that they are willing to actually pay a price that reflects the environmental costs along with all the other costs involved in the production process.
The problem with 'pollution credits', which give the bearer the right to pollute at a specified rate in perpetuity, is that the market in pollution credits will not involve the public at large, the ultimate owners of the natural resources in question. Any buying and selling of these 'credits' would only reflect changes in activity among polluters and users of resources as they change their impacts relative to one another. The market would not reflect actual use but merely adjustments in relative amounts among industries involved.
A system of fees charged against the taking of resources and putting of pollution avoids this problem. The transaction is between the user of resources and the public at large. The fees paid would reflect actual use of resources, and it includes the people as a party to the transaction. (If ownership of 'perpetual rights' permits were taxed at a rate high enough so that sufficiently few people would want to own such a permit, then a 'perpetual rights' system can be effectively transformed into a system of payment to the people in proportion to actual use.)
Polluters should pay the people when they degrade the value of what we all own in common. In a similar way, industries that take natural resources should pay fees, with proceeds shared to all the world's people.
A Capitalism-Communism Synthesis
Gaia Brain: democratic ownership and free market management of natural resources
Political philosophers say: Share Natural Wealth
Walter Cronkite at the first World Court
Saturday, February 24, 2007
An earlier version of the gaia brain idea
The Gaia Brain Paradigm: Democratic ownership and free market management of natural resource wealth.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Respect of public property rights lagging acceptance of private property rights
Across centuries of development, we have established a social / political / legal framework that embodies a strong respect for private property rights. We expect that those who take or damage or degrade the value of private property will be made to pay some compensation to the owner.
We do NOT have the same political and legal protection of public property rights. Industries may pollute the air and water beyond what most people would say is acceptable (and businesses may sell products the normal use of which results in pollution), but they are not required to pay compensation to the people at large when they degrade the quality and value of that which belongs to all of us. This lack of protection can be understood in light of the fact that citizens have yet to demand that these rights be respected.
If we were to pay attention to public property rights in the same way that we attend to private property rights (if we were to require compensation be paid when damage is done or value taken), we could solve many of the world's most vexing problems. For example, where clean water is scarce, we could charge a substantial fee to those who take it or degrade its quality in pursuit of profit. This will make it less profitable to deplete or pollute water supplies.
Smaller problems can be addressed, too. Where noise is excessive, we can charge a fee in proportion to the intensity and duration of noise created by human activity. Where most people say that sources of artificial light (street lighting, car dealerships, advertising signs, fast-food restaurants, etc.) have become so widespread that we have lost too much of the view of the stars at night, a fee can be charged to those who cause light pollution. The fee can be made just high enough to ensure that there is a balance between the number of people who say we have too much light pollution and the number who say we have too little outdoor lighting. A system of random surveys can reveal whether there is a balance and, if not, it can show in which direction the error lies.
Who really owns the view of the stars? We all do. To the extent that some people or some corporations would act in ways that deprive us of that which is ours, they should be made to pay compensation. This is the conclusion of a radical view of property rights that insists on bringing public property rights into the equation.
Respect of public property rights will mean that those who take or degrade natural resource wealth in pursuit of profit will have more incentive to use this common inheritance efficiently. Corporations always want to save money, so if they're required to pay a fee, they will strive to reduce impacts on the environment. Efficiency in use of resources is a key factor in determining whether a society can achieve sustainability.
We have a large and still growing global population. Adapting to scarcity is a challenge that our civilization must face for decades to come.
Many problems in the world today are caused by abject poverty. If people have a modest income that represents their share of natural wealth, they could do for themselves the things that have traditionally been done by charities or through government programs, (or that have not been done at all, as the case may be).
Government programs aimed at helping the poor often have unintended harmful consequences. If we respect public property rights along with private property rights, we can reduce pollution, preserve natural resources, and end abject poverty--without onerous government programs which can create a disincentive to seek opportunities for productive, income-generating activities. Any policy that dampens people's interest in seeking gainful employment degrades a society's capacity to produce wealth.
Respect
for public property rights and accounting for the value of natural resources
would profoundly change our economy and society. We would see a transformation of society
from something that resembles a cancer on the Earth (humans consuming beyond
what is sustainable, jeopardizing the health of the planetary
system) to something that looks more like a healthy nervous system for the planet.
Fees incorporated into the price mix will inform us about environmental costs.
A more accurate price signal will cause our behavior to change in ways that
promote environmental health and sustainability.
(This post was censored from something called "Free Republic", and I was banned. Free in name only, I would say.)
If our Presidential selection process isn't working well, let's change it. Who would you want to have as President, if you could ask anyone? Walter Cronkite thought that we need new thinking in this area. He put out a survey asking this question. We missed our opportunity to draft him.
(We should get Jon Stewart or Doris Kearns Goodwin in that office.)
#JonStewartForPresident
We do NOT have the same political and legal protection of public property rights. Industries may pollute the air and water beyond what most people would say is acceptable (and businesses may sell products the normal use of which results in pollution), but they are not required to pay compensation to the people at large when they degrade the quality and value of that which belongs to all of us. This lack of protection can be understood in light of the fact that citizens have yet to demand that these rights be respected.
If we were to pay attention to public property rights in the same way that we attend to private property rights (if we were to require compensation be paid when damage is done or value taken), we could solve many of the world's most vexing problems. For example, where clean water is scarce, we could charge a substantial fee to those who take it or degrade its quality in pursuit of profit. This will make it less profitable to deplete or pollute water supplies.
Smaller problems can be addressed, too. Where noise is excessive, we can charge a fee in proportion to the intensity and duration of noise created by human activity. Where most people say that sources of artificial light (street lighting, car dealerships, advertising signs, fast-food restaurants, etc.) have become so widespread that we have lost too much of the view of the stars at night, a fee can be charged to those who cause light pollution. The fee can be made just high enough to ensure that there is a balance between the number of people who say we have too much light pollution and the number who say we have too little outdoor lighting. A system of random surveys can reveal whether there is a balance and, if not, it can show in which direction the error lies.
Who really owns the view of the stars? We all do. To the extent that some people or some corporations would act in ways that deprive us of that which is ours, they should be made to pay compensation. This is the conclusion of a radical view of property rights that insists on bringing public property rights into the equation.
Respect of public property rights will mean that those who take or degrade natural resource wealth in pursuit of profit will have more incentive to use this common inheritance efficiently. Corporations always want to save money, so if they're required to pay a fee, they will strive to reduce impacts on the environment. Efficiency in use of resources is a key factor in determining whether a society can achieve sustainability.
We have a large and still growing global population. Adapting to scarcity is a challenge that our civilization must face for decades to come.
Many problems in the world today are caused by abject poverty. If people have a modest income that represents their share of natural wealth, they could do for themselves the things that have traditionally been done by charities or through government programs, (or that have not been done at all, as the case may be).
Government programs aimed at helping the poor often have unintended harmful consequences. If we respect public property rights along with private property rights, we can reduce pollution, preserve natural resources, and end abject poverty--without onerous government programs which can create a disincentive to seek opportunities for productive, income-generating activities. Any policy that dampens people's interest in seeking gainful employment degrades a society's capacity to produce wealth.
(This post was censored from something called "Free Republic", and I was banned. Free in name only, I would say.)
Walter Cronkite for President - Should we only consider those who promote themselves, or should we look for someone who most all Americans would say might be a good or great president?
If our Presidential selection process isn't working well, let's change it. Who would you want to have as President, if you could ask anyone? Walter Cronkite thought that we need new thinking in this area. He put out a survey asking this question. We missed our opportunity to draft him.
(We should get Jon Stewart or Doris Kearns Goodwin in that office.)
#JonStewartForPresident
What kind of world shall we leave for our children?
