NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/environm/12818

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!CARL
From: [e-mail] (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:51:23 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 45
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
=In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
=>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
=>
=>> What we want is to arrive at optimum useage of resources, not neccessarily
=>> at maximum use of resources, with the people gaining the benefits paying
=>> the costs. Clean air, for example, is not free. To gain that benefit for
=>> some, others must forego actions that would benefit them, such as closing
=>> a factory and losing their jobs. This cost must be distributed fairly to
=>> those who benefit.
=>
=>You're assuming that we start with the position that eveybody has a right to
=>pollute.  Were we to start with the position that everyone has the right to
=>clean air, then we'd take the position that those who've been polluting owe
=>those who breathe the air compensation for the theft they've been engaged in
=>all along.  Remember Coase's theorem.
=
=No I'm assuming we start with a position that no one has a right to use
=a resource they don't own, or lease, and that there can be no such thing
=as effective collective ownership. Thus clean air freaks don't get their
=lungfulls for free, and neither do factory owners get a waste receptacle
=for their waste for free. Clean air implies opportunity costs. A free
=market in air would determine how clean the air would be as those who
=wished to benefit from pristine air compete with those who wish to make
=other economic use of the air. We actually do that today, but in a very
=indirect way through political regulation. The fallacy of that approach
=is that the level of benefits is determined by coersion rather than free
=choice, and that costs are distributed disproportionately. The guiding
=principle should be that those who benefit most, pay most.

You're still missing the question:  You're advocating assigning ownership to
something what was not formerly owned.  How do you decide to whom you assign
initial ownership?  You're advocating giving the initial ownership to the
polluters and having those who want clean air but the resource from the
polluters.  One could equally well assign initial ownership to those who
breathe the air and allow the polluters to buy the resource from them.  Please,
take a look at Coase's theorem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.