4 ms·

I find it sort of ironic, in a deeply tragic way, that a totalitarian state such as China finds itself incapable of enacting the sort of sweeping environmental

I find it sort of ironic, in a deeply tragic way, that a totalitarian state such as China finds itself incapable of enacting the sort of sweeping environmental regulations which were the linchpin for bringing about vastly cleaner air, water, and soil in the liberal democracies during the mid-20th century. Indeed, it wasn't so very long ago when a great many pundits were crushing on the ruthless efficacy of China's absolutist government. China is more than advanced enough and more than wealthy enough to solve these problems. But perhaps the government is too corrupt and too disconnected from the value of human life to do what needs to be done.

wavefunction 13y ago
I agree. I am always sickened by the US politicians pointing to Chinese "regulations" (or lack-thereof) on labor or the environment as competitive advantages to be emulated. Then I remind myself these are the same sorts of people that have never left the borders of the US and don't understand exactly how wonderfully _clean_ the US is in comparison to those sorts of places. I hope for the sake of the Chinese people and the rest of the world that they figure it out. We are starting to have similar problems with "unresponsive" governments in the West and it will unfortunately be to everyone's peril eventually.
- dnautics 13y ago
  the story isn't quite as monolithic as that though, in the 19th century America, lawsuits came about as people claimed that pollution from factories caused personal damage and the state courts repeatedly ruled that industrial progress (and the resulting economic growth) were protected interests and put the kaibosh on them - e.g. Lexington & Ohio Rail Road v. Applegate. So having a 'responsive' government can be a problem, depending on exactly whom the government is 'responding' to.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    Well certainly, and littering in America was supposedly endemic before the anti-littering campaigns of the 1960s with stiff penalties were instituted. That is my frustration - that short-sighted individuals don't realize how hard fought and won many of the things they take for granted are.
ams6110 13y ago
Private property ownership is essential for anybody to care about environmental issues. If the government owns all the property, citizens don't have any economic or personal ownership stake in protecting it from pollution.
- yequalsx 13y ago
  That is quite a bold claim there. Do have any evidence that it is true? Are there studies you can cite or data that you can refer too? Your claim is that absent an economic or a personal ownership stake then one can not have an interest in protecting the land from pollution. This is a false statement for me personally so on strict logical grounds the claim is false but perhaps I'm an outlier.
  - wehadfun 13y ago
    You want a study that says that someone cares about things they own? If the farmers actually owned the land they hopefully would have complained about near by factories, or stopped paying taxes on the land by now.
    - Retric 13y ago
      Nobody owns the air but we all like to avoid lung disease and death.
    - jshen 13y ago
      Many of the Superfund sites in the US were owned by the mining companies that left the extreme levels of pollution. The evidence is clear that ownership doesn't dissuade a company from polluting its own land when it can make a ton of money in the process.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Its actually quite accurate: https://www.google.com/search?q=economics+private+vs+public+goods https://www.google.com/search?q=economics+private+vs+public+... Free rider problems, tradgedy of the commons, etc. The best examples are conservation with regards to fisheries and sought-after endangered specifies. You have to give people an economic incentive, which usually includes some sort of privitazaion of the resource (for fisheries, tradable quotas). I actually just read an entire chapter about this concept last night: http://books.google.com/books?id=lbOkUCVNSPoC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=naked+economics+free+rider+problem&source=bl&ots=6Ot3KpsLR9&sig=gopN8MG_DsIX91gDBxu56TMySk0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FTTDUrv2B-mkyQHNg4DICw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=naked%20economics%20free%20rider%20problem&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=lbOkUCVNSPoC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA...

wavefunction 13y ago

I agree. I am always sickened by the US politicians pointing to Chinese "regulations" (or lack-thereof) on labor or the environment as competitive advantages to be emulated. Then I remind myself these are the same sorts of people that have never left the borders of the US and don't understand exactly how wonderfully _clean_ the US is in comparison to those sorts of places. I hope for the sake of the Chinese people and the rest of the world that they figure it out. We are starting to have similar problems with "unresponsive" governments in the West and it will unfortunately be to everyone's peril eventually.

dnautics 13y ago
the story isn't quite as monolithic as that though, in the 19th century America, lawsuits came about as people claimed that pollution from factories caused personal damage and the state courts repeatedly ruled that industrial progress (and the resulting economic growth) were protected interests and put the kaibosh on them - e.g. Lexington & Ohio Rail Road v. Applegate. So having a 'responsive' government can be a problem, depending on exactly whom the government is 'responding' to.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Well certainly, and littering in America was supposedly endemic before the anti-littering campaigns of the 1960s with stiff penalties were instituted. That is my frustration - that short-sighted individuals don't realize how hard fought and won many of the things they take for granted are.

ams6110 13y ago

Private property ownership is essential for anybody to care about environmental issues. If the government owns all the property, citizens don't have any economic or personal ownership stake in protecting it from pollution.

yequalsx 13y ago
That is quite a bold claim there. Do have any evidence that it is true? Are there studies you can cite or data that you can refer too? Your claim is that absent an economic or a personal ownership stake then one can not have an interest in protecting the land from pollution. This is a false statement for me personally so on strict logical grounds the claim is false but perhaps I'm an outlier.
- wehadfun 13y ago
  You want a study that says that someone cares about things they own? If the farmers actually owned the land they hopefully would have complained about near by factories, or stopped paying taxes on the land by now.
  - Retric 13y ago
    Nobody owns the air but we all like to avoid lung disease and death.
  - jshen 13y ago
    Many of the Superfund sites in the US were owned by the mining companies that left the extreme levels of pollution. The evidence is clear that ownership doesn't dissuade a company from polluting its own land when it can make a ton of money in the process.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Its actually quite accurate: https://www.google.com/search?q=economics+private+vs+public+goods https://www.google.com/search?q=economics+private+vs+public+... Free rider problems, tradgedy of the commons, etc. The best examples are conservation with regards to fisheries and sought-after endangered specifies. You have to give people an economic incentive, which usually includes some sort of privitazaion of the resource (for fisheries, tradable quotas). I actually just read an entire chapter about this concept last night: http://books.google.com/books?id=lbOkUCVNSPoC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=naked+economics+free+rider+problem&source=bl&ots=6Ot3KpsLR9&sig=gopN8MG_DsIX91gDBxu56TMySk0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FTTDUrv2B-mkyQHNg4DICw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=naked%20economics%20free%20rider%20problem&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=lbOkUCVNSPoC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA...