What America looked like before the EPA, in photos • Hacker News Board

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#31

Post by friendzis » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 9:51 AM UTC

filleokus wrote: post #15

hliyan wrote: post #2

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…

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…

As GP posted, this is a problem of profit maximisation over certain timeframe and tragedy of the commons illustrates that very well. Maximising profits over a quarter, year, and decade require different strategies. Given increasing uncertainty over longer timeframes and limited lifespan of executives/shareholders there is decreasing incentive to maximise profits over longer timeframes.

> The only circumstance under which I expect the free market to freely solve any environmental issues is if the consumer demands more (truly) environmentally friendly products and services, moving the demand and hence the profit from polluting products.

I believe both you and GP are correct as there is very little incentive to protect externalities affecting current business model over extended periods.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#32

Post by dspillett » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 9:51 AM UTC

hliyan wrote: post #2

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…

The problem with "as anything that hurts the market will hurt profits" is that while capitalist idealists believe the market is capable of long term thinking required for this to work, it very much isn't and probably never has been.

There are many environmentally damaging actions that offer short-to-medium term gain, and many of the changes necessary for long term gain have costs in the short term so are not attractive to the short/medium term thinkers.

The problem isn't even constrained to issues that will come to a head after our lifespans. There are many issues that are going to start biting hard in our lifetime, but to "the market" even that is long term: companies are thinking about profits/costs over the next five or ten years and individuals are thinking about maximising what they can get out of their current company in the next year or two before they move on.

Heck, many (both companies and individuals) are just thinking about how they will maximise (or in some cases, simply survive) the next quarter and anything else is too far in the future.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#33

Post by lmm » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 9:51 AM UTC

_red wrote: post #22

filleokus wrote: post #15

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…

> 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.

The state is the entity that owns all land - prior to states land was simply not owned - and state organs like the EPA are the advocates who care deeply about the environmental quality of public land.

You can't address environmental issues on a smaller scale - indeed even individual states are too small a scale be able to address inherently global problems like CO2 emissions. Any "private" owner of the entire planet, or even of a large enough region to address issues like fishery management or water table pollution, would have to function like a state and share the same problems (e.g. lack of competing alternatives).

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#34

Post by ZeroGravitas » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 9:52 AM UTC

hliyan wrote: post #2

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…

Markets are a powerful tool that have been used to solve environmental problems cheaply and effectively before.

Unfortunately there's so much propaganda that effectively argues that corporations should be allowed to do anything they want and it'll all work out for the best that the whole thing has been tainted.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#35

Post by pavlov » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 9:52 AM UTC

stordoff wrote: post #18

pavlov wrote: post #3

Americans love their freedom. Which is more important: the freedom of corporations to innovate in extracting natural resources, or the freedom of citizens to pursue happiness without being poisoned by drinking water? The last photo on that page shows Mary Workman holding a glass of well water that the Hanna Coal Company rendered undrinkable. Something to remember for those who pine for the days of "great coal jobs" a…

Not to take away from the broader point (I think the EPA and like organisations are very important), but would Workman not have recourse through other means (e.g. under nuisance)?

Recourse after the fact will move some amount of dollars from one bank account to another, but it won't restore destroyed environments and ruined health. Life is hard to replace, money isn't.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#36

Post by icelancer » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 9:54 AM UTC

hliyan wrote: post #2

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…

You're just describing negative externalities and the tragedy of the commons issues, well explored in economics. It also has little to do with the limited lifespans and more to do with the minimal negative impact any one person has on the environment, but with great gains that can be realized by not caring (hence, tragedy of the commons issue).

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#37

Post by _red » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 9:54 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #33

_red wrote: post #22

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…

> 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. The state is the entity that owns all land - prior to states land was s…

>The state is the entity that owns all land

Who owns the state?

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#38

Post by netrus » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 9:56 AM UTC

_red wrote: post #22

filleokus wrote: post #15

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…

Hm, that doesn't sound very convincing to me. When I fly over Germany, it appears to me that actually almost every land is owned by people that are affected by the environment a lot: Farmers. Furthermore, air polution is one of the biggest environmental concerns right now, and air does not care about land ownership - city people are affected by bad air, but how would their situtation be better without the modern state and common land?

If i'd own the river flowing by a big plant, would I care more about it's preservation than the polution-fee I could take from the company owner?

One last point: you call public land a legal-fiction - that's interesting, because I would call property rights a legal fiction, and "public ownership" the natural state of stuff (one could argue every legal concept is fiction, I'd tend to agree with that).

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#39

Post by nanis » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 9:56 AM UTC

The direction of causality presumed in the title is mixed up. The EPA did not materialize in a vacuum. It came about in a context of increased concern about pollution which had exceeded tolerable levels AND the U.S. had grown to the point where the country as a whole was wealthy enough to care about such things. Because enough people wanted less pollution, the politicians did something.

What they did was not necessarily the "best" thing. The title of the post should have been "What America looked like before the enough Americans began caring for the environment, in photos".

PS: I grew up in a really polluted city.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#40

Post by cdoxsey » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 9:57 AM UTC

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #8

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.

1. Conservatives believe in trade offs. There's a cost to protecting the environment and at some point spending more money isn't worth it. Often there aren't good solutions to problems just less bad ones.

2. Conservatives care about waste, fraud and abuse, and there have been many examples of abuse in programs to protect the environment

3. Steps taken in the name of protecting the environment often end up doing more harm than good. Conservatives are inherently skeptical of any large organizations ability to do what they say they will.

4. Environmentalism often has an unrealistic view of nature. It's dynamic, constantly evolving, and "preserving" it is a hopeless undertaking. I would recommend the books of Daniel Botkin on this issue: https://www.danielbbotkin.com/books/the-moon-in-the-nautilus...

5. We have a limited budget and fiscal responsibility requires not spending what you don't have. (This is an element of conservative ideology not represented in either of today's political parties)