71–80 of 174 posts
The EPA is an expression of that and for a while when there were things that were objectively problematic in the USA it was a great organization.
Today I am not so sure as I think it's been too politicized.
There is an interesting debate about it here:
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/climate-change...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider myself a really pro market guy, but I can't agree with the statement: > free enterprise will work to protect the environment, as anything that hurts the market will hurt profits I mean, isn't the environment the prime example of a situation where externalities and the tragedy of the commons describe the problems for the free market to solve the problems at hand? Further, free enterprises exist to maximise…
Imbued in your statement is an even more difficult knot to undo. "Tragedy of the Commons" is caused by the very existence of the modern state. Common land = public land. In a truly private system, one in which all land was owned, every parcel of land would have some advocate who cared very deeply about the environmental quality of their land. You producing pollution on your land that negatively affected mine would re…
More importantly, how do you cope with the person who buys the entire amazon basin and decides that, actually logging it is going to be the best way to realise its immediate value.
I realize that HN generally skews left politically, but this is literally nothing more than a puff piece. There's nothing of value here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imbued in your statement is an even more difficult knot to undo. "Tragedy of the Commons" is caused by the very existence of the modern state. Common land = public land. In a truly private system, one in which all land was owned, every parcel of land would have some advocate who cared very deeply about the environmental quality of their land. You producing pollution on your land that negatively affected mine would re…
"Tragedy of the Commons" is caused by the very existence of the modern state. No, you have it backwards. The "tragedy" was a fiction invented to justify the Acts of Enclosure in the UK, wherein public land (commons) was fenced off for sole use by the local lords. Here's a good explanation: http://www.monbiot.com/1994/01/01/the-tragedy-of-enclosure/ In a truly private system, one in which all land was owned, every par…
A commons is a piece of land supposedly used commonly and not owned by anyone. So Hardins theory is addressing tthings like the ocean and the air.
This article might as well be rebutting the theory of gravity because it only applies to objects with mass.
It's unfortunate that the EPA is under attack by conservatives who want limited government. If you start from first principles about what the min viable government should do, a big part of its charter would be to prevent major tragedies of the commons. And the environment is a textbook example of something that'd suffer the tragedy of the commons without government oversight. I prefer a bigger government with a bigge…
Democrats have the same problem by the way, it just manifests in different paradoxes (or "lies" if you want to be more direct)
When I was younger, I honestly believed in the explanation that left to their own devices, free enterprise will work to protect the environment, as anything that hurts the market will hurt profits. What I didn't take into account was that this argument doesn't work for enterprises run by beings with limited lifespans. All except the most empathic humans will not incur any cost to avoid consequences that are beyond th…
On the contrary. Give property rights to everything and individuals and corporations will have every incentive to protect what they own, be it environmental resources or anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider myself a really pro market guy, but I can't agree with the statement: > free enterprise will work to protect the environment, as anything that hurts the market will hurt profits I mean, isn't the environment the prime example of a situation where externalities and the tragedy of the commons describe the problems for the free market to solve the problems at hand? Further, free enterprises exist to maximise…
Imbued in your statement is an even more difficult knot to undo. "Tragedy of the Commons" is caused by the very existence of the modern state. Common land = public land. In a truly private system, one in which all land was owned, every parcel of land would have some advocate who cared very deeply about the environmental quality of their land. You producing pollution on your land that negatively affected mine would re…
Or maybe the tract is owned by my shell corporation. I extract millions, polluting the property and that of surrounding neighbors as well. A large swath of land lays in ruin. My neighbors sue the owner of my tract, ie the corporation, which promptly goes bankrupt. I don't care, I've already made my fortune and I'm protected by the corporate veil. If you say in such a case I shouldn't be protected, then you're arguing in favor of special penalties with respect to environmental issues.
I've never really understood why conservatives are so reluctant to look after their environment, after all they get to live in it as well.
As an example, shale gas did more for US CO2 reductions than any policy ever did while at the same time providing cheap energy and to conservatives, cheap energy is just as important as clean environment some would even claim those two go hand in hand.
I've never really understood why conservatives are so reluctant to look after their environment, after all they get to live in it as well.
Conservatives are not reluctant they care about the environment themselves but they are reluctant with regards to letting the federal government determine who the winners are and I would tempt to agree with them. As an example, shale gas did more for US CO2 reductions than any policy ever did while at the same time providing cheap energy and to conservatives, cheap energy is just as important as clean environment som…