Civilization is not working well. It is not at all clear that human society as we know it is sustainable. On the contrary, we appear to be headed for a collapse more severe in its consequences than any previous collapse of civilization. If we allow this collapse to occur, it will be more severe because, unlike the collapse of previous civilizations, this will not be an event that impacts a particular location or region. It will be truly global in extent. And it will happen in the context of modern technology that has multiplied our capacity to intensively exploit and devastate the environment that sustains us. The destructive power of weapons that will be available to those who will fight over the dwindling resources defies description.
What could we do to avoid a global collapse? One theory says that we must learn to live in accord with moral principle as a life-sustaining strategy. The vitality of our civilization and the lives of many people depend on our right action.
Compensation should be paid when damage is done to property or when value is taken from that which is owned by others. So what could possibly justify the complete neglect of public property rights that has polluters fouling the air and water without any requirement that they pay a fee to the people, as compensation for the damage done? Considering the transformation of society that would result from such compensatory payment (from unsustainable to sustainable; from a system where extreme poverty and disparity are endemic to something more egalitarian), perhaps we should start calling the putting of pollution without appropriate compensation (and other forms of uncompensated externalities)... we should call this what it is: a crime against humanity. It is theft of resources that belong to all the people.
There is no way to justify this neglect. But we can understand the historical context within which it exists. We have not yet become convinced as a society that we must take account of the effects of economic activity in a way that causes the adverse impacts to be reflected in economic terms. We have not yet learned that harmful effects caused by industry and caused by economic activity generally must be felt in economic terms, so that causing harmful effects results in real and proportional costs to those who produce the harm. We have not yet learned, as a society, that pollution costs and resource depletion costs must be felt by industries on the financial bottom line. When we develop this understanding, we will make industries account for externalities, so harmful practices will no longer be profitable to industry. [We will no longer be inclined to portray corporations as evil or malicious, because their pursuit of their own interest (their pursuit of profit) will cause them to do things that promote (rather than conflict with) the interests of the larger society.]
When one person or corporation pollutes, all the rest of us must refrain from polluting to a proportional degree, to ensure that we do not exceed some acceptable limit to overall levels of pollution (to be defined by the people at large). One polluter's actions constrain the permissible actions of all others. (Or, we must give up the idea that the community at large, through the instrument of government, can and must establish overall limits on levels of contaminants in our air and water).
One polluter putting contaminants into the air changes the atmosphere so that it becomes less able to receive similar unwanted material from any and every other person or industry. (Again, assuming that we intend to enforce overall limits.) When a polluter acts so as to reduce the value of the atmosphere to all of us, property rights doctrine requires that some compensation be paid to those who suffer the diminished value. In other words, principle dictates that polluters must pay a fee to the people at large when they foul our air or water, (or when they spoil our view of the night sky, or cause some other environmental change that offends the people at large).
The same principle applies to the taking and depletion of natural resources: When one actor depletes the resource base, all the rest of us must take proportionately less from that resource base.
The twin scourges of poverty and environmental degradation can be eliminated or (in the case of environmental degradation) can be brought to levels where they are no longer threatening the existence and sustainability of civilization. This will happen when we learn to apply our principles of fairness and just compensation to the realm of the Commons--when we learn to respect public property rights along with private property rights.
We must charge fees (or require purchase of permits at auction) when industries impose adverse environmental impacts. Appropriate limits on pollution and resource depletion will mean a sustainable society. Sharing of fee proceeds will mean an end to extreme poverty throughout the world. Moral principles provide a foundation for a sustainable and just civilization.
Natural law requires equal sharing of natural wealth
Diet choice is a moral choice
What could we do to avoid a global collapse? One theory says that we must learn to live in accord with moral principle as a life-sustaining strategy. The vitality of our civilization and the lives of many people depend on our right action.
Compensation should be paid when damage is done to property or when value is taken from that which is owned by others. So what could possibly justify the complete neglect of public property rights that has polluters fouling the air and water without any requirement that they pay a fee to the people, as compensation for the damage done? Considering the transformation of society that would result from such compensatory payment (from unsustainable to sustainable; from a system where extreme poverty and disparity are endemic to something more egalitarian), perhaps we should start calling the putting of pollution without appropriate compensation (and other forms of uncompensated externalities)... we should call this what it is: a crime against humanity. It is theft of resources that belong to all the people.
There is no way to justify this neglect. But we can understand the historical context within which it exists. We have not yet become convinced as a society that we must take account of the effects of economic activity in a way that causes the adverse impacts to be reflected in economic terms. We have not yet learned that harmful effects caused by industry and caused by economic activity generally must be felt in economic terms, so that causing harmful effects results in real and proportional costs to those who produce the harm. We have not yet learned, as a society, that pollution costs and resource depletion costs must be felt by industries on the financial bottom line. When we develop this understanding, we will make industries account for externalities, so harmful practices will no longer be profitable to industry. [We will no longer be inclined to portray corporations as evil or malicious, because their pursuit of their own interest (their pursuit of profit) will cause them to do things that promote (rather than conflict with) the interests of the larger society.]
When one person or corporation pollutes, all the rest of us must refrain from polluting to a proportional degree, to ensure that we do not exceed some acceptable limit to overall levels of pollution (to be defined by the people at large). One polluter's actions constrain the permissible actions of all others. (Or, we must give up the idea that the community at large, through the instrument of government, can and must establish overall limits on levels of contaminants in our air and water).
One polluter putting contaminants into the air changes the atmosphere so that it becomes less able to receive similar unwanted material from any and every other person or industry. (Again, assuming that we intend to enforce overall limits.) When a polluter acts so as to reduce the value of the atmosphere to all of us, property rights doctrine requires that some compensation be paid to those who suffer the diminished value. In other words, principle dictates that polluters must pay a fee to the people at large when they foul our air or water, (or when they spoil our view of the night sky, or cause some other environmental change that offends the people at large).
The same principle applies to the taking and depletion of natural resources: When one actor depletes the resource base, all the rest of us must take proportionately less from that resource base.
The twin scourges of poverty and environmental degradation can be eliminated or (in the case of environmental degradation) can be brought to levels where they are no longer threatening the existence and sustainability of civilization. This will happen when we learn to apply our principles of fairness and just compensation to the realm of the Commons--when we learn to respect public property rights along with private property rights.
We must charge fees (or require purchase of permits at auction) when industries impose adverse environmental impacts. Appropriate limits on pollution and resource depletion will mean a sustainable society. Sharing of fee proceeds will mean an end to extreme poverty throughout the world. Moral principles provide a foundation for a sustainable and just civilization.
Natural law requires equal sharing of natural wealth
Diet choice is a moral choice
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Using the public airwaves; Neglecting the public interest
There are topics that are not discussed on the public airwaves that really should be discussed because they involve issues of public concern.
Why do public television and radio broadcasters, and news organizations generally, never report on the question of whether the levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources are consistent with the will of the people at large? Do most people feel that government allows more pollution and faster depletion of resources than what should be allowed? Or are regulations too strict? Should we promote economic growth by allowing industries to increase their impacts on the environment? Or are current rates of putting pollution and depleting resources about right?
We should hear these questions when broadcast news organizations report problems of pollution, resource scarcity and climate instability. What news network has ever conducted a survey to discover whether most people feel that carbon dioxide emissions are excessive or, alternatively, whether there is actually too much government restriction on the rate of extraction of fossil fuels? If a democratic society aims to make policy that reflects the will of the people, then a survey regarding acceptable impacts on the environment must be at least as important as, for example, a consumer confidence survey or quote of daily stock exchange averages.
Would a rational and just society adopt the most efficient and fair method of pollution control and natural resource management? A fee assessed in proportion to environmental impacts caused (or a requirement to purchase from a limited number of permits sold at auction) would be the most efficient method of control, according to economists. A financial burden proportional to harm caused will encourage all participants to strive to reduce environmental impacts. Efforts to reduce pollution and resource depletion will be directed toward areas where they will bring the greatest benefit. Sharing of fee proceeds with the people at large ensures that the policy would also be fair. Members of society who are the least well-off would not be further disadvantaged by this method of control. In fact, they would be assured of a modest but substantial benefit in the form of a natural wealth stipend.
