4 ms·

Here’s how I think about it: you may feel free to criticize, this is meant to get people thinking, not as an implementable policy. Draw a control volume around

Here’s how I think about it: you may feel free to criticize, this is meant to get people thinking, not as an implementable policy. Draw a control volume around your business or product. If, during the creation, use, or disposal of your product or business, mass or energy crosses this boundary, you should be required to provide for any negative externalities caused by this material or energy. Of course, as usual with this approach, the magic is all in the drawing of the boundary, but hear me out. Under this framework, it may be a bit easier to see clearly what externalities we might wish to price. I sincerely believe that if we now shrink from this present task of properly pricing and managing these costs, human society will perish from this earth.

awakeasleep 8y ago
This makes sense. I wonder why we dont hear more people talk about this or anayze businesses this way. Sounds like it might even be interesting to the layperson.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  One area describing this is the Circular Economy. There is a lot more discussion about it outside of the US. The US media seems indifferent at best. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/co... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
semi-extrinsic 8y ago
To paraphrase Johnny Depp: "... but that's called 'communism' and is frowned upon in most societies." Seriously, we have all the tech to radically reduce emissions starting now. But it costs businesses money to do it, and the future benefit is distributed across all humanity, so nobody does it voluntarily. We need governments to agree to force everyone to do something that benefits society, which stands in stark contrast to market capitalism.
- ip26 8y ago
  On the other hand, one understanding of the role of government in market capitalist societies would be contract enforcement and ensuring the pricing of externalities
  - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
    Carbon taxes, as well as pricing of externalities, are both means by which a government would force corporations to pay. We have knowledge that it should be done, but yet we are not doing it, as this knowledge is drawn into question by charletans and pharisees who twist and turn scientific cautiousness into doubts and buts and ifs in servitude of the almighty dollar. This is the nature of market capitalist societies: those who own capital seek to protect their income, and won't let minor inconveniences like future environmental crisis stand in their way. Just look at the European carbon tax (ETS); it would have been effective if reasonably priced (50-100 EUR/tonne range), but industry successfully worked to keep the price per tonne at between 1/5th and 1/20th of what would have spurred actual emissions reduction measures, thus it has been toothless. Greenwashing is most all what remains.
- adrianN 8y ago
  A carbon tax is not in stark contrast to capitalism and would probably help quite a bit with reducing emissions.
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    What we have isn't capitalism any more.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  Putting a price tag on common resources is not communism by any form of definition. If we view things from a feudal perspective, all common resources were held by the crown. You could only get access to things by purchasing or being given a license to it. One of the things we often talk about is the tragedy of the commons. Things without an owner are gobbled up and this is precisely what's happening. Putting a price tag on externalities is about asserting either a state wide, or even world wide ownership on some resource -- whether it be fish stocks, clean air, electromagnetic spectra, etc, etc, etc. This is completely different than a collective/shared ownership by a group of people. Such an idea does not detract in any way from market capitalism. In fact, giving these common resources an owner who can establish a price for their use is exactly what capitalism is all about. We could even go so far as to enact economic fascism by giving ownership of these resources to "elite" companies who will be able to manage them most efficiently (also read as, "giving ownership of these resources to our friends who will be able to maintain their vast wealth and power eternally"). I only mention it since fascism is about as far from communism as you can get (unless, as is often done, you wrap around on the other side of the spectrum ;-) ). The US has a particular view that government ownership should be kept at a minimum. This idea suffers from the problem of either tragedy of the commons (for unregulated common resources and externalities), or with monopolistic ownership of key resources by certain companies (the latter tending towards an economic fascist ideal). I think it's this idea that somebody has to own this stuff and the government is probably the best somebody to own it that's very difficult to swallow for American ideology. But that doesn't mean it can't change.
Eridrus 8y ago
> Here’s how I think about it: you may feel free to criticize, this is meant to get people thinking, not as an implementable policy. > Draw a control volume around your business or product. If, during the creation, use, or disposal of your product or business, mass or energy crosses this boundary, you should be required to provide for any negative externalities caused by this material or energy. > Of course, as usual with this approach, the magic is all in the drawing of the boundary, but hear me out. > Under this framework, it may be a bit easier to see clearly what externalities we might wish to price. I sincerely believe that if we now shrink from this present task of properly pricing and managing these costs, human society will perish from this earth. Not all negative externalities demand restitution. If you make a better widget, another firm may lose market share and their stakeholders would be harmed. This obviously shouldn't require restitution. Also, it's very hard to measure both positive and negative externalities.
- torpfactory 8y ago
  Why shouldn’t all negative externalities require restitution in proportion to their harm? I couldn’t agree more that it is difficult to measure externalities. A good place to start might be to get a quote for the cost of undoing the harm - e.g. I’ve heard as low as $93 a ton to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Seems like a reasonable starting point for discussion. By the way I don’t think making a better widget qualifies as a negative externality.
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    For a more concrete widget example: self-driving cars will have negative externalities on professional drivers. I'm not sure what definition of externalities includes climate change, but not job losses. I also think it's a bit simplistic: what if we find that the carbon energy sector is not capturing all the value of what it provides and has positive externalities that outweigh the negatives at current levels? What do you do about systems with non-linear effects like the climate? I think we shouldn't try and seek a general operating principle from a known hard problem that we are failing to address and is pretty different from others we face. We should have a carbon tax, because it is a useful tool in fighting this battle, not because it is the right tool for every issue.

