3 ms·

> imposes a negative effect on an unrelated third party yes, and i'd argue that is certainly the case here. but the two are closely related. http://ipeatunc.

> imposes a negative effect on an unrelated third party yes, and i'd argue that is certainly the case here. but the two are closely related. http://ipeatunc.blogspot.com/2011/08/negative-externalities-and-tragedy-of.html http://ipeatunc.blogspot.com/2011/08/negative-externalities-... i think the above is a bit over the top for my taste: > Secondly, is it really clear that people in Bangladesh (say) have a rights claim to an climate environment that is not two or three degrees warmer than it is right now? How did they acquire this right? ... because yes, I'd say they do have that right, but the point about the expectations being tied to some kind of property rights [physical or fundamental] as a differentiating factor seems to be a strong one. here they describe the tragedy of the commons as a specific sub category of negative externality (in direct contradiction to the preceding link): http://web.mit.edu/11.203/www/econ/index.php%3Fid=14.html http://web.mit.edu/11.203/www/econ/index.php%3Fid=14.html

stretchwithme 10y ago
You can argue that some ongoing tragedy of the commons also has externalities. But is there such an externality in the use of water? Is there some side effect that doesn't involve the use of water itself? Isn't the tragedy, the depletion of the supply, the problem? That isn't external.
- blackkettle 10y ago
  we're just quibbling here... > You can argue that some ongoing tragedy of the commons also has externalities. sure, two of the preceding opinions [wikipedia, mit], argue that the tragedy of the commons is a specific type of negative externality, rather than the other way around. one [north carolina] gravitates more towards your interpretation. the fundamental issue remains though: our conception of time and consequence is woefully limited in scope.
  - stretchwithme 10y ago
    I think I get it. The low cost is itself having a destructive effect. People, eventually, can't get the resource that is depleted. I just didn't register that as external, but it is if you consider the depleted future to be external to the wasteful present. An important point, actually, if I understand correctly. Thanks.

stretchwithme 10y ago

You can argue that some ongoing tragedy of the commons also has externalities. But is there such an externality in the use of water? Is there some side effect that doesn't involve the use of water itself? Isn't the tragedy, the depletion of the supply, the problem? That isn't external.

blackkettle 10y ago
we're just quibbling here... > You can argue that some ongoing tragedy of the commons also has externalities. sure, two of the preceding opinions [wikipedia, mit], argue that the tragedy of the commons is a specific type of negative externality, rather than the other way around. one [north carolina] gravitates more towards your interpretation. the fundamental issue remains though: our conception of time and consequence is woefully limited in scope.
- stretchwithme 10y ago
  I think I get it. The low cost is itself having a destructive effect. People, eventually, can't get the resource that is depleted. I just didn't register that as external, but it is if you consider the depleted future to be external to the wasteful present. An important point, actually, if I understand correctly. Thanks.