home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.environment:14423 ca.environment:1155 ba.transportation:3125
- Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment,ba.transportation
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!quake!brian
- From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
- Subject: Re: Environmental Cost Assignment (was Re: Save the Planet and ...)
- Message-ID: <C0oMx3.BK4@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
- Organization: Quake Public Access
- References: <72137@cup.portal.com> <C0FGr5.4xI@quake.sylmar.ca.us> <19781@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com>
- Distribution: na
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:12:34 GMT
- Lines: 93
-
- In article <19781@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com> tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
- >In article <C0FGr5.4xI@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
- >>In article <72137@cup.portal.com> gb@cup.portal.com (Greg A Buechler) writes:
-
- >>Oh...you don't think that free markets reflect full economic costs?
- >>Pray tell us how this is.
-
- >Perhaps because some of the costs are common, and therefore not private
- >property?
-
- True enough, there are some problems with this...that's why I think private
- property ought to be extended to such areas where scarce resources are
- in demand. Common property causes many of the environmental problems which
- exist. That's one reason why I think that the government ought to get out
- of the property ownership business.
-
- >>>Not just autos, everything is to some degree paid for at costs far
- >>>below their tru economic cost if you factor in the environmental cost/
- >>>damage.
-
- >>Costs according to whom? If I own a bit of land with trees on it, part
- >>of the the price you charge for the lumber will be from the decreased
- >>value of the land without the trees. This is the case with any
- >>freely owned and traded resource.
-
- >How about the decreased habitat value of the land around yours?
-
- iWhat about it? If damages can be proven, a suit can be filed, or a
- mutually agreeable settlement can be reached. If you can't prove it
- then you have no valid complaint (unless, like Al Gore, you want to see
- people considered guilty until proven innocent when accused of environmental
- crimes).
-
- >How about
- >the damage from increased erosion from your land?
-
- If the land has decreased capacity to grow things (trees, grain or whatever)
- then it's value may drop. Of course, this depends on a great many other
- things like whether it's going to be taken out of lumber production for some
- other use or something like that, in which case a little erosion is no big
- deal.
-
- >Erosion from logging is considered a contributing factor in the severity of
- >the Eel River flooding in northern CA in 1964 (the "high water mark" signs
- >along the "Avenue of the Giants" are impressively high). Erosion from placer
- >mining in the 1800's in CA (and subsequent Central Valley flooding) led US
- >courts to outlaw hydraulic mining. You can see the results of this mining
- >along I-80 near Gold Run, CA.
-
- Well, as i said, if you can prove that this or that act caused this or that
- damage then go ahead and sue (or settle). It might well be that in order
- to prevent floods, lumber companies may be required to build flood control
- dams too, but again, this rests on the idea of private property and proof
- of harm. It seems that you want to go beyond this kind of thing, am I right?
-
- >>>The cost of lumber should include the full cost of extraction, reforest-
- >>>ation, the polution by the trucks moving the lumber, the waste from the
- >>>mills, etc.
-
- >>Surprise...violations of property rights aside, they already do!
-
- >Critics of the USFS charge that the annual cost of public land logging to
- >the taxpayer (including road building costs, administrative costs, etc.) is
- >$1.7 billion (the USFS excludes the cost of logging roads and a few other
- >items and claims expenses of $0.8 billion, but the logging roads would
- >not exist except for logging). The USFS shows logging receipts of $1.3
- >billion (a $0.5 billion loss). Not even the full cost of extraction and
- >replanting is paid.
-
- OK, so owkr with me to get the government out of the business of owning
- natural vast tracts of land. I'm sure you would agree that no businessman
- would be so foolish as to do something like this (and couldn't afford to
- if he wanted to).
-
- >Society recognizes the economic necessity of impact to common space (such as
- >pollution). While I hard time swallowing some specific studies that attempt
- >to assign commons cost to certain products, the notion that these costs
- >should be "reasonably" assigned is one that I agree with.
-
- Assigned by whom? Collected by whom? To be used for what purpose? Assigned
- by what calculation method?
-
- >Cost, after all,
- >simply provides information to an economy and I see no reason why the economy
- >should be denied information about impact to common space.
-
- But how much is that impact "worth"? Who decide how much an acres of forest
- is worth? Greenpeace? Earth First? Users of lumber? Backpackers? Timber
- companies? My point here is that the kind of system you seem to be advocating
- is NOT a way of informaing the market...it is a way of putting the market
- under the control of a political process.
-
- --Brian
-