awakeasleep 8y ago

This makes sense. I wonder why we dont hear more people talk about this or anayze businesses this way. Sounds like it might even be interesting to the layperson.

dv_dt 8y ago
One area describing this is the Circular Economy. There is a lot more discussion about it outside of the US. The US media seems indifferent at best. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/co... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

semi-extrinsic 8y ago

To paraphrase Johnny Depp: "... but that's called 'communism' and is frowned upon in most societies." Seriously, we have all the tech to radically reduce emissions starting now. But it costs businesses money to do it, and the future benefit is distributed across all humanity, so nobody does it voluntarily. We need governments to agree to force everyone to do something that benefits society, which stands in stark contrast to market capitalism.

ip26 8y ago
On the other hand, one understanding of the role of government in market capitalist societies would be contract enforcement and ensuring the pricing of externalities
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago
  Carbon taxes, as well as pricing of externalities, are both means by which a government would force corporations to pay. We have knowledge that it should be done, but yet we are not doing it, as this knowledge is drawn into question by charletans and pharisees who twist and turn scientific cautiousness into doubts and buts and ifs in servitude of the almighty dollar. This is the nature of market capitalist societies: those who own capital seek to protect their income, and won't let minor inconveniences like future environmental crisis stand in their way. Just look at the European carbon tax (ETS); it would have been effective if reasonably priced (50-100 EUR/tonne range), but industry successfully worked to keep the price per tonne at between 1/5th and 1/20th of what would have spurred actual emissions reduction measures, thus it has been toothless. Greenwashing is most all what remains.
adrianN 8y ago
A carbon tax is not in stark contrast to capitalism and would probably help quite a bit with reducing emissions.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  What we have isn't capitalism any more.
mikekchar 8y ago
Putting a price tag on common resources is not communism by any form of definition. If we view things from a feudal perspective, all common resources were held by the crown. You could only get access to things by purchasing or being given a license to it. One of the things we often talk about is the tragedy of the commons. Things without an owner are gobbled up and this is precisely what's happening. Putting a price tag on externalities is about asserting either a state wide, or even world wide ownership on some resource -- whether it be fish stocks, clean air, electromagnetic spectra, etc, etc, etc. This is completely different than a collective/shared ownership by a group of people. Such an idea does not detract in any way from market capitalism. In fact, giving these common resources an owner who can establish a price for their use is exactly what capitalism is all about. We could even go so far as to enact economic fascism by giving ownership of these resources to "elite" companies who will be able to manage them most efficiently (also read as, "giving ownership of these resources to our friends who will be able to maintain their vast wealth and power eternally"). I only mention it since fascism is about as far from communism as you can get (unless, as is often done, you wrap around on the other side of the spectrum ;-) ). The US has a particular view that government ownership should be kept at a minimum. This idea suffers from the problem of either tragedy of the commons (for unregulated common resources and externalities), or with monopolistic ownership of key resources by certain companies (the latter tending towards an economic fascist ideal). I think it's this idea that somebody has to own this stuff and the government is probably the best somebody to own it that's very difficult to swallow for American ideology. But that doesn't mean it can't change.

Eridrus 8y ago

> Here’s how I think about it: you may feel free to criticize, this is meant to get people thinking, not as an implementable policy. > Draw a control volume around your business or product. If, during the creation, use, or disposal of your product or business, mass or energy crosses this boundary, you should be required to provide for any negative externalities caused by this material or energy. > Of course, as usual with this approach, the magic is all in the drawing of the boundary, but hear me out. > Under this framework, it may be a bit easier to see clearly what externalities we might wish to price. I sincerely believe that if we now shrink from this present task of properly pricing and managing these costs, human society will perish from this earth. Not all negative externalities demand restitution. If you make a better widget, another firm may lose market share and their stakeholders would be harmed. This obviously shouldn't require restitution. Also, it's very hard to measure both positive and negative externalities.

torpfactory 8y ago
Why shouldn’t all negative externalities require restitution in proportion to their harm? I couldn’t agree more that it is difficult to measure externalities. A good place to start might be to get a quote for the cost of undoing the harm - e.g. I’ve heard as low as $93 a ton to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Seems like a reasonable starting point for discussion. By the way I don’t think making a better widget qualifies as a negative externality.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  For a more concrete widget example: self-driving cars will have negative externalities on professional drivers. I'm not sure what definition of externalities includes climate change, but not job losses. I also think it's a bit simplistic: what if we find that the carbon energy sector is not capturing all the value of what it provides and has positive externalities that outweigh the negatives at current levels? What do you do about systems with non-linear effects like the climate? I think we shouldn't try and seek a general operating principle from a known hard problem that we are failing to address and is pretty different from others we face. We should have a carbon tax, because it is a useful tool in fighting this battle, not because it is the right tool for every issue.