Bush Administration an Ecological Disaster?

[Timber Loftis]

That's a lot of posts in a row, MagiK. [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] I felt I did address your comments. I think Bush is assaulting the economy more that the article suggests, and I cited an article that gave him poor grades on environmental concerns, as determined by environmentalists and businessmen. I did not try to support all chicken-little eco-nut rants, and I won't try to do so. I then went into a lot of detail debunking the one largest example cited by your article, and I think I pretty well succeeded in putting a good smack-down on the New Source Review right-wing propoganda, in true whack-a-mole style. That necessarily led me to mention the types of pollutants at issue, but only in passing, and I specifically said "arguably" regarding CO2 because I do not want to beat that dead horse right now. Can't be more on-point, I would say.

I also pointed out the certain schizophrenia that is currently thought to exist in the enforcement/rulemaking dichotomy. I then got offtopic with Thorfinn, which is normal.

As for A/C rules, I am unfamiliar with them. Of course marginal cost is always an issue in making technology cleaner, and it very well may be the case that 30% reduction costs 2X, 3X, or 6X what 20% reduction costs, but I am not familiar with the facts there.

A snowmobile in Yellowstone isn't a problem. An army of 100 is, and that's the type of impact many adventure clubs cause. I'm conflicted on the snowmobile issue, as I like to enjoy the outdoors, but I still do hold to the theory that some places need to be kept pristine - for two reasons: (1) history, let us see what it used to be like, (2) a "control group" for our little experiment called "human progress" so we can look to see how things may or may not have changed without us - a necessary component of any good science experiment. Should Yellowstone be "pristine?" Well, I just don't know all the facts there. Some places of each type of ecosystem certainly should, that's all I'll say.

[Timber Loftis]

Thorfinn's pensioners are in little danger, IMO. The shrimp industry cried "foul" and blocked ports in LA when Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) were mandated, claiming it would destroy the industry. Well, it's still doing as well as it was. Fact is, once the TED became mandatory, industry suddenly found a way of making it dirt cheap. Industry will cry "the sky is falling" just as much as eco-nuts will - human nature. Until the thing (TEDs) became a needed commodity, they were very expensive. After they became universally mandated, they got cheap.

Oh, might this refute Thorfinn's argument that the government can't be an economic impactor? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Sometimes industry will happily kill us all to make a buck or two without spending that extra penny here or there to mitigate its harm. Either (1) laws and courts are strong enough to kick it in the ass for doing this or (2) the government mandates controls that kick it in the ass for doing this or (3) we die - well, you get the drift despite my hyperbole. So, the "kick in the ass" in the TED instance was effectively adjusting the market to add the appropriate value to something - done through mandating the thing be used. Tons of other examples exist. SO2 and NOx emission credits are waaayy below what they were initially thought to cost. Mandate the emission reductions and *poof* suddenly someone has reason to invent the widget to make it cheap.

[ 04-22-2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by pritchke: Possibly but what would the cost of energy savings be? Isn't it true that in the long run it may be possible to actually save money? The people who would do without can afford it (get rid of cable, budget their gas money to only use a certain amount/ month and not go over, take out a loan to pay for the air conditioner.) Maybe 20% efficient is actually more affordable than 30%, but things like life of the air conditioner will also need to be taken into account. I would actually like to see a cost analysis of both to see which saves consumers the most money over the life expectancy of the air conditioner before siding on the issue of which is better. This may be dependent upon what you pay for electricity, which could vary depending on were you live. Why not have both types available to let the consumer decide? Is it possible that some of these things are being forced on us because people many abuse what they have by turning on an air conditioner when simply opening a window may be sufficient. Or turning up the heat when a sweater will do and the person is still wearing a short sleeve shirt. People in North American tend to have the attitude that I own (can afford it) so why not use it and that is why we as North Americans are notorious consumers of energy in the world. I even catch myself in this from time to time and I probaly do it more than I am aware.

