ACHIEVING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE — A SKETCH

As documented in The Shape of the Future Vol I – and reinforced by TRILO-G – achieving economic prosperity, social stability and environmental sustainability depends on evolving functional human settlement patterns.

Citizens of Virginia the question is:

How do citizens of the Commonwealth implement something like the six overarching strategies to achieve functional human settlement patterns outlined in Vol II of The Shape of the Future?

For those who have not been paying attention, here is a sketch:

1. Start with a Wright Plan* for ALL the territory that directly impacts the use and management of land in the Commonwealth. That means doing a Wright Plan for the Washington-Baltimore NUR, the Richmond NUR and the Hampton Roads NUR as well as the DelMarVa, Appalachian and East Carolina USRs. (It would be helpful if the Philadelphia NUR and the Central Carolina NUR would also undertake a Wright Plan but that is not essential.)

2. Based on best available data, project future growth / change in Jobs and Housing for 10, 20 and 30 years by NUR and USR. Then allocate thse projections to coterminous SubRegions within the NURs and USRs.

3. Quantify the demand for land for Jobs, Houses, Services and Recreation by SubRegion starting at the Centroids and working out. This means the Centroids of the NURs and the Centroids of the Urban agglomerations of Beta Community scale or larger within USRs. Use as the basis of per capita consumption, the patterns and densities needed for developers to make a 8 percent profit if ALL the location-variable costs are fairly allocated.

NB. This calculation will document the vast OVERSUPPLY of already Urbanized land. (See “Stark Contrast” in Chapter 49 of TRILO-G. For this reason, the Initial Quantification would allocate twice as much land as will be needed to meet projected 10, 20 and 30 year demand so that the process of DeUrbanization (including Subdivision Recycling and Parcel Consolidation) can proceed from the least well located land for Urban uses to the better located land. (The value of land for agriculture, forestry, OpenSpace, extraction, and environmental functions would be factored into the process in step 5.)

4. By SubRegion allocate the amount of land Quantified:

A. INSIDE Clear Edges around the Cores of NURs (Urbanside that includes OpenSpace), and

B. OUTSIDE Clear Edges around the Cores of NURs (Countryside that includes Open Land and Urban enclaves that are within the Countryside (components of Beta Balanced But Disaggregated Communities) including larger Urban agglomerations in USRs.)

For illustrations of the boundaries of allocation see PowerPoint “New Urban Region Conceptual Framework.” in Chapter 49 of TRILO-G.

5. Start the Three Step HANDBOOK process for every Beta Community in each of the SubRegions within the entire Wright Planned territory. For an overview of how the early phases of such a process might work see EMRs 16 Feb 2004 BRZ column (#25) “The Shape of Richmond’s Future.”

Steps 1. through 4. would take no more than 5 days and would be repeated every year for 20 years to reflect changes in economic, social and physical reality, including feedback from the Step 5. processes. After the first two years, the calculations and allocations would be carried out in a transparent on-line process by a constituent assembly elected to represent to entire territory.

Step 5. would be carried out as an ongoing democratic process as outlined in HANDBOOK – TRILO-G – PART TWELVE.

The questions remains:

By the time a majority of citizens come to understand the need for such a process to achieve Fundamental Transformation of human settlement patters, will there be resources left to implement a sustainable trajectory?

* The term Wright Plan is named after and based on the 1928 plan for New York State prepared by Henry Wright. Google turns up information on Henry Wright and there is an illustration of his New York plan in Lewis Mumford’s book The City in History. The Wright Plan comes very close to allocating land in the categories suggested in THE USE AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND – PART FOUR of TRILO-G.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

42 responses to “ACHIEVING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE — A SKETCH”

  1. Larry G Avatar

    this is good. There are two big issues with growth.

    1. – The first is how do you predict growth?

    about the only thing I have seen is you look at the past 10 years and then assume the next 10 will be similar.

    that seems pretty dumb to me but then again.. a lot of things seem dumb to me so that must mean that I'm part of the dumb, eh?

    2. – the second is even harder.

    Let's assume that you correctly predict a certain amount of growth.

    good for you.

    Now tell me where that growth will allocate itself geographically – honest injun – no handwaving or rope-a-dope theories.. just lay it out in plain English.

    The Fredericksburg area is project to DOUBLE in population in the next 30 years.

    where will it allocate itself geographically?

