Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Subsidies Are Mmm, Mmm Good!

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

A week ago, I was one of a gaggle of bloggers who participated in a conference call with GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s campaign manager, Bill Lacy. While most of the questions related to money and tactics, I, in good Bacon’s fashion, asked a policy question, specifically about former Sen. Thompson’s about face on ethanol subsidies.

Normally, I’d put it down to a politician trolling for votes in Iowa. But given that Thompson voted against subsidies during his Senate tenure, it struck me that there had to be something else afoot to cause such a grand change of direction.

Today, Mr. Lacy got back to me with a response:

The situation has changed drastically from when Fred was in the Senate. Essentially, his position today is dictated by our security and economic interests. The bottom line is that the price of oil has increased over three-fold since 2002, US dependence on foreign suppliers continues to increase, and many of those suppliers are increasingly unstable or less reliable partners. These factors require the United States to continually review the approach it takes to its energy security, which has a direct effect on our national and economic security. That’s why he supports tax credits today for ethanol.

I can see the point. Really, I can.

It’s all about votes in Iowa.

We now return to your regular Virginia wonkery.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

43 responses to “Subsidies Are Mmm, Mmm Good!”

  1. Freedom Works Avatar
    Freedom Works

    We need free markets, not government subsidies.

    The Board of Supervisors in Fairfax County is likewise using subsidies to troll for votes.

    First you create a housing affordability crisis by using arbitrary zoning rules to artificially limit the supply of housing.

    Then you raise taxes to pay to buy subsidized housing for poor people who can’t afford the housing that is left.

    You pay over twice the assessed value to get the deal done just before an election.

    See, they really care.

    Article here:

    http://www.examiner.com/a-993779~Fairfax_to_spend__100M_on_apartment_complex.html

    “Housing officials plan to ink a $107.5 million deal to buy the 672-unit Wedgewood Apartments located off Heritage Drive, which it will hold at lower rent for families with low and moderate incomes. The purchase will be funded largely through the county’s allocation of one penny of its real estate tax to the affordable-housing program.”

    Note to Ed Risse: I did not put Fred Thompson up to changing his position on subsidies so as to “trick” Norman Leahy into jumping to conclusions.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    OK, but you would concede that the justification for a subsidy (or incentive, depending on if you are in favor or opposed) might grow stale or change with economic conditions, wouldn’t you?

    Would it be a diffferent kind of subsidy if, for example, you just went out and bought up a bunch of conservation easements on all of Iowa, so that we would still have the option for it in case ethanol ever does become viable on its own?

    Either way you are paying extra for something that’s not all that useful right now.

    It takes time to spin up a whole industry and get beyond the chicken and egg problem. it’s one thing to holler free market, free market, but even in a free market you sometmes have to invest in a plan that won’t make money tomorrow.

    When the government does that we call it partisan politics.

    RH

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    on the ethanol subsidies.. I am beside myself. Republicans are supposed to be about the free market so I think it is safe to say that Fed Thompson is no Republican and no visionary.

    Ethanol and Hydrogen BOTH are scams supported by those who essentially believe that a product that can be sold for a profit is good for business…. and the Republicans are all about entreprenurial pursuit of wealth – regardless of whether it makes economic of environmental “sense”.

    That’s why I have posited that environmental widgets to reduce pollution are JUST AS LEGITIMATE as producing worthless widgets that people will also buy.

    And in case of Ehanol (and Hydrogen) – WORSE that worthless widgets because we take money out of people pockets (taxes) to prop up an business that by all right should go broke because it cannot sell a product at a profit without stealing from taxpayers.

    For Fred Thompson to sign on to this… puts him in the same league with other politicos who basically believe that you can snooker taxpayers into supporting programs that not only don’t do a national “good” but actual.. in effect.. transer people’s taxes into the pockets of those making and selling ethanol.

    It’s nothing less than scandalous from the party that claims to aschew tax & spend policies.

    At least Ronald Reagan was stupid enough to believe his own trickle-down nonsense; .. the current crop of candidates know what a scan ethanol is…

    and don’t get me started on Hydrogen. When in the world do folks THINK that hydrogen comes from? Well.. it comes from the same place that Ethanol comes fom and it costs more to produce it than what it sells for.

    The once proud Republican tradition of telling it like it is with regard to economics is now little more than an advocacy for the rich and wealthy to have government-supported scams (like ehtanol and free-trade to keep them rich and wealthy.

    Workers and taxpayers are fungible assets for the enjoyment and benefit of the wealthy.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re:

    The Board of Supervisors in Fairfax County is likewise using subsidies to troll for votes.

    First you create a housing affordability crisis by using arbitrary zoning rules to artificially limit the supply of housing.

    Then you raise taxes to pay to buy subsidized housing for poor people who can’t afford the housing that is left.

    I don’t disagree with this but I do have two questions.

    1. – Are the policies in Fairfax unique?

    2. – Can you name a place that has explicitly utlized it’s zoning powers (or not used them on purpose) so as to provide truly affordable housing?

    In other words – do you have a best practices model?

    I’m hoping to hear an answer ….good, bad or indifferent.. don’t run away…

  5. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Mark my words, it won’t be long before Virginia legislators figure out a way to give money away to ethanol producers.

  6. Freedom Works Avatar
    Freedom Works

    Larry,

    Houston is the only major city (that I know of) left in the USA that has no zoning.

    As a result, housing is consistently far more affordable, and the cost of doing business is less as a result of lower rents on commercial space. Competition reduces costs to consumers.

    For those who want the piece of mind knowing a car wash won’t be built next door, there are lots of deed restricted communities with covenants against most of the things that offend middle class sensibilities.

    Obviously, the policies in Fairfax are not unique, as most Americans have had their property rights taken through progressively more restrictive land use regulations.

    You also asked, “Can you name a place that has explicitly utlized it’s zoning powers (or not used them on purpose) so as to provide truly affordable housing?”

    Actually Fairfax County essentially eliminated all zoning restrictions on over 11 square miles of land for Robert Simon to build Reston. Simon was able to take advantage of that flexibility and the result was a lot of affordable housing.

    This creates political problems for Republicans, as Reston precincts tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

    In reality, zoning is also used to segregate voters by political viewpoint. Single family suburban voters who are heavily “autonomobility” dependent (to borrow a phrase from Ed Risse) tend to vote more Republican. Voters living in more dense (read more affordable) housing situations tend to vote more Democratic. So Democrat Connolly generally supports higher density housing, while Republican Congressman Davis tried to block higher density at the Vienna Metro.