It is so very easy to just tell people budget differntly [img]smile.gif[/img] Life ain't quite that simple Pritchke. Nor are all peoples problems derived from how they budget available money.

Edit: actually your post sounds like a quote from one famous headless young lass [img]smile.gif[/img] "Let them eat cake"

[ 04-22-2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Thorfinn's pensioners are in little danger, IMO. The shrimp industry cried "foul" and blocked ports in LA when Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) were mandated, claiming it would destroy the industry. Well, it's still doing as well as it was. Fact is, once the TED became mandatory, industry suddenly found a way of making it dirt cheap. Industry will cry "the sky is falling" just as much as eco-nuts will - human nature. Until the thing (TEDs) became a needed commodity, they were very expensive. After they became universally mandated, they got cheap. I never ment to imply that eco-nuts are the only ones to cry "The Sky is falling". I focus ont hem just because of where I live and the fact that they are frequently clogging up the National Mall here in DC.

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Attalus: MagiK, don't you know that the Administration can do no right in the eyes of the Left?

Oh goody - a right wing pep rally!!

When in doubt go to the National Review Online to stir up an argument. [/QUOTE] While the commentary is quite biting, it would be much nicer and less irritating if you could at least comment on the issues involved instead of just going after Attalus. I only posted part of the article, the part that deals with facts and left out most of the spin and clutter that went with the article.

Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to avoid looking at what is actually in there and instead bitching about the source. [/QUOTE]I was waiting for this. I think my interjection takes the debate forward as much as Attalus' did. And as for 'going after Attalus' - that comment just defies belief. You are very good at making throwaway remarks to plant ideas into peoples minds.

BTW - "Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to avoid looking at what is actually in there and instead bitching about the source." This does an enormous disservice to Timber and Thorfinn who have had an interesting and INFORMED debat e about the subject. Luckily we have members on IW who can give their opinions without resorting to posting articles from extremist publications.

[ 04-23-2003, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[Thorfinn]

Timber, your shrimp example does not apply to this case, and I'll do you the favor of explaining why. It is quite simple actually -- the shrimpers are able to externalize their costs by shrimping in "public" waters. If that water were privately owned, assuming the owners valued turtles, they could implement whatever means of turtle protection they liked, ranging from TEDs to no shrimping at all, to turtle repellants or attractants, to... heck, whatever the boy geniuses could come up with. At this point, TEDs are the norm, I guess, and as with all command and control type regulation where the means to an end is specified, it has absolutely squashed any commercial incentive to research other means, since they would not be marketable without the proper lobbying/bribing of the appropriate officials.

What kinds of examples would apply? Well, how about building codes. These costs are entirely passed onto the homeowner, and things like accessibility codes add several thousand dollars, tens of thousands to larger homes, all to accomodate a person who may never set foot in the door.

How about the aforementioned automobile? I don't believe there is a single person who would deny that driver side airbags increased the cost and the price of a vehicle by approx $2,000, or, $40 per month (assuming 5 year loan) depending on your credit rating. This one mandate has priced out anyone who could not scratch up the extra $40 per month, and has unquestionably resulted in people retaining their old junkers longer than they would have otherwise. Now when you add in passenger-side airbag, anti-lock brakes and the plethora of well-intentioned but expensive mandates, you end up pricing significant fractions of the working poor out of the market entirely. They would unquestionably be safer in a vehicle with all those bells and whistles if they could afford them, but unquestionably less safe since their economic circumstances force them to drive their old, worn-out cars instead.

pritchke: Is it possible that some of these things are being forced on us because people many abuse what they have by turning on an air conditioner when simply opening a window may be sufficient. Or turning up the heat when a sweater will do and the person is still wearing a short sleeve shirt. People in North American tend to have the attitude that I own (can afford it) so why not use it and that is why we as North Americans are notorious consumers of energy in the world. I even catch myself in this from time to time and I probaly do it more than I am aware.