  2. Larry G Avatar

    WOW. this is going to put EMR on steroids!

    Shrinking Detroit Back to Greatness

    After decades of betting that white elephant projects, like the city’s monorail, would reverse decline, Detroit’s remarkable mayor, Dave Bing, a former N.B.A. All-Star and successful steel entrepreneur, has focused on right-sizing his city and its government.

    At the extreme, urban right-sizing could mean bulldozing large swaths of the city. Will the benefits of downsizing Detroit outweigh the costs?

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/shrinking-detroit-back-to-greatness/

    the trend is clear.

    we need to bulldoze all those Great Falls estates where Groveton lives and move him and his bourgeois neighbors to a cramped condo in Tysons.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " Steps 1. through 4. would take no more than 5 days "

    I don't think so.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You have to assume that the city has alredy taken ownership of those properties throuh tax losses, or else tht they will buy them.

    What is Detroit going to use for money to do that?

    If this works, those people that are left will have far more amenities, which they will have to pay for.

    Unlike downzoning, where you just stick the cost on the (still) remaining owner.

    RH

  5. Larry G Avatar

    who says that the "remaining" owners are not going to just walk away?

    who wants to pay taxes on properties that not only don't earn money, they lose money?

    Bonus Question – do you think "speculators and developers" will snap up these properties and petition for rezones?

  6. Larry G Avatar

    " Economic and social headwinds ensured that Detroit would shrink, but public policies did little to halt the city’s decline."

    these are issues that EMR must incorporate into his Functional Settlement Pattern thesis.

    you can plan the wazoo out of a settlement pattern but if it ignore economics, it will forever be a plan and a paper exercise.

    the new truth we have yet to confront is that urbanized areas do not grow forever.

    many will contract.. others will shrivel up and cease to exist as a viable core as many of the smaller one-industry towns have become zombies once the local plant goes belly up.

    What do you do with these places?

    what does EMR's Functional Settlement Pattern theory how to deal with these inevitable ever-changing evolutions?

    Detroit is not only tearing down buildings.

    they are are reconstituting the fundamentals of access and mobility – no?

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    who says that the "remaining" owners are not going to just walk away?

    ==================================

    I'm assuming that some or most of the owners in an area have already walked away, before it is planned for bulldozing.

    Some people are still there.

    Along comes the city with a buldozer to demolish properties they have already taken over for taxes. They would prefer to have th ewhole area clear than have a few homes remaining.

    The people remaining now have a new option that their former neighbors didn't have or didn't stick around for.

    They can tell the city to go shove it. Their taxes are paid, and after the buldozong they will be living in the middle of a large city owned park, essentially.

    But the city does not want to provide far flung services, so it can offer to buy them out.

    The city as a whole now gets parkland (or whatever you call it), which is not interspersed with private homes, and they (presumably)reduce their service costs.

    But the residents of the city as a whole are going to have to pay for buying those remaining homes.

    Once the city acts to reclaim an area, it is unlikely that the remaining owners will walk away.

    Investors are already snapping up Detroit land at bargain basement prices. Many are foreign investors.

    RH

  8. Larry G Avatar

    calling bulldozed cityscapes – parkland is a stretch unless the city is going to invest in turning them into parks – with appropriate (and expensive) security.

    I doubt it.

    these places are going to be more like abandoned industrial sites.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Maybe, for a while, but they will revert pasture and then to forest if left alone. It is way better than abandoned and derelict housing.

    ===================================

    "In other words, there is too much land lying around doing nothing, making it worth almost nothing. If you are in the real estate business, you like scarcity, it drives up prices. Right now he can buy formerly residential land (less toxic than industrial) for $3,000 per acre, and is looking for lower tax rates and contributions of free tax delinquent land. That is the same per acre as a farm in the country. Smack in the middle of a city.

    But just about everyone else thinks it is a great idea as he scoops up thousands of acres. Hantz denies it is an "underhanded land grab".- "Viability and sustainability to me are all that matters." But in the next paragraph he says: "This is like buying a penthouse in New York in 1940," Hantz says. "No one should be able to afford to do this ever again."

    Perhaps I spent too much time with developers and real estate people in my architectural career, but Hartz has said it all in Fortune, from his first comment about sopping up excess land and creating scarcity to his last quote about buying a penthouse in New York. This sure sounds like a classic real estate play to me."