    Historically, the areas in Fairfax County that have been represented by Republicans the longest are those with the largest areas of low density zoning.

    This isn’t a free market, and it is no way to run government, whether it involves ethanol or housing.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Thanks FW…

    I would note that many localities now have PD (planned development) zoning that gives great latitude to the developer especially with regard to having a mix of housing… and retail/commercial.

    but it’s not zoning that is the issue when grandma wants to operate a commercial enterprise in a residential code environment.

    this is a health and safety issue and not zoning and not property rights…

    unless..you would agree to give McDonalds the same deal… so that their costs would be no higher than their Grandma competitors..

    And I think you already know the answer. The general public is NOT going to put up with grandma restaurant and/or boarding house operations.

    How would you like a McDonalds that was allowed to use on-street parking in a residential area rather than it’s own parking?

    How about Holiday Inn? Same deal?

    let them build in a residential area with on street parking…

    I’m willing to admit.. that I think zoning has gone too far.. and indeed those folks who now advocate mixed-use development are essentially disavowing.. previous zoning philosophies.. and I agree with them.. but even in the most “enlightened” mixed-use development – the “mixes” are segregated… and you don’t have townhouses next to SFD next to multi-unit homes next to Subway stores…next to dog kennels… do we?

  8. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Thompson has a point with the subsidies. The free market rationale would be great other than the national security issue. Instead of thinking of the subsidies in dollars think of them in reduced nuclear submarines. Half our foreign policy and more than half of our defense policy is dedicated to getting foreign oil to the United States.

    Free markets are great but they are not perfect. They don’t work well in a period of discontinuous change. In other words – when something changes wildly free markets break. Theoretically, there was no need for rationing during WWII. All the governemnt had to do was buy the rationed goods in great quantity. This would have raised the price which would have forced out enough demand to let the government have its stuff. Of course, real soldiers, sailors and marines would have been dying while this experiment in pure free market economics played out. The governemnt made the right decision when it decided to intervene with rationing.

    Is the present energy crisis a problem of sufficient gravity to justify governemnt intervention in the free markets?

    I think so. So does Fred Thomas.

    Somehow we go from energy to zoning. And then we get the usual refrain, “Houston, Houston, Houston”. With apologies in advance to EMR I’ll use common terms:

    1. Houston is a city. It’s a huge city but it is a city.
    2. Houston is in Harris County.
    3. Fairfax County is a county.
    4. Fairfax County is adjacent to the city of Washington, DC.

    Fairfax County has a higher population density than Harris County. In fact, it has nearly as high a population density as the City of Houston.

    Washington, DC has a much higher population density than the city of Houston.

    References:

    City of Houston –

    See opening paragraph for population and area. Works out to 1,337 people per sq. Km.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston

    City of Washington, DC –

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_DC

    Density = 3,481 per sq. Km.

    Harris County, TX

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_County%2C_Texas

    Population density = 868 per sq. Km.

    Fairfax County, VA

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_County%2C_VA

    Population density = 1,018 per sq. Km.

    Density 1,018 per sq. Km.

    While we’re at it, let’s take a peek at Jim Bacon’s home county – Henrico County, VA:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrico_County

    Population density = 425 per sq. Km.

    425?!?

    What are you doing complaining about Fairfax County zoning. Fairfax County has over twice the population density as Henrico County.

    City of Richmond?

    1,239 per sq. Km.

    Pretty close to Fairfax County.

    Hmmmm…..

    I take it that most of you have never actually been to Houston.

    It’s an interesting place.

    You guys are barking up the wrong tree with zoning complaints.

    Look at the distribution of wealth in Fairfax County. Therein lies the secret to the affordable housing problem.

  9. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton:

    You are right about those who cite Houston as an example of anthing but Houston mainly have not been there.

    Houston has a number of limits on land uses that take the place of “zoning.”

    The reson housing is cheap, and taxes are very high and commuting is very difficult have to do with many issues.

    Density of municipal jurisdictions can be misleading, that is why we developed Regional Metrics.

    EMR

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton

    1 answer.

    Ron Paul.

    No War.

  11. Freedom Works Avatar
    Freedom Works

    E M Risse, now you are outright dissembling.

    I lived in Houston for years. It has far more interesting diversity than the big box chain monotony of the Northern Virginia suburbs.

    I know you Risse, and you fear freedom, because it jeopardizes the profits for your old bosses like Hazel who depended on monopoly zoning grants to make big profits at the expense of others.

    P.S. Could you possibly use a spell checker before you launch your angry misleading diatribes?

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “That’s why I have posited that environmental widgets to reduce pollution are JUST AS LEGITIMATE as producing worthless widgets that people will also buy.”

    It is entirely different if you MANDATE environmental widgets, even if they turn out to be useful.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    all about entreprenurial pursuit of wealth – regardless of whether it makes economic of environmental “sense”.

    Wealth is what makes people better off, and it gives them more freedom to spend on environmental widgets. Since environmetalism is all about making people better off, you cannot be an environmentalist and not be in favor of wealth or be in favor of wasting wealth on widgets that don’t work.

    Whether the money would be wasted on something else anyway, is beside the point. It is not our money, and we have no standing to tell people that it should be spent on what we believe in.

    Environmentalism is a luxury for the wealthy to enjoy. If you don’t believe it, take a look at Haiti.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If we get a decent ethanol subsidy, I will bulldoze my forest and plant corn. If there are any environmetalists out there that want to see something different, you better figure out a way to pay for it.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    RH – you should lighten up a little bit.

    Most of the other bloggers on this site can’t understand freedom

    Ron Paul lives!

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    hmmm.. subsidies for enthanol are “voluntary” and therefore “OK” while requiring environmental widgets to reduce/prevent pollution are not…

    So, apparently it’s okay for the government to take tax money from everyone and turn around and give it to people to further enrich their own personal wealth (ethanol subsidies)

    But it’s not okay for the Government to require those who pollute and benefit financially from the ability to pollute, to reduce their pollution.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that the premise/belief/assertion continues that property owners have an inherent right to pollute – and FURTHER – that taxpayers must actually pay those folks to not pollute – or else they will.

    and this leads to the claim that landowners who don’t exercise their right to pollute are actually giving a free subsidy to society… and, in fact, should be compensated for not polluting…

    This philosophy comes from someone who claims to be an environmentalist.

