1 / 61

The Environment

The Environment. Public and private goods. Private: my enjoyment precludes your enjoyment Examples: car, pencil, pint of beer Public: my enjoyment doesn’t preclude your enjoyment Examples: beach, park, air, water. Internal and external costs. Internal costs: borne by agents of action

daryl-lane
Download Presentation

The Environment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Environment

  2. Public and private goods • Private: my enjoyment precludes your enjoyment • Examples: car, pencil, pint of beer • Public: my enjoyment doesn’t preclude your enjoyment • Examples: beach, park, air, water

  3. Internal and external costs • Internal costs: borne by agents of action • Examples: buildings, materials, supplies, labor, marketing • External costs: borne by others • Examples: air and water pollution, noise, government subsidies, erosion • External costs = harms to others

  4. External costs on private goods • Person harmed may pay costs, complain, or sue for damages • Someone has an incentive to do something about the harm • By holding someone responsible • Parties may negotiate to have agent pay cost, making it internal

  5. External costs on public goods • Nobody harmed can sue for damages • Nobody has incentive to do anything about the harm • Nobody is held responsible • Nobody is in a position to negotiate to make agent pay costs

  6. Tragedy of the commons • People have incentives to impose costs on public goods (“the commons”) • People have no incentives or standing to make agents pay costs • So, public goods inevitably deteriorate

  7. Liberal solutions • Regulation: Empower government to protect public goods from external costs • Preventing their imposition • Enforcement of rules • Taking over decision-making • Making agents pay costs

  8. Conservative solutions • Privatization:Make public goods private, so people have incentives to protect them • Coase’s theorem: if transaction costs are zero, negotiations among private parties yield optimal use of public goods • So, auction public goods, or at least rights to impose costs on them

  9. Liberal Arguments The Case for Government Regulation

  10. Costs and benefits • Problems in computing costs and benefits • Not always conflict between environment and the economy • How to put value on a life? • Uncertainty of estimates— harms and probabilities • Behaviors OK for one become dangerous for many • How much risk is OK? People differ

  11. Private computations • Private computations of costs and benefits are untrustworthy • People act out of self-interest, not for the good of society • People undervalue public goods • Randomness of harm leads people to undervalue them (cf. highway deaths) • Cognitive blindspots: We’re not attuned to subtle, long-term effects

  12. Private decisions • Private decisions are untrustworthy • The market prefers short- to long-term horizons for returns • The market prefers large- to small-scale investments over long periods • Initial investments may be too large for any private agent to make

  13. Market failures • Prisoners’ dilemmas: each can act to maximize his/her own welfare, given what others do, and produce less than optimal outcome • Individual maximizing —/—> group maximizing • Environmental examples: walking on grass; driving; air and water pollution • Negligible costs add up

  14. Market failures • This can happen even if each acts, not from self-interest, but to promote the good of the whole • Utilitarianism is indeterminate— what happens if we each try to maximize good doesn’t necessarily maximize good of the whole • Maximizing good requires coordination

  15. Government solutions • The government is uniquely able to make environmental investments that are • Small-scale • Long-term • Capital-intensive • Directed at the public good • Must act to increase humanity’s margin of error

  16. Conservative arguments Against government regulation

  17. Tradeoffs • Tradeoffs: other values matter too • Prosperity • Economic growth • Employment • Farming • Leisure • Pleasure • Liberty

  18. Environmental Improvement • Necessity: the environment is steadily improving • As people become more affluent, they choose environmental goods over other kinds of goods • Market economies produce cleaner environments over time

  19. Global Warming

  20. Virtues of markets • Rent-seeking: seeking a reward not justified by effort • People are lazy: Everyone seeks rent • In a market economy, there is competition • Anyone seeking rent may be undercut by someone seeking less rent • So, market economies minimize rents

  21. Resource Allocation • Market economies minimize rents • Market economies allocate resources to those who can make the best use of them • Market economies allocate resources optimally • Coase: if no transaction costs, amount of pollution would be optimal

  22. Market failure? • Market failure: sometimes individual maximizing —/—> group maximizing • Market allocations aren’t always optimal • Transaction costs aren’t zero • Tragedy of the commons arises • But government regulations face same problem

  23. Regulatory failure • Barnett’s lunch law; my corollary • Added spending and regulation may produce benefits, with seemingly negligible costs spread over many people

  24. Tragedy of the Congress • But small costs add up (Dirksen: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money!”) • The costs are imposed on other people • Tragedy of the Congress: We don’t get optimal amount of government spending and regulation; we get too much

  25. Individuality • Regulation requires rules, to be applied to all similarly situated agents • But often it is optimal to allow some to pollute • General: auto or power plant emissions • Special circumstances: economic or other benefits