    From Treehugger.com

    RH

  10. Larry G Avatar

    urbanized land that reverts to vacant land is not parkland and never will be unless someone pays to re-mediate it and provide on-site security

    … and ESPECIALLY SO – if is will be deemed to be a permanent change and not a temporary one where the owners are hoping to turn it once again into a profitable property.

    "parkland" requires infrastructure and security.

  11. Larry G Avatar

    Central Park without a large police force, interior roads for police patrols, lighting, etc would be a city jungle full of criminals and homeless who would turn it into hell on earth for the folks living at the fringes on it.

    Those folks would leave – abandoning the towers to become somilia-like ghettos…

    vacant land is vacant land not parkland.

    vacant land in Detroit, without investment, will turn into a festering dump unsafe for most people and a direct threat to those who live nearby.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "vacant land is vacant land not parkland."

    ================================

    Central park is one thing, vacant land is something else.

    Look around and you will see plenty of "parks" that have no infratructure and next to no scurity. They are essentially public forests.

    In Detroit, you are not talking about a few scattered vacant lots, you are talking about a third of the city simply being razed.

    There are already images of trees growing inside abandoned schools.

    I've go images of developed parmland from the thirties that are indistingushable from forest today (OK so its not first growth forest.)

    If they undevelop big chunks of land, they will revert.

    If it is little chunks, her and there, then youare correct:

    "vacant land in Detroit, without investment, will turn into a festering dump unsafe for most people and a direct threat to those who live nearby."

    That is why property rights are so important. If someone owns the property, and cares about it, that won;t happen.

    Either the city will take over the land that it buldozes, or it will be sold to Developers and Speculators.

    If the city tkes it over the cost of owning and caring for it will aaccrue to the city residents, which is as it should be. City resident get more, communal, open space, and this makes their remaining private dwellings worth more.

    Compare that to the situation where land gets dqonzoned or otherwise prevented from development. Area resident get more, communal, open space, and this makes their remaining private dwellings worth more. But now, they don't have to pay for it they can stick the cost to others.

    Compare tht to the current broadband proposal. FCC plans to reclaim bandwidth previously allocated to broadcasters for free. Then FCC plans to auction off the bandwidth (or use of it) to broadband interntet operators.

    No different than pollution, government is renting out bandwidth that it still controls.

    Oh, and what are they going to do with the money from the auctions? Compensate the broadcast operators for lost spectrum. Even spectrum that was never used.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Consumer choices not only reflect price and quality preferences but also social and moral values as witnessed in the remarkable growth of the global market for organic and environmentally friendly products. Building on recent research on behavioral priming and moral regulation, we find that mere exposure to green products and the purchase of them lead to markedly different behavioral consequences. In line with the halo associated with green consumerism, people act more altruistically after mere exposure to green than conventional products. However, people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products as opposed to conventional products. Together, the studies show that consumption is more tightly connected to our social and ethical behaviors in directions and domains other than previously thought.

    Here is a Guardian article by Kate Connolly that discusses this paper. Ms. Connolly quotes psychologist Dieter Frey as saying that when someone obtains some kind of credential, like environmentalist cred that would come with buying green products, "you tend to allow yourself to stray elsewhere."

    So, if Mazar and Xhong are correct, a trade-off with environmental subsidies may be a less civil society, at least at the margin."

    From Environmental Economics

    Emphasis mine.

    The future is not sustainable if you have to steal to get it.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    According to a recent poll Americans now hae the lowest sense of urgency concerning environmental issues in 20 years.

    Most feel that economic issues are more important.

    This is a mistake because the lowest cost solution which yields the best economic conditions considers, environmental costs, economic costs, and government costs EQUALLY.

    It will take decades for environmentalists to overcome the perception that environmental benefits come at an economic cost.

    In fact, environmental benefits only come at an economic costs when they are over done. When environmentalists are seen as carefully balancing the two, they will cease to be seen as the enemy of the economy.

    Environment, Economy, Equality

    RH

  15. Larry G Avatar

    yadda yadda blather blather

    the vast majority of people don't truly give a rat's behind about the environment if it means it costs more.

    look at this house:

    http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/032010/03122010/533314

    $200 a year in heating and cooling costs – and he sells power back to the electric company..