    I’m scratching my head here…

    I try to keep pointing out that no property owner can discharge any pollution off of their land without getting permission from the state. You have to get a permit and the permit is what the state tells you – what you can discharge and what you cannot

    Having to obtain a permit – should be clear evidence that no one has any inherent “right” to pollute much less that taxpayers would pay essentially blackmail/ransoms to stop them from pollution.

    a side corollary ..apparently is that property rights for those who own undeveloped land supercede those who live in houses on their land because apparently the folks who own land with houses on them are the ones that are supposed to be paying the other property owners not to pollute

    (otherwise.. it would seem that we all would pay each other not to pollute)

    I’m scratching my head here….

  17. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, Be careful when you dis Henrico County! Them’s fightin’ words! (Just kidding). One reason the average population density for Henrico is only 425 per square mile is that only half the county is developed.

    For all my criticisms of Henrico planning in the past, I have to give the county credit for preventing the inefficient leap-frog pattern of development seen so often elsewhere. Just look at a Google map, and you’ll see that most development is concentrated and contiguous. Admittedly, a lot of development is pretty low density, and there could be more mixed use, but it’s fairly compact.

    Bottom line: Henrico still has a lot of room for development and growth.

  18. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Ron Paul? Maybe. What I’ve seen looks pretty good. Any chance at all that he could win?

    Larry –

    Good questions as to whether ethanol really works. Ditto for hydrogen. I think we have to find something. Wouldn’t it be worth some government intervention to get ethanol at scale and find out – once and for all – what the potential is?

    Houston definitely has diversity of development. Man oh Manischewitz they have land use diversity. Some see a wonderful, vibrant energetic city. Others see a chaotic mish-mash. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    I do quibble with the “bix box monotony” comment regarding Northern Virginia. Houston has its share of tract homes too. Every city does. And NoVA’s monotony is mostly out on the edges. Old Town, Alexandria is a lot different than Great Falls which is very different from the largely Hispanic areas of Herndon. I guess the real concern is that too much of the new development in NoVA is pretty monotonous.

    Dis’ Henrico? How can anybody dis’ a county with a town called Short Pump
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Pump%2C_Virginia

    But seriously, I’d be interested in hearing more about Henrico’s zoning approach. EMR says most of Fairfax County would be empty is all the people lived in a Reston-like village. But, even with that, the county’s density would still be over 1,000 per Sq Km. I am not sure how Henrico followed this same approach and came up with 425 peeps per sq. Km.

    I would also like to suggest a ratio for “sub-urban” density calculation. I’d look at sub-urban densities as a multiple of the density in the center city. So, Washington, DC : Fairfax County would be: 3,481:1,018 or about 3.4:1. Washington has more than 3 times the density of Fairfax County. Meanwhile, Houston:Harris County would be – 1,337:868 or 1.5:1. I think lower ratios show more effective suburban zoning. Higher ratios show a faster drop off in density at the city-county line. By this logic, Houston – Harris would be more functional than DC – Fairfax. However, Richmond – Henrico = 1,239:425 = 2.9:1 would be closer to Fairfax.

    Also, Fairfax isn’t really adjacent to Washington – Arlington County is. So, maybe use the DC – Arlington ratio or the Arlington – Fairfax Ratio, which are:

    Washington:Arlington – 3,481:2,961 or 1:175

    Arlington:Fairfax – 2,961:1,018 or 1:2.9

    So, Arlington is essentically at the same density as DC but the big drop-off comes at the Arlington / Fairfax border.

    Final side note: Anyone know how to invoke spell checker for these posts?

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, I think ethano subsidies are a mistake. But they are somewhat voluntary: if you choose you can hunt around and find gas that is not diluted with ethanol.

    Incidently, experiments using the mileage computer on my Prius suggest that while ethanol containing gas is a little cheaper, it gives less mileage per gallon. I have found that the lower price usually does not make it a bargain.

    Even so, if an ethanol subsidy for farmers is the best deal I can get, then I WILL sell the forest and plant corn. Right now, the best deal I can get is no deal.

    If someone has a better offer, I’m listening.

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, your comments are a gross misrepresentation of my position and contains statements I never made.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton is on target with his density ratios. European cities have much less gradient than American cities and this may contribute to less traffic congestion and better transit use.

    RH

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: ethanol and subsidies.

    Gee.. if we would take all the dollars we spend on trying to protect “our” middle eastern oil and put it into ethanol subsidies so we are not only not beholden to those guys who want to sell us gasoline and then blow us up

    .. but we also won’t have our leaders claiming that we must attack any country that “threatens” to dominate the Middle-East

    .. then I would consider it especially if some of that money went for low interest loans for folks who wanted to install SOLAR and use plug-in electric cars.

    but RH’s claim that ethanol subsidies are “voluntary” is bogus because my taxes are being given to private interests to prop up something that can’t survive economically on it’s own.

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH – all of my statement are my interpretations of what I think I hear you advocating… and attempts to get clarity on what your positions really mean.

    My intent was to “tweak” not to mis-represent.. and if I did – then I do apologize.

    Your view seems to be – many round-about-ways (what I call rope-a-dope) of essentially advocating:

    * Property owners have always had the inherent right to pollute (and that right has been wrongly taken away from them) by government “takings” some of their bundle of sticks.

    AND

    * Property owners have the right to develop their properties in any way they please whether it affects other property owners or not.

    and my view is:

    * property owners do not have the inherent right to pollute and never did.

    The reality is – that you must get permission to pollute. If you think breathing is pollution but the government does not – then it is an implicitly permitted activity.

    If you don’t agree it still won’t make the government’s role invalid.
    AND

    * property owners do not have the inherent right to develop their properties if in doing so it adversely affects other property owners – who then can argue that their rights are being taken.

    And you do not make the determination – the government does because the govenment represents the property owners interests also.

    and again.. anything that has the potential of affecting your neighbors – usually requires a permit and/or there is written laws and regs that prohibit you from such activities until you do receive a permit.

    You cannot even connect your property to a public road without a permit.. you have no inherent right to do that.

    And without access to public roads -your property would essentially be worthless.

    That permit is not carte-blanche either. It gives you certain rights but is by no way all encompassing…

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Those guys who sell us oil have an awful lot of their oil money invested in the U.S. Why would they want to blow us up?