All due respect, but so what? What is it to you if I choose to turn on my A/C when it is only 72 degrees? (Cheap bastard that I am, I don't, but let's run with it for a sec.) Why should anyone have the right to tell me the temperature at which my thermostat should be set, any more than they have the right to tell me whether I can have only one spoonful of jam on my toast? Tell you what. If you don't try to boss me around, I'll return the favor.

[ 04-23-2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: quote: pritchke: Is it possible that some of these things are being forced on us because people many abuse what they have by turning on an air conditioner when simply opening a window may be sufficient. Or turning up the heat when a sweater will do and the person is still wearing a short sleeve shirt. People in North American tend to have the attitude that I own (can afford it) so why not use it and that is why we as North Americans are notorious consumers of energy in the world. I even catch myself in this from time to time and I probaly do it more than I am aware.

All due respect, but so what? What is it to you if I choose to turn on my A/C when it is only 72 degrees? (Cheap bastard that I am, I don't, but let's run with it for a sec.) Why should anyone have the right to tell me the temperature at which my thermostat should be set, any more than they have the right to tell me whether I can have only one spoonful of jam on my toast? Tell you what. If you don't try to boss me around, I'll return the favor. [/QUOTE]I wasn't bossing you around. But if the berries that you were used to make the jam were becoming extinct than maybe there is only enough to make a certain number of bottles, if you buy a bottle and there are no more until the next picking season than if you want to use more than a spoonful of jam than that is your choice but you will have to do without for the rest of the year. We need to think in terms of conservation when it comes to energy and resources or we will be affecting the lives of others. No, one should tell you not to hunt all the deer, not to cut all the trees, not to use all the oil, you should want to ensure that resources are still around for generations to come for the betterment and development of the human race. If we didn't put rules in place than we would have no animals, no fish, and no forest because most people will not stop until everything is gone if no one stop's then than their actions will affect the quality of my life and that of my children.

[ 04-23-2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Thorfinn]

The berries are probably a bad example. One thing you can be sure of -- anything that people like to eat will not become an endangered species. Wheat, corn, cattle, sheep, etc., all are in no danger of extinction. The best way to protect bald eagles is probably to tell people eagles taste like chicken.

And, no, I don't agree with you that we need to conserve things just because future generations will need them. We have a long history of developing new technologies as resources become scarce or which render those resources obsolete. As flint started to become harder to find, mankind figured out how to use metals. Even where flint was plentiful, it became obsolete became metal was superior in nearly every respect. As food became scarce, new farming techs and methods were figured out, increasing the productivity of farmers a thousand-fold. At some point, we will have developed fusion power, or some power source even the dreamers have yet to imagine, and oil, coal and natural gas will be just so much junk.

And it is not like mining iron will deprive future generations of that iron. They will be able to "mine" it in high-grade veins we currently call scrapyards. Until we discover some philosopher's stone, our ability to transform one element into another is pretty minimal, so converting raw materials from one form to another more usable form at the moment will not deprive them of anything.

I believe it was the late Julian Simon who challenged any of the doomsayers to come up with a single portfolio of commodities which would increase in real price over time, a very good measure of that commodity's scarcity. Though many Club of Rome types took him up on it, I don't believe Mr. Simon ever lost.

The reason is that as materials become more scarce, the price goes up a little bit and people automatically search for cheaper alternatives, and producers automatically produce a little more, which automatically reduces the scarcity, and thus the price. That is fact, and has a proven track record spanning throughout history, but particularly in the last 50 or so years, when transportation got to the point that alternatives became available regardless of where on the face of the earth those alternatives may be.

[ 04-23-2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[Timber Loftis]

Thorfinn, the shrimpers were already externalizing costs when TEDs were implemented. The only change in the already-existing marketplace and industry was the requirement of TEDs. While I agree that externalizing costs is unfair to the public, I do not think it relates (other than tangentially) to any economic analysis of the TED situation. Nor does it refute my argument that once something is required it creates an incentive for someone to develop a way to make it cheaply. Sorry, I just can't buy your logic. My logic follows the same steps that you use to explain how the scarce resource prices adjust and how other alternative resources are found - it is simply that in my example the driving "real-world" force is government regulation rather than resource scarcity.