    The house has a positive ROI but takes years to recover – but it does recover and then is far cheaper in the longer run.

    What does this mean?

    Well it means that this guy has proven that a home can operate on far, far less energy and in doing so.. does not not coal-powered electricity.

    but the guy had to pay up-front for the features.

    How many folks are willing to do that even though it is clearly the "environmental" thing to do and has a positive ROI and dramatically reduces the use of energy and green house gases?

    this guy is proving that " Environment, Economy, Equality" is really about putting your money where your mouth is and the one's that don't just like blathering on and on their mantras…

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The house has a positive ROI but takes years to recover – but it does recover and then is far cheaper in the longer run.

    What does this mean?

    ==================================

    It means that if you have something else to do that has a better ROI and earlier payback (not the same thing) you could have spent your money better. Then you would have more free cash to spend on environmental stuff.

    OR ELSE

    The implication is that the ROI on the house has not appropriately been credited with savings for externalities. Theses are then ASSUMED to be high enough to offset the loss being taken on a low ROI and long payback.

    From the perspective of the owner of the home, it is a gift of charity out of his pocket to the general public that benefits from the reduced externalities. some owners are willing to doo that, but as you point out, most don't give a flying fig.

    For them, you will need some kind of subsidy to get their ROI high enough to make worthwhile. But that subsidy comes out of the collective pocket – the same one that is bearing the cost of the externalities.

    There is no economic justification for taking more out of that pocket than you save in externalities. coincidentally, that is also how you get to lowest total cost: don't pay more for preventing damage than the damage costs.

    This isn't blather, it is just common sense.

    When environmentalist start talking common sense they will cease being seen as envrionmental extremists, eco-terrorists, and climate communists.

    Until then they will continue to get less and less attention and less funding. I have been arguing and predicting that this situation would occur ever since I started writing here, and this poll is one piece of evidence that I'm correct.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    i went to your cite and this is what I found:

    Man charged with stealing electricity
    Authorities say man obtained electricity illegally

    No wonder his heating bill was $200 a year.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    this guy is proving that " Environment, Economy, Equality" is really about putting your money where your mouth is

    ================================

    No, he is making a gift to other people. We should treat it like other charitable gifts, with an appropriate tax dedcuton. That way we all pay for what we get, a (minor) reduction in air pollution.
    That way neither he nor ye have to geel like he is doing something noble, but instead is doing what makes economic (and environmental) sense.

    Now look at the post above. Those people who actually buy green products, are also more likely to make bad choices elsewhere, to "reward" themselves for their own sacrifice.

    The way you prevent that is to take the "sacrifice" out of environmental purchases and instead advertise them as economically smart – and justifiable.

    RH

  19. Larry G Avatar

    this is "stealing" electricity?

    " Home is power source

    King George house may be first certified net-zero home in Virginia

    Date published: 3/12/2010

    BY RICHARD AMRHINE

    When is a test score of 21 on a scale of 100 something to be proud of? When it reflects a Home Energy Rating System score, and the lower the score, the better.

    When we last visited King George County to see this J. Hall Home last fall, it was a work in progress.

    With the drywall yet to be installed, it was a good time to get an idea of what area builder Jeff Hall was trying to do: build the region's first certified "net-zero" home, which means the house will generate as much energy as it uses.

    Today the home is completed, and new owners David and Jalna Rasmussen have moved in, although this winter's snowfall stalled the final grading of the lot. But that's not a top priority anyway. What's important is that the house is being lived in, is generating its own power and is responsible for a carbon footprint so tiny that the planet hardly knows it's there.

    This house is estimated to cost less than $200 a year to heat and cool.

    "Just about everyone who wants a house built today is interested in conserving energy," said Hall. "It's not necessarily the granite countertops or whatever, it's the attention to detail, to what you can't see that means saving energy and money."

    POWERED BY THE SUN

    Every aspect of the house is in some way tied to how it makes, uses and saves energy. Located just off Caledon Road, the house was situated at the exact angle–facing south–and the roof pitch given the ideal slope to allow its photovoltaic solar panels to operate as efficiently as possible.

    The German-made Schuco panels, distributed by Mid-South Building Supply, generate 3.6-kilowatts of power, which most of the time is enough to run the house. On sunny days, they will generate surplus power that is returned to the power company through an energy inverter, thereby reducing the Rasmussens' power bills to a minimum.