    In fact, they have a delicate act to balance.

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is impossible to do anything without some pollution. The act of cleaning or preventing pollution also pollutes. At some level of cleaning or prevention the act of cleaning or preventing pollutes more than what you are cleaning up after.

    Those are physical, incontrovertible facts. If you do not understand and agree, then we have nothing further to discuss, ever. You can stop reading here.

    The unfounded supposition that landowners have no right to pollute means they have no right to do anything, since anything pollutes. If you believe the government is implicitly looking the other way concerning pollution like breathing or cow gas, but there is no right to these activities, then you must believe that the government could increase the regulations at any time and prevent your neighbors from breathing so as to not have their pollution leave their property and damage yours.

    And you have said as much, that the government has the right to change the rules, including implicit ones, without compensation. I claim that amounts to breaking our word to each other or breaking a contract and it is unethical even if it has the legal force of law.

    The governments role may be legally valid and enforceable still be unethical, that is a fact of history. I choose not to support such activity. You can do what you want.

    But such uncompensated changes means that the government can require me to clean up to an infinite amount to reduce any and all pollution. They can require me to stop breathing even. (But then they cannot require me to dispose of my own body. EVERY act of cleanup causes waste.)

    If and when we get to the point where the act of cleaning up or prevention pollutes more that the action we are cleaning up after, then those that legislate and enforce such a level of cleanup are the ones causing excess pollution, and under your scenario they have no right to do that.

    Therefore your position is internally inconsistent, and physically impossible.

    I once held such positions, but when I concluded they were inconsisent and impossible, I could not live with myself, or my job. There had to be a better way.

    My ONLY two points are that we

    1. Have a duty to be ethical in government, lest we wind up like Mexico with “La Mordida”

    and

    -The logical end result of your scenario is that we eventually get to a point where we are each suing the other over every claimed pollutant.

    -The end result of an infinite number of lawsuits is that we will eventually agree as to what is the best workable solution for all concerned.

    -This is a highly wasteful procedure that results in more pollution than necessary. Those that propose force of law as the right approach are probably causing unnecessary and extra pollution against their neighbors, which you claim they have no right to do.

    2) ===Therefore, the best, and cleanest, and most logical, cheapest, most environmental solution is to recognize that everything is a trade off, and make the best trades possible, the ones profitable to both sides, and do it from the outset.

    Any other claim as to my position is bogus. All I’m trying to do is find out where the REAL trade offs are. Period. End of story. I brook no unwarranted or unsupported claims or suppositions from EITHER side. I am equally suspicious of both sides in that I see both sides are seeking unfair advantage: which I know will cost me money and poison the environment unneccesarily.

    ——————————–

    If you start that process of looking for trade offs by saying “I have all the rights” then you are not looking for a fair trade: you are looking to bargain from advantage such that you can collect La Mordida.

    If in addition, you claim to have all the subjective values on your side of the balance, and that you are working for the benfit of all, then your position is not only unethical in changing the rules without compensation, it is cynical and dishonest as well. I put such things in the unwarranted and unsupported category, however well meaning they sound.

    As for subjective values, I’m willing to negotiate any conversion factor to real values, providing that we use them universally. I am reasonably certain that because of the physical facts in the first paragraph, those subjective factors wind up weighing equally on both sides.

    Like I said if you don’t buy the first paragraph then nothing else matters and I can’t help you.

    If you do buy the first paragraph then the big corollary follows: the life, health, longevity, and happiness of people depends on their economic well being. If you make too big a trade toward the environmental side you WILL reduce one or another of the above values and this will reduce the value of what you are fighting for.

    Our slogan should be

    “It is the Environment AND the Economy, stupid.”

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “property owners do not have the inherent right to develop their properties if in doing so it adversely affects other property owners – who then can argue that their rights are being taken.”

    Therefore, if I agree to pay you more than enough to compensate you for adverse consequences, then I would have the right to develop my property, No?

    If I have that right, then I have the right to see your justification of damage, No?

    And the best thing for both of us is to strike a deal without going to court, No?

    RH

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Therefore, if I agree to pay you more than enough to compensate you for adverse consequences, then I would have the right to develop my property, No?”

    no… because you do not get to decide what is adverse nor what it is worth.

    It is a proposition/request to others and they are free to not agree to give up anything that belongs to them unless they want to.

    (except for imminent domain- which is the state taking for a public person).

    re: pollution.

    I never said that we should not have any pollution.

    Pay attention.

    I said that you do not have an inherent right to pollute and that you must get permission (a permit) and the permit is based on – not your idea of what is a good trade but the state’s idea.

    Again.. it is in the form of a proposition/request from you to the state to … pollute.

    You might think you are justified and that the request is reasonable but the decision is not simply not yours no matter how justified you might think you are.

    and that is my point.

    because pollution is by permit – arguments about ROI are moot.

    They are, in your own mind, proof that you should get that permit but other factors are involved including the fact that experience brings new info and that if’s darn hard to figure ROI with stuff like kids IQs being reduced by mercury… how do you affix a cost to something like that?

    so that’s my entire point.

    we do pollute – but we do it by permit on a case by case basis rather than property owners having the inherent right to do it.

    do you agree with this?

    perhaps if you do..we’ve been nattering about nothing, and, in fact, we actually agree. 🙂

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We are back to the same problem. You get to claim a cost, and I don’t get to examine the books. You claim the subjective costs are cost is not meaurable, but it is still a cost. I say fine, put a price on it, anyprice, as long as I get to use the same prices to make my claims.

    But you say any claim I make is rejected as self serving.

    Now you say we should have pollution, but only by permit, and there is no relation between the permissable level and the damage caused.

    I give up. You choose not to see the facts. It is your choice.

    ———————————

    ROI does matter because no activity can occur without some pollution. No pollution, no activity, no jobs, no economy. Eventually people starve ad freeze to death, but at least they are pollution free.

    There is a direct relationship between the level of pollution we allow and economic activity, and there is only one best answer where we get the most activity and the least damage from pollution.

    Any more activity, we damage ourselves.

    Any more control, we damage ourselves. Or as you point out we export the pollution, import the goods and place the blame on others, WHEN WE COULD HAVE MADE A BETTER CHOICE.

    You said

    “property owners do not have the inherent right to develop their properties if in doing so it adversely affects other property owners – who then can argue that their rights are being taken.”