A truly democratic society would adjust pollution fees and natural resource user-fees so that industries would have the necessary incentives to produce only the level of environmental impacts that a majority of the people feel is about right. A democratic society cannot allow levels of pollution or rates of resource depletion to exceed what most people say is acceptable. We must bring public policy into line with what the largest number of people feel is the most appropriate balance between the competing interests, between convenience of using resources now vs. having supply assured over a longer span of time, between freedom and constraint. (A wise people will recognize that a constraint now can help to ensure continued availability into the distant future.)
The failure of journalists to include any discussion of questions related to acceptable limits to environmental impacts in their reporting does not serve the public interest at all. Serious problems are festering, while ideas for bringing a solution are left out of the public discussion.
What is the responsibility of broadcasters? They hold monopoly licenses to use slices of the people's airwaves. They must decide how the airwaves should be used to promote the public interest. How do they decide this? Where are the surveys that ask the people which uses of the broadcast spectrum might best promote the public interest?
We could imagine a survey process that would examine which possible uses of the airwaves would most effectively promote the public interest, in the view of most people. Citizens could be shown brief samples of various broadcasts and commercial messages. These samples of programming content and paid advertisements could be presented in random pairs. Survey respondents could be asked to say which of the two brief selections might make a greater contribution to the public good. Those programs or commercial messages that are consistently rated as being more valuable could be broadcast more widely and more often, while those that are consistently rated as promoting private or commercial interests ahead of the public interest could be aired less often or not at all. It would be reasonable to charge a fee to broadcasters when they use the public airwaves to promote private or commercial interests. They would then choose to air the poorly-rated programs or messages less often, to avoid the fee. (There could be quite a range of opinion about which messages promote the public interest. Even some commercial messages might be seen as making a contribution to the public good, if they promote healthy foods, for example.) We could imagine a sliding scale for the fees. Public policy could favor ads for products that help make a better society. We might see less domination of the airwaves by car commercials, as well as fewer advertisements for meat, cheese and high-fat, sugary junk food.
Even the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is given over (or rented out) for private use can be allocated in ways that help protect the public interest. Phone service might be offered that automatically reduces the bandwidth used during times of emergency or in the midst of very large gatherings, so that minimal service availability is preserved for all. Phones could be designed in a way that allowed for transmission of a low-bandwidth signal from phone to phone in a way analogous to how a photon's energy travels through a chlorophyll molecule (through the most efficient path), in the event that cell service is interrupted. This provides a public safety function because minimal communications are preserved even in extreme circumstances. Those who pay fees to use the spectrum space for their communications network might enjoy a lower fee if they design their system with resilience built in.
Broadcasters might receive a stipend when they broadcast in the public interest. Funds to support such a stipend could come from the fees collected when broadcasters use the airwaves to promote private or commercial interests. This would change the relative balance between paid advertisements vs. high-quality programming. (Alternatively, the fee proceeds could go to all the people. Random surveys could determine what portion goes to support worthwhile programming, as defined by the people at large, and what portion is shared to the populace generally.) When broadcasters pay attention to and make decisions based on reliable feedback from citizens about what best promotes the public interest, the character of broadcast television and radio will change. The public should be more engaged in consciously shaping the character of the broadcast spectrum. Like any public resource, the electromagnetic spectrum must be used wisely and in accord with societal interests / shared goals.
John Champagne
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too
Biodiversity as a Public Good
Why do public television and radio broadcasters, and news organizations generally, never report on the question of whether the levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources are consistent with the will of the people at large? Do most people feel that government allows more pollution and faster depletion of resources than what should be allowed? Or are regulations too strict? Should we promote economic growth by allowing industries to increase their impacts on the environment? Or are current rates of putting pollution and depleting resources about right?