    For the owners, the benefits (economical comfort) and the fringe benefits (being "green") are wrapped up in a package that will serve them well in the short and long term."

    no he is not making a "charitable" gift.

    he is saving energy and he is proving that you CAN save energy instead of the blather about not being able to save energy.

    I actually agree with your assertion that people who buy "green" products often don't know what real "green" is and are fooling themselves.

    The guy building this house does know what green is and despite your blather about "minor" savings of pollution – he is generating about 1/10th of normal.

    If you multiplied that by millions of people – we'd need but 1/10th of our current generating capacity resulting in much reduced need for coal plants and huge reductions in Green house gases.

  20. Larry G Avatar

    " When environmentalist start talking common sense they will cease being seen as envrionmental extremists, eco-terrorists, and climate communists."

    so you tell me Ray.. is this guy who built this house an " envrionmental extremists, eco-terrorists, and climate communist"?

    people who advocate following his example are: " envrionmental extremists, eco-terrorists, and climate communists"?

    living in your own little world again , are we?

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Nope, I would characterize him as an environmental philanthropist, just as I did in my previous post.

    That's fine for him, but I cannot afford to do it, so there is no point in holding him up as an example to me. I can't support making a general policy out of what he did.

    Like AZUS, you seem to be more interested in assuming I am the enemy and attacking me than you are to listening to reason.

    I'm on your side. I'm not arguing for less environmental protection or less environmental activism. What I'm arguing for is better salesmanship and less partisanship.

    Frankly, any time I meet a partisan of any stripe, I figure he is not working in my interest.

    What I'm looking for is statements like this By janet napolitano, explaining why they a e not pursuing the wireless border fence any longer….

    "Not only do we have an obligation to secure our borders, we have a responsibility to do so in the most cost-effective way possible."

    If a few people slip over the border, it is hghly unlikely that they will cost me more than a system that is 1000% foolproof. There is a finite chance one of them is a drug crazed murderer who attacks my family.

    If a little pollution slips under the controls, it is hghly unlikely that it will cost me more than a pollution control system that is 1000% foolproof. There is a finite chance one molecule will be the one that triggers a gene change that unleashes a rampant cancer.

    If this guy wants to be a philanthropist, that's fine, but lets not equate what he did with common sense, especially if you try to multiply what he did by a few million.

    RH

  22. Larry G Avatar

    " That's fine for him, but I cannot afford to do it,"

    you cannot 'afford' to spend 1/10th as much or energy as you would otherwise?

    this is like the guy who says that he cannot afford a more energy-efficient house because he's making payments on a motor home, eh?

  23. Larry G Avatar

    why don't we just make it code ?

    no more energy wasting homes – all must be built to LEED.

    you can buy a waiver.

    it costs $1 less than the actual cost to build to code – a fee that is adjusted as the cost of the home varies.

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I don't have enough information to evaluate this:

    ""net-zero" home, which means the house will generate as much energy as it uses.

    This house is estimated to cost less than $200 a year to heat and cool."

    If it is Net zero, why is there any cost to heat and cool?

    Is this the annualized cost of the investment in solar panels, special engineering, house siting, and special windows and insulation?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    Is that the net Electrical cost since the power company is charging him more than they will buy back for? If that is the case, it is misleading because it does not include all the other annualized costs above.

    If he is using less electricity, that would be because of siting, insulation and special windows, and conservation. You cannot credit using less to the fact that he is generating his own electricity. You could have a house that is "net zero" but uses MORE energy than an average home. All of those other "savings" cost somehting in addition to his solar array.

    If his solar array is built in Germany, it may already have recieved huge subsidies from the German people.

    Bottom line is that you compare the electricity he uses and compare that to the cost of electricity he might have bought, including its exteranl costs.

    Now, and "external cost" of the energy he uses (whether he buys it or makes it) includes part of the cost of special windows etc., so you need to get his full cost as well as full cost for what the power company supplies.

    Either way, it is the same amount of electricity used. The only difference is in the externality of dirty air. We assume he keeps his house as warm one way as another, and uses the same hot water, so the claim of his "comfort" is not a discriminator.

    To the extent he reduces dirty air, he gets a fraction of that benefit, and the rest goes to everybody else. His true monthly system cost is probably more than just buying electricity and heating the the same house, so the difference is sheer philanthropy to everyone else.