    Based on your argument about pollution, I’ll take the liberty of expanding that to say you have the right to do nothing on your property that will cause adverse affects to other property owners.

    In my book, that would have to include picking up the phone to your representative and claiming pre-emptive damages that adversly affect me.

    In my book, your claim must work both ways and we have equal and offsetting obligations. If i cause damage to you, I owe compensation, If you casue damage to me, you owe me compensation. If you get a benefit at my expense, you owe me compensation, If I get a benefit at your expense, I owe you compensation.

    Either way the best thing is for us to work together and not apart.

    I can’t say we agree, because you studiously ignored my first paragraph above.

    Or let me put it another way. There are people out there who have had property restricted in a wah that costs them millions, and the advertised savings to the other landowners and community is a fraction of that.

    As long as those numbers continue to be out of whack, there are some people who will never agree with you. I don’t think that is in your best interest to put people in a position where they have nothing more to lose, but I think that is where we are headed.

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: …”Now you say we should have pollution, but only by permit, and there is no relation between the permissable level and the damage caused.”

    no,,, I’m not saying it now.. I’ve said it from the beginning and it’s not because I say this that makes it so, it’s because the LAW says this that makes it so and that is the entire point.

    You have a different view that you should be able to demonstrate your own version of ROI and that in doing so -you should be entitled to pollute.

    Your ideas are not only not consistent with the current law but further your version of ROI.. is not necessarily an objective ROI in the eyes of those who might be damaged.

    For instance, you might think it perfectly okay if mercury reduces kids IQs by a couple of points but I can assure you that no parent with agree with your idea of ROI in such cases.

    So the law basically says – you cannot do damage unless you convince those that are damaged that it is “worth” it.

    This is how public policy for pollution permits function.

    You make your best case – and the regulators who represent the public and other property owners decide for those who will be impacted by listening to you and listening to them.. and paying attention to the current science and experience.

    They don’t owe you a thing because they have not taken anything from you. All they did was not agree to suffer damage at your hands.

    Permits are not forever because knowledge about the severity of impacts can result in a realization that the impacts were much higher than originally thought.

    So Permits are issued with expiration dates – some you claim is an illegal taking but again, you are wrong… the law is the law.

    If we followed your logic… PCBs, Mercury, Lead, DDT, etc.. drugs that are deadly, dangerous products, etc could never be outlawed once introduced without compensation for banning them.

    The law says otherwise.

    I think you are certainly free to argue your points – but as Mark Twain once said – you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

    and the Facts are that you do not have an inherent right to pollute and that if you are stopped from polluting that you are owed compensation.

    and it is the same deal with development rights… with some slight twists but the basics are the same.

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The title of this thread is subsidies and I wanted to make sure to tie the subject to the dialogue.

    We we grant a permit to pollute – what we are doing in reality is subsidizing.

    We damage the environment and that can and does have real costs borne by those impacted by that pollution.

    One of the more obvious examples is the mercury pollution that comes from power plants and goes into rivers and absorbed by fish which then are absorbed by people who eat those fish.

    So… a food source, especially for those who need more inexpensive food either eat the fish and suffer damages or they have to pay more for food when there was a perfectly good source of good protein.. no longer available.

    The argument is not over the damage – but how severe it is and it will take long term studies to get it better calibrated.

    So.. the reality is – that RH advocates ROI as a basis for granting permits.

    How do you ascertain ROI in situations where you simply cannot provide irrefutable evidence as justification for the permit?

    RH, if I understand correctly, also says that once the permit is granted that if the permit is subsequently revoked that it is a “taking” because – obstensibly once an approval is given – it becomes a “right” than cannot be taken away without compensation.

    Back to the subsidies. There is no question that there are costs borne by pollution and some would say disproportionally by those who are most vulnerable.

    Are subsidies justifiable for a public “good”?

    oh.. were it that easy…when it comes to pollution.

    With ethanol we shilly shally about while the econoimc justification is … questionable that the “national security” justify it.

    My comments was that… okay.. now let’s see if such a “national security” subsidy is “worth” solar or wind .. or even $4.00 a gallon gasoline that is plowed into electric transit and rail … powered by solar/wind/tides.

    So the question is.. if one actually “buys” the National Security argument (which I do not, but that’s another story), THEN what is the most effective approach to developing alternative energy so that we will wean ourselves out of a de-facto Middle East Oil hostage situation?

    What process led us to Ethanol?

    Why should we subsidize ethanol and not rail?

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “When we grant a permit to pollute – what we are doing in reality is subsidizing.”

    Exactly. And when we set the requirements too strictly, we are also subsidizing. Subsidies are generally bad because they destort the market and damage the economy. Environmentalists have to live in the economy, too, and if we damage it more than necessary we have less time and money to devote to the cause.

    “So.. the reality is – that RH advocates ROI as a basis for granting permits.”

    It is not my advocacy. I am merely repeating well understood and accepted economic principles. If you read and understand the links I posted you would see that. Total costs = pollution costs plus pollution abatement costs. The idea ia to minimize costs. (Benefits are included in this equation because they count as negative costs.)

    You can believe anything you want, and pass any laws you want: that is not my advocacy. I’m just telling you that if you violate the equation above, you are not working in your own best interests.

    Or mine. So don’t expect me to support you if you advocate for something I have reason to believe violates the equation, or if you make half arguments as if the equation didn’t exist.

    “How do you ascertain ROI in situations where you simply cannot provide irrefutable evidence as justification for the permit?”

    If you can’t provide irrefutable evidence for the permit, you can’t provide irrefutable evidence against it. The first thing you have to assume is that the possible damge is equal on both sides.

    “One of the more obvious examples is the mercury pollution that comes from power plants and goes into rivers and absorbed by fish which then are absorbed by people who eat those fish.

    So… a food source, especially for those who need more inexpensive food either eat the fish and suffer damages or they have to pay more for food when there was a perfectly good source of good protein.. no longer available.”

    Here is an example of assymetric argumentation that violates the principle. You say the source of Mercury is the power plants, when it isn’t the only source. And you point out the damages/benefits to those that eat fish without considering the damages/benefits to those that use power.

    The requirement is Total Costs = Total cost of Pollution + Total Costs of pollution abatement. You can’t pick and choose.

    There are known ways to deal with the ROI problem. They include sensitivity analysis, most probable values, and error bracketing. There are also known ways to assess things that we think are subjective.