We should hear these questions when broadcast news organizations report problems of pollution, resource scarcity and climate instability. What news network has ever conducted a survey to discover whether most people feel that carbon dioxide emissions are excessive or, alternatively, whether there is actually too much government restriction on the rate of extraction of fossil fuels? If a democratic society aims to make policy that reflects the will of the people, then a survey regarding acceptable impacts on the environment must be at least as important as, for example, a consumer confidence survey or quote of daily stock exchange averages.
Would a rational and just society adopt the most efficient and fair method of pollution control and natural resource management? A fee assessed in proportion to environmental impacts caused (or a requirement to purchase from a limited number of permits sold at auction) would be the most efficient method of control, according to economists. A financial burden proportional to harm caused will encourage all participants to strive to reduce environmental impacts. Efforts to reduce pollution and resource depletion will be directed toward areas where they will bring the greatest benefit. Sharing of fee proceeds with the people at large ensures that the policy would also be fair. Members of society who are the least well-off would not be further disadvantaged by this method of control. In fact, they would be assured of a modest but substantial benefit in the form of a natural wealth stipend.
A truly democratic society would adjust pollution fees and natural resource user-fees so that industries would have the necessary incentives to produce only the level of environmental impacts that a majority of the people feel is about right. A democratic society cannot allow levels of pollution or rates of resource depletion to exceed what most people say is acceptable. We must bring public policy into line with what the largest number of people feel is the most appropriate balance between the competing interests, between convenience of using resources now vs. having supply assured over a longer span of time, between freedom and constraint. (A wise people will recognize that a constraint now can help to ensure continued availability into the distant future.)
The failure of journalists to include any discussion of questions related to acceptable limits to environmental impacts in their reporting does not serve the public interest at all. Serious problems are festering, while ideas for bringing a solution are left out of the public discussion.
What is the responsibility of broadcasters? They hold monopoly licenses to use slices of the people's airwaves. They must decide how the airwaves should be used to promote the public interest. How do they decide this? Where are the surveys that ask the people which uses of the broadcast spectrum might best promote the public interest?
We could imagine a survey process that would examine which possible uses of the airwaves would most effectively promote the public interest, in the view of most people. Citizens could be shown brief samples of various broadcasts and commercial messages. These samples of programming content and paid advertisements could be presented in random pairs. Survey respondents could be asked to say which of the two brief selections might make a greater contribution to the public good. Those programs or commercial messages that are consistently rated as being more valuable could be broadcast more widely and more often, while those that are consistently rated as promoting private or commercial interests ahead of the public interest could be aired less often or not at all. It would be reasonable to charge a fee to broadcasters when they use the public airwaves to promote private or commercial interests. They would then choose to air the poorly-rated programs or messages less often, to avoid the fee. (There could be quite a range of opinion about which messages promote the public interest. Even some commercial messages might be seen as making a contribution to the public good, if they promote healthy foods, for example.) We could imagine a sliding scale for the fees. Public policy could favor ads for products that help make a better society. We might see less domination of the airwaves by car commercials, as well as fewer advertisements for meat, cheese and high-fat, sugary junk food.
Even the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is given over (or rented out) for private use can be allocated in ways that help protect the public interest. Phone service might be offered that automatically reduces the bandwidth used during times of emergency or in the midst of very large gatherings, so that minimal service availability is preserved for all. Phones could be designed in a way that allowed for transmission of a low-bandwidth signal from phone to phone in a way analogous to how a photon's energy travels through a chlorophyll molecule (through the most efficient path), in the event that cell service is interrupted. This provides a public safety function because minimal communications are preserved even in extreme circumstances. Those who pay fees to use the spectrum space for their communications network might enjoy a lower fee if they design their system with resilience built in.