    Usually the ROI calculation for such places assumes that energy will cost more in the future while his installation is a sunk cost at fixed interest.

    Before you decide he is better off, figure that this house is unusual and probably expensive. He may have trouble unloading it when necessary.

    I'm not arguing against the house, i just think it is a lousy article and a lousy argument FOR such a house. Your arguments look ridiculous to me, and all I'm saying is that we can do a lot better by being more thorough and more honest.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    no more energy wasting homes – all must be built to LEED.

    =================================

    What if it costs more to save the energy than the energy costs? saving energy is not always economical and it is not alwys the same as saving money.

    What if that money could be put to a better use? Is a motor home a better use, or is that just your value judgement?

    Quiz: What is the difference between a pigovian tax and a sin tax?

    What about everyone who has an energy wasting home? Why should they get the benefits by imposing costs only on the new guy? Why not make the waivers retroactive to already built homes?

    suppoae thid plan collects a lot of money. How would you propose to spend the money? Would you suggest the government spend money to save energy where the savings cost more than the energy?

    How long does your payback period have to be before you don't care if you ever see the money?

    If you think this is such a good deal, how about you give me $20k and I'll guarantee to give you back $20,001 in 25 years?

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you cannot 'afford' to spend 1/10th as much or energy as you would otherwise?

    =================================

    I do not have the money and I am unable to borrow it. I don;t een have time to implement the plan, which is another kind of cost. It does not matter what the payback or ROI is. I already have other projects that do not cost as much and will pay back sooner.

    I can't afford them either. There is no money.

    Part of the reason I do not have the money is that the government has already decided on how I should spend my money on their other 2000 priorities.

    I cannot afford to be forced to fund the priorities of everyone on the planet by having each of them getting an earmark for their individual favorite pig.

    Somebody has to make priorities so that only the best projects get funded.

    I'll make a suggestion to anyone that can write a letter to the authorites. Remove the requirement that I MUST farm my property. That would not only save a lot of energy, it would free up money I could use on energy saving priorites and projectss that really work best.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    this is like the guy who says that he cannot afford a more energy-efficient house because he's making payments on a motor home, eh?

    =================================

    You and EMR.

    You think the conscience police should set everyone's budget on how they spend their money?

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Look, all I'm saying is that the less money you waste on bad environmental projects the more money you will have for good ones.

    You very seldom hear that argument, especially from environmentalists. Everything is equally goodness and light.

    The result is fairy dust stories like the guy with the solar house.

    Maybe it is the greatest thing since nickle beer, but I don;t believe it based on the excerpts presented.

    Or

    Maybe we would have been a hundred times better off for the same money if we just put at least SOME insulation in the attic of a thousand people living in antiquated shacks.

    I do not know the answer, but I'm willing to raise the question. I don't think we ever find a path to a sustainable future until we are willing to at least acknowledge that the question exists.

    After you acknowledge that the question exists, then you have to find a uniform approach or methodolgy to find an answer.

    That would be a methodology other than declaring the exercise as blather or attacking the author.

    RH

  29. Larry G Avatar

    " people who buy green products may be, on the whole, more likely to steal and cheat when given the chance."

    http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/are-green-consumers-less-trustworthy/

    …..

    " Andy Revkin, my colleague at the Dot Earth blog, suggested that this “moral-license effect,” as the authors put it, may well have something in common with another widely discussed phenomenon known as the “single-action bias” — a term that arises often in discussions of climate change."

    ….

    " In response to uncertain and risky situations, humans have a tendency to focus and simplify their decision making. Individuals responding to a threat are likely to rely on one action, even when it provides only incremental protection or risk reduction and may not be the most effective option. People often take no further action, presumably because the first one succeeded in reducing their feeling of worry or vulnerability. This phenomenon is called the single-action bias."

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, but I don't see your point.

    I dislike single action bias, which is why you often hear me call for more of a "whole systems"
    approach.

    Pradoxically, a systems approach may be my one single action bias.

    I've survived a few life and death situations. I've seen others simply stop functioning, out of fear, I suppose.

    RH

  31. Larry G Avatar

    no specific point.. mostly FYI

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In that case I agree. It matches my observation of people under stress.