    We can pretty much tell how much pollution a process emits and how much it costs to reduce it. But to argue that the equation on the other side has values that may vary by +/- 20% doesn’t, and might not happen for decades, does not exactly strengthen your argument.

    “How do you ascertain ROI in situations where you simply cannot provide irrefutable evidence as justification for the permit?”

    First you have to agree that it is a valid decision making tool, and then you have to agree on how to calculate ROI fairly, recognizing that there may be some rnge of error and some probability of error.

    If you don’t agree it is a fair method, and you think the measurements are impossible, then you can propose a better method.

    “The argument is not over the damage – but how severe it is and it will take long term studies to get it better calibrated.”

    Precisely. And if you agree the equation holds then how severe it is is the crux of the matter. Look at “Am I smarter than a five year old”. A key component of the game is to ask the question “How big a loss are you willing to accept if your guess is wrong?”

    In the game, it is your money and your guess. It seems to me that a big problem with the environmental movement is that they erroneously think that the costs are incurred only to those they control. They are willing to take a bad guess because they don’t incur the costs.

    In addition, they game the system with respect to location and time to gain local or temporal advantages. This is just foolish, but it gives them good PR to claim a “win”.

    Assume we have now reached an agreement as to how to eveluate all those imponderables, and I agree to modify my plant to minimize the costs for both of us, and you agree to pay a higher price for my product to pay for the benefits you gain.

    It’s a contract.

    Later we discover that the terms wer set wrong, and you are not getting enough benefit. I need to apply new technology, and you need to pay a higher price for more benefits.

    But, the next increment of cleanup is always more expensive than the last one. And the technology might be far different. Now I have to scrap all my old stuff and buy new. But the old stuff was purchased based on an assumed ROI or service life.

    You can’t expect me to absorb that loss AND provide new technology, just because you previously made a mistake on your side of the equation. Therefore you have to calculate the cost of the new technology AND the cost of the change.

    OR

    Maybe the new information shows that the cost of meeting the new requirement is so high that you are no longer willing to buy my product. In that case I go out of business, and you get the benefit at no cost, apparently. In fact, it is a violation of the equation because you simply ignored my cost.

    Besides, we previously had a contract. Ordinarly if you terminate a contract you must pay termination costs. You might also incur additional costs associated with doing without my product, and some other manufacturer may gain in the process, but we still had a deal, which you are liable for.

    Just like the game, if you are not willing to stand behind your guess, well, you have no standing. If you don’t know the value of your guess, aren’t willing to put probabilites on it, won’t assess the margin of error, and won’t have an answer for decades, then you cannot expect me to absorb the cost of your discount rate and absorb your risk.

    There is, in fact argument over damage AND how severe it is. The mayor of a Japanese town that engages in fishery is highly sceptical over claims of damage (because it will affect the towns fishing industry). But the town also ingests a high percentage of high food chain protein, and has a much higher concentration of Mercury than the allowable levels.

    “Look at me” he says, I’m made of whale meat and shark and tuna, and I’m OK”. I’m not convinced, and I’m sure you are not either, but there is at least one data point that says maybe the restrictions are too harsh, whether we like it or not.

    “Are subsidies justifiable for a public “good”?

    oh.. were it that easy…when it comes to pollution.”

    You were OK until you came to the last five words. And the reason is your preamble: “There is no question that there are costs borne by pollution and some would say disproportionally by those who are most vulnerable.”

    Actually, there is a question. And the reason we don’t have an answer is that we prefer to make the assumption rather than go find the facts. We don’t WANT to come to an agreement on how to set ROI, because it will probably damage our (assumed) position. We might lose that locational or temporal “advantage”.

    But, the equation tells us it never was an advantage. If we measure total costs, it will include the total costs of those most disadvantaged.

    There is nothing to be gained by protecting those most disadvantaged by creating rules which result in some other group being most disadvantaged.

    When you ask the question are subsidies justifiable for the public good, it indicates you dont understand or don’t agree with the equation.

    So you come right back to the user pays or black box theories. If you really want to absorb the costs of tracking every transactionon both sides of the equation, so be it. But because the costs and benefits are so diffuse, (in some not all cases) you might make the argument that all the subsidies cancel out.

    As long as they cancel out reasobly equally, that’s OK. But that means that those that manage the black box have to do it using ROI, otherwise the subsidies will be unequal, in which case the conomy and the environment will suffer.

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Incidentally, I never claimed that including the environmental costs of manufacting and installing solar would necessarily mean it was a bad thing. I just claim that unless you do a full sytems analysis you can be almost certain that the New York Times article analysis was wrong.

    I suspect you would find the payback period would be much longer. Right now. I could be wrong, but I’m not willing to bet $40k on it, until someone shows me a better analysis.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You don’t have a choice in “Not buying” the national security argument. The equation says you must consider total costs.

  34. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”If you can’t provide irrefutable evidence for the permit, you can’t provide irrefutable evidence against it. The first thing you have to assume is that the possible damge is equal on both sides.”

    RH – there is no two sides.

    The folks whose property would be harmed by your pollution do not have to prove anything.

    All they have to do is refuse your proposal.

    You simply do not have a right to pollute in the first place.

    The fact that you feel justified because of your own ROI analysis doesn’t mean that the folks who would suffer in the “exchange” will agree with your proposal.

    and if they do not agree – to accept your proposal .. it is just like any rejected proposal.

    No one would owe you anything for turning down your proposal.

    When you apply for a permit, you are, in essence, making a proposal that in return for being able to pollute you will produce something of equal or better value for society.

    But no one has to accept your ROI numbers even if they are correct.

    that is why they call it a permit application.

    Now some folks, in the past, have sued when they were turned down for a permit but in virtually all cases – they lose – because it is the State’s prerogative to accept or deny based on IT’s criteria and analysis – not yours.

    They could decide that your proposal to add more mercury is unacceptable because there is already too much from other sources.

    They could decide to turn down your permit request because even though your proposal might be ok on another river (with less pollution) that it is NOT ok for a river that is already over-polluted.

    There are dozens/hundreds of ROI factors beyond your own idea of ROI that the state can and does use to approve or deny.

    And all of this goes back to the basic concept – that you do not have a right to pollute in the first place – and must get permission.

    You start out presuming that you have the right to pollute and then you build your arguments on top on that false premise…

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You simply do not have a right to pollute in the first place.”

    If you cannot pollute at all then NOTHING can be done and we all starve and freeze.