Broadcasters might receive a stipend when they broadcast in the public interest. Funds to support such a stipend could come from the fees collected when broadcasters use the airwaves to promote private or commercial interests. This would change the relative balance between paid advertisements vs. high-quality programming. (Alternatively, the fee proceeds could go to all the people. Random surveys could determine what portion goes to support worthwhile programming, as defined by the people at large, and what portion is shared to the populace generally.) When broadcasters pay attention to and make decisions based on reliable feedback from citizens about what best promotes the public interest, the character of broadcast television and radio will change. The public should be more engaged in consciously shaping the character of the broadcast spectrum. Like any public resource, the electromagnetic spectrum must be used wisely and in accord with societal interests / shared goals.
John Champagne
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too
Biodiversity as a Public Good
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Systemic flaws not reported
What do we need to know that our newspapers and universities are not telling us? (Update of this letter)
To the Editor,
There is a defect in our economic system.
We have an economy that hides resource depletion costs and other environmental costs from consumers. There is no general fee or tax assessed in proportion to adverse impacts caused or natural resources taken by producers, so these costs are not reflected in prices.
Because costs are hidden, there is a distortion that leads all cost- benefit analyses to skew toward more environmentally harmful acts. Consumers do things that tend to pollute air and water more than they would do if the cost of the degraded environmental quality were factored into the prices of the things they buy. This harms the interests of other lifeforms on earth, and it will harm the interests of future lifeforms, including our own descendants.
"Economic externalities", (hidden costs), cause us to do the wrong thing. Where are the reporters and commentators who will report on and speak out against an economic system that gives us incentive to do the wrong thing? This defect in our economy disrespects the interests of other inhabitants of this world, and of future generations of humans, by depleting resources that they might rely on and polluting air and water that they need. They cannot speak up in protest. Should we?
If we determine that natural resource wealth is owned by all equally, then any money paid by users of natural resources would go to all the people; to each an equal amount. A proper accounting for this wealth would end abject poverty in the world.
It is immoral--particularly so for journalists--to acquiesce in a system that gives people incentive to do the wrong thing. It is immoral, too, to acquiesce in a system that gives, at most, mere lip service to respect for public property rights, while making no effort to manifest that idea in reality. If a more efficient and fair accounting of natural resource wealth would spell an end to abject poverty, it seems to me something worth talking about.
There is deafening silence in discussion of and reporting on systemic flaws--in economic and political realms.
I hope a reporter or editor can explain why my analysis is flawed; or start reporting on natural resource wealth accounting.
gaiabrain.blogspot.com @TallPhilosopher
To the Editor,
There is a defect in our economic system.
We have an economy that hides resource depletion costs and other environmental costs from consumers. There is no general fee or tax assessed in proportion to adverse impacts caused or natural resources taken by producers, so these costs are not reflected in prices.
Because costs are hidden, there is a distortion that leads all cost- benefit analyses to skew toward more environmentally harmful acts. Consumers do things that tend to pollute air and water more than they would do if the cost of the degraded environmental quality were factored into the prices of the things they buy. This harms the interests of other lifeforms on earth, and it will harm the interests of future lifeforms, including our own descendants.
"Economic externalities", (hidden costs), cause us to do the wrong thing. Where are the reporters and commentators who will report on and speak out against an economic system that gives us incentive to do the wrong thing? This defect in our economy disrespects the interests of other inhabitants of this world, and of future generations of humans, by depleting resources that they might rely on and polluting air and water that they need. They cannot speak up in protest. Should we?
If we determine that natural resource wealth is owned by all equally, then any money paid by users of natural resources would go to all the people; to each an equal amount. A proper accounting for this wealth would end abject poverty in the world.
It is immoral--particularly so for journalists--to acquiesce in a system that gives people incentive to do the wrong thing. It is immoral, too, to acquiesce in a system that gives, at most, mere lip service to respect for public property rights, while making no effort to manifest that idea in reality. If a more efficient and fair accounting of natural resource wealth would spell an end to abject poverty, it seems to me something worth talking about.
There is deafening silence in discussion of and reporting on systemic flaws--in economic and political realms.
I hope a reporter or editor can explain why my analysis is flawed; or start reporting on natural resource wealth accounting.
gaiabrain.blogspot.com @TallPhilosopher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)