    "Individuals responding to a threat are likely to rely on one action, even when it provides only incremental protection or risk reduction and may not be the most effective option. People often take no further action …."

    Sometimes because they are incapable or catatonic in the face of problems.

    ————————–

    On the other issue, of what happens to green consumers, that is why I often say that you deduce waht people want by what they spend on, not what they say.

    If you simply insist that people pay for what they want, you find they want a lot less.

    But if you allow them to villify someone else and make them pay, they will insist on more than they need.

    Hence the difference between a pigovian tax and a sin tax, something EMR hasn't caught on to.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Another case where sustainable future will depend on property rights:

    "Legal issues regarding wind rights appear when evaluating who has the right to capture wind freely. Modern day wind turbines are known to create wind disturbances or “wakes” for hundreds of yards downwind. If an upwind property owner (owner A) wishes to install a wind turbine on his property, the wind reaching his downwind neighbor (owner B) might be affected. If owner B then wishes to install a turbine on her property, she must choose to locate it somewhere that won’t be affected by owner A’s turbine wake. This location might not yield as much wind energy, thus causing owner B to lose out on potential earnings.

    “Without clear legal rules segregating one property owner’s right to capture wind from the competing rights of neighbors, conflicts among neighbors will inevitably arise resulting in litigation and underdevelopment of those areas that are the best-suited for wind energy,” Rule said."

    http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/40419/

    RH

  34. Larry G Avatar

    If a creek runs through your property, how much of it are you allowed to keep and how much to you have to let go to the downstream properties?

    Have they got that figured out?

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If a creek runs through your property, how much of it are you allowed to keep and how much to you have to let go to the downstream properties?

    Have they got that figured out?

    ==================================

    Depends on what state you are in.

    In some states, it is first come first serve: you could theoretically use all of it.

    In other states you buy water rights (separately stated) with the land. You can buy more of them, sell them, or lease them. In those states you get either a fixed number of gallons or a percentage of the flow.

    In other states I believe the water belongs to the people and the state sells water through permits to withdraw.

    The wind situation is more complicated, Although you may have a prevailing wind from the same general direction most of the time, the "creek" doesn't always rund downstream in the same direction.

    When I'm racing sailboats I can "feel" the wind shadow from a bott upwind if it is less than ten times the distance away as the height of its mast, so that is 300 to 500 feet. there are rules about how soon one aircraft can take off behind another one, for similar reasons.

    Unlike a stream bed, the wind is not (quite so apparently) used up. It is just returned to the stream "dirty". In sailing we even call it dirty air.

    Therefore, if the second turbine is far enough away the interference is minmal both because the air smooths out, and because a small shift in direction translates into a large displacement at the second tower.

    But, if you have a field of towers, moving the dirty air away from one means you may interfere with the next one.

    In racing you can use this to your advantage. You can throw your wind shadow at the next boat and he will move to get out of it, throwing his wind sahdow on the third boat, and so on. sometimes you can "steer" the whole fleet this way.

    Looking at a whole field of turbines, this is a measurable effect. In at least one location the Doppler radar had to be reprogrammed because it saw a locla wind farm as if it was a stationary storm.

    Facetiously, you have to consider that a turbine traps wind power, but that force has to be resisted by the turbines foundation, in the earth. How many wind turbines can we put up before we slow the rotation of the earth? we already know that this effect takes place with respect to the tides.

    Realistically, wind farms are planned as a group so purchase of leases will be negotiated as a whole. Now, suppose that you are the hapless owner of a one acre plot that winds up in the middle of a huge wind farm. your plot is not chosen as a turbine site, and yet the air space over your lot helps make the next turbine profitable by actins as a space for the air to smooth out.

    Should you get a cut of the take?

    Consider the case of a stream bed. your neighbor upstream pollutes the water slightly. The water is cleaned up as it flows through your wetlands and it arrives at the next neighbor downstream clean enough to use again. the carrying capacity of the environment is sufficient to clean the water, but it is uneven. (simlar to why we have non-attainment areas with respect to air pollution).

    In such cases, who owes whom, what?

    RH

  36. Larry G Avatar

    who decides?

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Assume you bought your one acre in the praire, figuring it would be one place you could be left alone in peace, and probably for a long time.

    Later, the zoning gets changed to allow wind farms, which is a huge increase in value for the grain farmers in the area. but you get left out because your site doesn't happen to get picked for a turbine.