    Zero pollution has infinite costs.

    If you back off from there, you eventually get to the point the equation posits.

    We’ve already been around on this and you concede that we permit certain pollution because it is worth the cost.

    You can make the claim that there is no right to pollute, but physical reality suggests that no pollution is impossible.

    So, go ahead and make that claim, but when enough people are freezing and starving, expect to find some opposition.

    In the meantime, know that what you are proposing is necessarily, and positively not in either your best interets or mine, UNLESS you get extremely lucky and magically guess what the perfect amount of allowable pollution is.

    When you figure out how to do that, I’m going to want to check your figures.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You start out presuming that you have the right to pollute and then you build your arguments on top on that false premise…”

    Wrong.

    I start out with no premise, but with the certain knowledge that if any activity occurs zero pollution is impossible.

    The logical conclusion from that is, that if I live, I must have some pollution. If you claim I have no right to pollute, then you claim the right to take my life, and that right, I deny.

    No presumptions involved.

    You have no right to demand the impossible, and you certainly don’t have the ability to get it, no matter what you claim.

    —————————-

    You, on the other hand, start with the bald headed unsupported assertion that I have no right to pollute: a position you are unwilling to negotiate and one you attained by force of law.

    Knowing that this is impossible, I have to act on the supposition that this is an attempt on my life, and I assume that you are the agressor. Even if you agree to spare me and grant me the dispensation of some pollution, I’m going to feel that this amounts to a partial taking of my life.

    The reason you claim this right and the way you got the force of law behind it is by promising a public benefit.

    But I’m consulting with my peers and I find it is costing us each 10% and getting us each only 2%. While your original claim may have had some merit, you now wish to proclaim it as a universal fait accompli. Power has gone to your head, and you proclaim yourself permanent dictator, facts be damned.

    But, when you became dictator, you sold your election with a promise of “more public good”. You have an obligation to keep that promise, and not by simply saying it is better because I say so.

    In granting me some dispensation to grovel in my miserable life in such a way that that you think my pollution harms you not, you have conceded to my original statement that all activity cause pollution, and admitted that you are willing to live with some in order to have enough serfs to keep you in power.

    If any activity causes pollution, then so does dictatorship. And as you say, you have no right to pollute, so you have no right to be dictator.

    RH

  37. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH – aaaaiiiieeeehhhh jesushkeerist

    No one has an inherent “right” to pollute – period – ipso facto.

    This does NOT mean that no pollution is allowed at all.

    Quite the contrary Pollution IS allowed routinely – BY PERMIT.

    Every single power plant, every single sewage treatment plant, every single discharge from any business has a permit that specifies explicitly what can be discharged in what quantity and quality over what period of time.

    but you are not entitled to that permit – as a “right”.

    The state must approve the permit – not based your idea of ROI but the states idea of ROI which may be totally different from what you think is correct.

    The state represents the public ROI if you will – not yours.

    Your only “right” is the “right” to file a permit request.

    The state determines what is in the best interests of you and I and the public and to be perfectly honest with you I’d much prefer that they make that determination and not you – all due respect.

    do we now agree – at last on what the law actually is.. even if we don’t agree on what we think the law should be?

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The state represents the public ROI if you will – not yours.”

    I’m part of the public, and I have a right to expect and demand, and agitate to see, that the ROI the state bases its regulations on are truly in the interest of the public.

    The law is what it is, based on a previous contention that it was for the public good. But now that the law is in place, that promise is being replaced with the assertion of a new right. That asserted right implies an impossible condition.

    Total costs equals pollution costs plus pollution abatement costs.

    If you assert a condition or deny a permit that raises total costs, then you have broken the promises made when the laws were enacted, and you are without honor.

    Besides that, you are acting in a way that you cannot demonstrate makes the slightest sense, and may in fact be damaging to the public, including me.

    And if you do that you are violating your own condition that you have no right to damage me through your pollution.

    If the public makes a claim for an ROI tht is good for the public and damages me, then it is exactly equivalent to violating your condition.

    The only way that can NOT happen is if the public takes part of the benefit and compensates me, and still has a positive ROI.

    It is not philosophy, it is mathematics and physics.

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    My position does not require that I have any right to pollute. My only claim is that, since I have no choice in the matter of pollution, your claim that I have no right to pollute is a moot point.

    Even if your claim is backed by force of law.

    Illegal aliens are illegal, but we still have 12 milllion of them.
    At some point can either admit that the force of law has no force behind it, we can conclude that we can’t afford to enforce the law, or we can change the law to fit the facts.

    If we conclude that we can’t afford to enfoce the law, then it is an admission that the law would require additional external costs, and by your requirement we have no right to do that.

    We can also choose to enforce the law selectively, but then it is not a law, but tyranny. It is also probably more expensive and so breaks your condition that we have no right to impose costs on others.

    —————————

    On the other hand, my position is backed by the equation. The equation requires no law to support it, because it is what it is. The equation shows that if you require too much cleanliness, then you are increasing costs on others (and by extension causing more pollution). By your own claim, you have no right to do so.

    So, the only thing left to argue about is what constitutes too much cleanliness. When it comes to this topic, your claim is that my measuremnts are self serving and have no value, and you don’t know how to fairly evaluate your claims, so it must be all right to err on the side of caution.

    But the equation says that if you do that you increase costs on others, and your claim is that no one has the right to do that.

    The claim that my numbers are bogus and yours are unknowable boils down to just another way of saying that you have all the rights and I have none. The strong implication is that this will raise total costs, and hence my costs, which you admit you have no right to do.

    The alternate claim is the “what if” claim. This one boils down to saying that either the costs of insufficient pollution control are infinite or the costs of zero pollution is infinite. This is hardly a way to lower the costs on the left hand side of the equation.

    —————————-

    I’m not out trying to raise any money for my position, but environmental groups are for theirs. If they come to me with your story, I’m going to have to tell them I don’t find it convincing.

    It would be a lot more convincing if they had an agreed upon method for assessing the value of cleanliness. If they want me to help figure that out, then my fee is $250 an hour.

    ———————————

    In the string above, there is some discussion as to whether illegal aliens are a net benefit or a social cost, but there is no doubt they are illegal. So, like pollution, we have a law that we know is honored in the breach. The only thing we can conclude is that this is a dishonorable position to be in.