  26. Distributed knowledge • People make decisions every day about tradeoffs between various kinds of goods, including public goods • They also negotiate about external harms • Government officials can’t know enough to substitute their judgments for those of millions of people

  27. Why? Public choice theory • Governments don’t act to promote the public good • Bureaucrats act to promote their own good • They insulate themselves from competition, accountability • They have little incentive • To resist special interests • To consider private costs • To resolve issues efficiently

  28. Undermining accountability • No citizen has time to analyze every issue • Those with large interests at stake exert most influence • Voters assess candidates on the basis of thousands of issues, making most risk-free for officials; many are not elected • Environmental issues concern the future; political rewards and punishments depend mostly on present effects • There is no tangible measure of efficiency

  29. Political rent-seeking • If government decides, there is no competition • Nothing to minimize rents • Decisions are inefficient • Decisions are political • Public goods may be neglected or harmed • Public goods may be protected at excessive expense

  30. Incentives • If government makes decisions, then people have incentives to invest time, money, etc., in influencing political decisions • Those resources could have been invested in improving the environment or producing goods and services • People have greater incentives to weigh tradeoffs than officials do • Government regulation makes us all worse off

  31. Case studies • Internationally • Soviet Union • Eastern Europe • China • India • Kyoto treaty • United States • Hudson River dredging • Western forests (fires) • National Parks • Ethanol subsidies • CAFE standards

  32. Kantian Arguments

  33. Who deserves respect? • Everything has a price or a dignity • Human beings do not have a price; we have dignity • What about • Animals? • Plants? • Natural formations?

  34. Land ethic & deep ecology • We must see nature itself as having dignity • Self-realization: spiritual growth— self —> other people —> other animals —> nature itself • Biocentric equality: All organisms have equal intrinsic worth and so equal rights to live and flourish

  35. Criteria for dignity • All life forms deserve respect • But they lack autonomy • What are the criteria for having dignity? • Humans • Animals • Plants • Rocks

  36. Predators • Many life forms harm other life forms in order to live • Carnivores and omnivores • Herbivores • Parasites • Bacteria • Must minimize harms to other forms

  37. Basic principles • Biodiversity is intrinsically and instrumentally valuable • Humans may reduce biodiversity only to meet vital needs • Flourishing of nonhuman life requires human population decrease • Present human interference is excessive

  38. Basic principles • Policies must be changed to reduce human interference • We must appreciate quality of life, not strive for higher standard of living • We face a crisis: population growth, extinction of species, ozone depletion, global warming

  39. Ecofeminism • What gives us a right to dominate nature? • What allows us to treat nature as having a price rather than a dignity that requires respect? • Logic: cognitive superiority —> moral superiority —> right to subordinate— assign a price

  40. The logic of domination • Argument • We can change our environment • Plants and rocks can’t • What can change its environment is morally superior to what can’t • Moral superiority justifies subordination • So, we have a right to subordinate plants and rocks

  41. Nature <—> Women • Similar reasoning justifies domination of women • Women identified with nature • Men with humanity as a whole • What is identified with humanity is morally superior to what is identified with nature • Moral superiority justifies subordination • So, men have a right to subordinate women

  42. A faulty premise • Feminists reject that conclusion • If the conclusion is false, then • The argument is invalid, or • At least one premise must be false • One false premise: moral superiority does not justify subordination • But then the argument about nature falls too

  43. Ecology <—> feminism • These arguments stand or fall together • So, environmentalists should be feminists • Feminists should be environmentalists • We must rethink our relation to nature • We should relate to nature without subordinating it

  44. Conservative arguments Against government regulation

  45. People over penguins • Only people have dignity. Arguments: • Common sense view • Only we can live according to a rational plan • Only we count as moral agents • Only we have autonomy

  46. People over penguins • We depend on the health of other species; we mustn’t destroy them • We share interests with other species (e.g., clean air and water) • Penguins can’t vote; no one has the right to speak for them • No value without humans

  47. The Environment

  48. Resources • We have the right to use what we need for our own • Survival • Biological welfare • Rational agency • But we must not go beyond that • We have no right to domination for its own sake • We must not do anything that would threaten our own survival, biological welfare, or rationality

  49. Virtue as a mean • Environmental concern is a virtue • We can have too little or too much constraint on our desire to use resources for our own purposes • Too little: recklessness • Virtue: responsible stewardship • Too much: inefficiency, ineffectiveness

  50. Responsible stewardship • We must constrain our own drives to • Pursue wealth and convenience without regard to environmental consequences • Impose costs on others • Impose costs on the commons • Exploit the environment for present benefits, without concern for the future, especially future generations

More Related