    We start with the argument that the environment (and the wind) belong to everyone equally. Suddenly, everyone around you gets a new benefit and a new property right by extracting something new from the environment.

    Except for your loss of peace and quiet, it is hard to claim that their use of the environment is damaging you. On the other hand they are making a profit off of it and it is your environment, too.

    In addition, their use is (slightly) dependent on the space you provide to calm the wind shadows.

    =================================

    Your question, of who decides, assumes that there is some disinterested, all knowing, third party that will make a monetary decison.

    Yet this is the very argument you use against my position: you think my position requires such an agency, wheras you assume it is done by majority vote.

    In this example majority vote isn't going to help the hapless individual on his one acre in the prarie: he is goiing to be both a a numerical and economic minority, and yet he deserves that his interests be protected equally with everyone else.

    ————————-

    I don't think the right question is who is going to decide.

    First you need to agree on a procedure: the rules that you follow while making such a decision.

    Start at the extremes to figure out where that procedure might fall.

    1) Everybody owns the environment equally. Anyone who extracts from it should pay a tax for the privilege and that tax is distrbuted to all of the owners of the environment equally. this is one possibility that has been discussed with repect to taxes on CO2 production. The taxes will raise energy costs (and government revenues) so use those revenues to offset current taxes.

    2) Everyone owns their piece of the environment individusally, and they are free to buy, sellor lease, rights to it as they see fit,and the market will bear.

    In case 1) who decides boils down to whoever sets the tax level for use of the environment.

    In case 2) everyone decides for themselves what they are willing to sell for, but someone stillhas to decide what they own, and therefore what they can sell.

    RH

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I notice that you did not objest when I suggested that some states are selling water through water extration permits.

    But you objected to the idea that states sell pollution rights through discharge permits.

    Isn't it the same thing? I don't think that states can shut off all the water any more than they can shut off all pollution. Either one violates the basic right to life.

    it boils down to this:

    How much can we afford to allow?

    Once we agree to allow it, what will those rights sell for?

    How do we divide the proceeds of the sale?

    RH

  39. Larry G Avatar

    " Your question, of who decides, assumes that there is some disinterested, all knowing, third party that will make a monetary decison."

    nope. I'm asking what options we have to decide.

    ultimately someone has to decide – right?

  40. Larry G Avatar

    states don't sell water or pollution rights.

    states REQUIRE than someone APPLY for permission an they are given a permit – and charged for the administrative costs of processing the permit and monitoring and enforcement of the limits specified in the permit.

    If they did what you said – there would be TWO charges.

    One for the permit and one for the water/pollution right.

    and there is not. there is but one – for the permit.

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    states don't sell water or pollution rights…..

    You aare either wrong or piking at nits.

    A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals.

    In issuing permits they are exercising proerty rights the result of which sid porperty is released for use by others.

    If they are only collecting enough for administrative fees, then they are not charging enough for the property. It is liketh hardware store charging you for the cost of the sale, but not the cost of the hardware. Hardware store stillowns the hardware, otherwise they cannot sell it.

    You just cannot admit to what is happening here because many of your other beliefs would then crumble.

    The fact of charging only for administrative fees would not support this argument even if it was true, but the adminsitrative costs for these activities are far less then the total amount water authorites spend.

    Social critics of “property” rights do not want to abolish those rights. Rather, they want to transfer them from private ownership to government ownership. but they cannot admit this is what is happening because then the abhorrence of theft becomes apparent. Therefore you deny the obvious in order to avoid the logical consequences. It's a form of mental illness, in my opinion.

    however youprefer to describe it, what is happening is the transfer and control of the use of certain property.

    Some transfers to public ownership (or control) make an economy more effective. Others make it less effective. The worst outcome by far occurs when property rights really are abolished.

    In order to obtain the best economic AND environmental outcome we need to determine what is beneficial and waht isn't, without conceding to preconcieved notions.

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One for the permit and one for the water/pollution right.

    and there is not. there is but one – for the permit.

    ================================

    If they were selling the right, there would still be only one document: the deed.

    Since you claim they are not selling the right they must be keeping it and renting out the use. The Permit is no more than a Lease, and like a lease it expires at a certain time. Like a lease you do not expect to terminate it without warning or penalty.

    RH

Leave a Reply