    So, what we are trying to do is finagle a way in which the law can regain both its honor and a place in reality, while not making a huge mistake one way or another.

    Illegal aliens can petition for permission to live here and those who wish to accomplish something productive can pettion for the right to pollute (and thus live here).

    I suppose that it could happen that selective enforcement of the law, according to some predefined coda could result in the optimum solution for all involved but it is highly unlikely.

    It is as unlikely as the idea that we can afford to have either zero pollution contols or zero pollution.

    RH

  40. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “My position does not require that I have any right to pollute. My only claim is that, since I have no choice in the matter of pollution, your claim that I have no right to pollute is a moot point.”

    there is no “right to pollute because I have no choice” EITHER.

    try that out as an excuse when you get called into court. It’ll be like telling the police office that you had no choice but to run the red light. 🙂

    the phrase – “no right to pollute” IS.. in fact ALL INCLUSIVE for any substances that the state has identified as requiring a permit.

    Your contention that “no right to pollute” means than only zero pollution is allowed is likewise not aligned with realities.

    There are millions of pollution permits and trillions of pounds of pollution released – all with the concurrence and approval of the law.

    You ARE allowed to pollute – but the state determines what level of pollution – not you.

    Why is this single point worth so many words?

    BECAUSE in discussions of growth, development, infrastructure, etc

    “development rights” operate similiar to pollution laws.

    Once your activities extend beyond the boundaries of your property and affect other property owners then decisions are not yours anymore.

    In any circumstance.. where your activities affect others – those affected by your activities – through their elected government – have a strong say in what you can do and not do.

    And if you think about this – if property owners had a right to do what you advocate – regardless of other property owners – we’d have anarchy and no rule of law.

    No Court, no Constitutional concept is going to allocate more rights to some property owners and less to others.

    Instead equal rights are allocated – not unlimited rights.

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Instead equal rights are allocated – not unlimited rights.”

    And that is exactly what the equation provides for: a balance between costs that gurantee equal rights.

    Only when the lowest total cost is achived are the rights (costs) equal between the cost of pollution and the cost of pollution abatement.

    Any law that does not achive that goal abrogates someone’s rights. And that is what they are not allowed according to your assertion.

    You have to agree that “no right to pollute” implies that zero pollution standards could be imposed, and in fact have been imposed in some cases, as you have argued. What you are arguing now is that you don’t have any right, except if we either look the other way or if we decide it is cost effective. It is another situastion where your argument is internally inconsistent.

    Once you start with “no right to pollute”, you have to consider wher that ultimately leads. It is your contention, not mine. My contention is that you have no right to abrogate the equation, which is a mathematical fact which we cannot ignore. My contention requires only fairness and equilbrium without any absolutes in play or needed.

    And in fact, obeying the equation is the only way you can ensure that there is no more right to pollute than absolutely necessary. It is the only way you can ensure that in our zeal to reduce pollution we don’t actually make more.

    When the Chesapeake Bay Foundation starts talking about nitrogen from septic fields hundreds of miles away affecting the Bay, that might be getting pretty close to allowing zero pollution. When King County requires that 45% of your property remain in a natural state, how long before it is 50%, then 55% etc.?

    Therefore, we are talking about a matter of degree, and the equation tells us unequivacably what the degree is that guarantees no ones rights are abused.

    The equation tells us that and the law does not. The equation and the law might be in harmony or not, but unless and until the law is written specifically to achieve that, they probably won’t be.

    Just this week the Governor of Georgia asked for a waiver from requirements of the endangered species act, and the underlying reason was that the thought the costs were too high for his citizens.

    It is just one concrete example of citizen pressure resulting in adjustments according to the equation. If EITHER side of the equation gets out of control, you can expect citizen demands for changes to the law.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you make an all encompassing statement like “there is no right to pollute, then that statement necessarily includes the condition in which too much pollution abatement causes more pollution.

    That condition might have been rare at one time, but the more pollution abatement we require the more likely it is. And, the possibility of that condition is guaranteed by the laws of chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics. Money and economics are society’s shorthand for dealing with those natural laws.

    I’m sorry you don’t get it. I’m sorrier that you don’t want to get it, but I observe it is a common failing among environmental advocates.

    It is easy to see why. The statement appears to give one side an advantage. But, once you have an advantage, you violate the underlying precept you started with: do no damage to others.

    Roman plumbing was no doubt instituted to prevent pollution problems, and look where that got them.

    Wave and rant about laws and rights all you want. I’m trying to agree with you, except for that one condition, and that condition is described exactly inthe equation: total costs equals costs + cost of avoiding costs.

    If total costs are not minimized then somebody, somewhere, sometime is getting a subsidy, which means their costs are being incurred by others.

    If you think that environmentalism amounts to a subsidy to our children and grandchildren, then say so, and say how big the subsidy is or should be. In that case the cost goes into the equation and might tip the balance.

    But it doesn’t change the equation, and neither does any law or any other declaration.

    RH

  43. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Rh – total costs – How do you determine this?

    Do you suggest that it’s one number and if others disagree then they have to pay for a study to disprove it?

    who decides if pollution is ROI?

    Actual ROI is determined only AFTER the pollution is released and the dollar cost of the impacts totaled up.

    Some pollution will turn out to be acceptable as a cost to those impacted and some will not.

    You clearly see pollution as a property right but you won’t admit that all property owners have the SAME EQUAL rights

    and that means that you do not have the right to take or damage property that does not belong to you – no matter what the ROI is.

    What you advocate, in essence, is “taking” others property is it can be proven that the ROI is “worth it” – in YOUR opinion.

    This is a truly upside down idea.

    No Property owner has any right to take away or damage other property that does not belong to him.

    For someone who says he believes in property rights – it’s clear that your idea of what your rights are – is different than what you think your neighbors rights should be.

    This is an Alice in Wonderland Concept where on one side of the prism you stand – and on the other side are other property owners whose “rights” are less than yours if you want to pollute.

    In your world – you can pollute their property and they cannot keep you from doing it except by paying you what many would consider to be “blackmail”.

    What if the tables were turned and someone was polluting your property and they demanded that the only way they would stop is in you paid them what they wanted to stop it?

    It’s a biazrre concept RH.

    you blather on about economic concepts.. “theories” about “total costs” and “avoding costs” and absoutely none of this has anything at all to do with “property rights”.

    You’re essentially advocating taking others properties… if it suits your economic interests.

Leave a Reply

Read More