Text 11144, 126 rader
Skriven 2005-04-07 20:16:40 av MARNIE TROSCLAIR (1:10/345)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: THE ECOSYSTEM
=====================

MT> You get excited about one case involving food and water being
MT> denied to one person, yet you can't see how so many more are
MT> being and will be similarly affected by the problems identified
MT> by the scientists who produced this report.

JH> Stuff it.

Ah.  You've arrived at the limit of your ability to discuss this topic
intelligently.  In any event, more propaganda for your consideration:

 Extra, Extra!  The UN Embraces Free Markets!
 By Tim Worstall

 A completely shocking report comes from the United Nations
 today, almost unbelievable in its implications for us as a species,
 the environment and the rest of the planet.  Called the
 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment you will have  seen it
 splashed across the newspapers, everybody from Xinghua to
 Al Jazeera weighing in, via the Washington Post, Guardian,
 Independent and, well,  here's the Google News search, have
 a look yourself:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Millennium+Ecosystem+Assessme
nt&btnG=Search+News


Now, John, I'll skip over some material in the article which you've 
already seen and get to the unique "stuff."

 I seriously doubt whether there is a sentient being on the planet
 who tries to claim that humanity is having no effect on the
 environment.  The questions have always revolved around how 
 much damage is being done, whether it's actually worth it and if not, 
 what should we do about it?

 If you dig around in the report you find that almost all of the damage
 comes from that well known problem, The Tragedy of the Commons.
 While Garrett Hardin originally applied it to population, it is now
 used as a short hand for the difficulties of dealing with pollution,
 algae blooms, over fishing, water shortages (most especially the
 overmining of aquifers), the destruction of tropical forests and their
 biodiversity....in essence, for the unfolding disasters that the report
 is warning us against.

 This is extremely fortunate, for as Hardin himself pointed out, we
 know how to solve such Tragedies.  When usage of a resource under
 free access rules (sometimes called Marxian rules) starts to degrade
 that resource, the conditions of access need to be changed.  We can
 do this in a social (socialist) or private (capitalist) manner, and
 while different specific resources will require different approaches, 
 either the social or the private method will work at the specific point 
 of restricting usage of the resource.  Which method we choose 
 depends on other things external to the fact that we want and need 
 to limit use of the resource.

 So far we have a report detailing a problem, we understand what the
 root of the problem is, and I've still not told you what is shocking
 about it.  It's that this UN report takes the economically sensible
 path to the solution.  Yes, I know, almost unbelievable isn't it?
 Instead of taking the social route they advocate taking the private
 one, to my utter consternation, meaning that I may have to regard at
 least part of that corrupt and grubby organization as being useful.

 There are four alternative routes to a solution offered, one of them
 described thusly:

 More specifically, in Global Orchestration trade barriers are
 eliminated, distorting subsidies are removed, and a major
 emphasis is placed on eliminating poverty and hunger.

 That is, that environmental degradation would be best reduced by
 more trade, more economic growth and less taxation and interference
 by Governments.

 It's almost as if these people have been reading Iain Murray of these
 pages or something, actually agreeing with the point that free market
 environmentalism actually works, indeed, works better than the
 alternatives.

 A few more almost random quotes to show the way they are thinking:
 (note from Marnie: Check the context)

   * ...[a]wide range of opportunities exists to influence human 
   behavior to address this challenge in the form of economic and 
   financial instruments.  Some of them establish markets; others work 
   through the monetary and financial interests of the targeted social 
   actors; still others affect relative prices.

   * Elimination of subsidies that promote excessive use of ecosystem
   services

   * Greater use of economic instruments and market-based approaches
   in the management of ecosystem services

   * Payment for ecosystem services

   * Mechanisms to enable consumer preferences to be expressed
   through markets

 Now that's what I call shocking and almost unbelievable, that 1,300
 scientists from 95 countries, working under the auspices of the
 United Nations, seem to have drunk the free market Kool-Aid.  
 The end result of this years-long investigation is that us free market
 tree hugger and greenie types are actually correct in our contention
 that it is not the presence of markets, or the failure of markets, that
 leads to the devastation, it is the absence of markets.   Just as we 
 have had to, in centuries gone by, work out a system of  laws that 
 allows markets to flourish, thereby leading to the most efficient 
 usage of resources, so now the task is to do the same for those areas 
 of life where there are no markets.   In water, pollution, fishing
 quotas, tropical forestry, in, in fact, all those sectors where we face 
 the Tragedy of the Commons.

Read all of the article:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/033005H.html


Food for thought, Mr. Hull.




 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)