On the externalization of costs by use of the public good, I argue the water belongs to no one, as it is part of a cycle and can migrate anywhere on the planet. Thus, it is neither yours nor mine to determine whether or not we will pollute it, clean it, or protect it. Same is true with the turtles, who in your model would have a patchwork quilt of "safe havens" they could live in, interspersed with a patchwork quilt of "fair hunting" areas they would get killed in. Unfortunately, sea turtles probably can't read or understand any maps we may provide for their edification and safety.

No, in my model, such public goods belong to the public. It is a "property right" but not in the sense that "I own all turtle in this piece of water" or "I own that turtle over there named Dude." Rather it is "I own the right to enjoy all turtles, and to benefit from their existence, both aesthetically and otherwise, so long as I do not harm their species." In both our models, the shrimper would pay for use of these goods, but in mine he would pay the public at large rather than individual sea-land barons.

As for resource scarcity - your model presumes we know of a resource. What about those we have not discovered yet? In the face of rampant deforestation in Madagascar, scientists from around the world rushed there to catalog all of the species that were being extincted. Literally moments before the dozer came through, they discovered a certain rare flower, and saved some samples. Lucky thing. That flower, turns out, provides us with one of the best treatments for rare blood diseases such as Lupus. We only have the genetic code of the flower now, and frozen specimens, but in this case we are lucky in that its enough to allow us to engineer the medicine.

This is why the price of a resource, especially when it is a species, is incalcuable. One of the fundamental flaws of Smith's economic model is that it assumes PERFECT KNOWLEDGE. Well, this can never happen. First, with or without government, companies will retain trade secrets, usurping this primary assumption. Second, because we do not know the future value of the resource, we cannot adequately evaluate its price - oil was once simply nasty worthless gunk to work around. We are limited to the here and now in Smith's model, and so relying on it so wholeheartedly will sooner or later doom our future.

It's certainly a fun discussion though. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Thorfinn]

I have to disagree, slightly. The only reason that the shrimpers were able to externalize that cost is because the ruling classes have decreed that the first so many miles out to sea are territorial waters, belonging to the government. If not for that decree, people could have, and would have filed claims on those properties, and we could have avoided this whole externalization business in the first place. Think of it -- you and a bunch of like-minded individuals could own a section of the ocean and you could decide how to use the property. If you want to keep shrimpers away entirely, that is your right. If you want to grow turtles, that is your business.

The public property paradigm has in effect robbed certain people of the right to determine how to use their own property. Granted, they have only a small interest in the property, but you are using your tiny interest in it to absolutely prevent them from using it as they like. They are, instead, forced to use it as you like. That is why public property is theft, plain and simple. You force the shrimpers to chip in to pay for it, but do not allow them to use it. Same with the wilderness areas, and the snowmobiles in Yellowstone, etc. If you want to preserve a pristine environment, dig out your checkbook and buy up a little bit of it. Don't force me to pay for your agenda.

And, no, my model does not presume perfect information. Not at all! The men who first forged iron had no need to know about Saudi oil reserves, and neither do those who run the steel mills today. Sorry, but that is another of those irritants -- the old canard about perfect information being the problem with freedom and capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Freedom and capitalism assume imperfect information, that you know only about your little tiny section of the world, and that you know more about it than anyone else, so are in the best position to decide how to put it to use. They assume that some pinhead in Washington cannot possibly know how well potatoes grow in the northwest corner of your property, and thus that rules handed down from on high are not only more likely to be incorrect, but are utterly morally wrong. In fact, the only ones who need perfect information are the friggin' collectivists with their centralized planning and top-town heirarchical dictates!

Aargh. Sorry for venting. That perfect information garbage never ceases to get my blood boiling. Damned collectivists who run the schools teach it as fact, and no one bothers to question it.

[ 04-23-2003, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]