Mr_Adams wrote: Woodruff wrote: Mr_Adams wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (seriously), but you seem to be saying that it's ok to think short-term as long as there isn't an economic impact yet?
When we are discussing the immediate impact on the economy? Yes. I'm speaking completely free of moral obligation, entirely in an analytical sense.
Well then I can't agree with you. That's unsound thinking.
By my understanding, this conversation is primarily referring to the market in retrospect, and
If you see a small fire moving toward your house, do you try to put it out while it is still small (call the fire dept if you cannot) or do you wait until it is actually burning your house?
Mr_Adams wrote: I maintain that that environmental considerations have been of minimal affect on the actual economy in the past. If you want to discuss things going forward, the natural progression of technology has been leading to cleaner and more efficient industry, so I don't see it becoming any more prevalent an issue in the future, either. In fact, the technology already having been developed here, with any luck, developing countries should be able to skip past the more dirty parts of our past in the progression to development, so even the development of other countries shouldn't have to drastic an affect on the environment in the long run, as compared our past here in the US, and other countries which took part in our industrial revolutions.
You are utterly ignorant of the world around you.
EVERYTHING you do depends on a healthy environment, particularly your ability to eat and have eadible food. But, the market is able to hide a lot of that temporarily. By the time the market IS impacted, it will be too late.
Look around you, to what's actually happened, .. or even peruse some stats on things like fisheries takes/loss of agricultural land and production.. and consider how many of those are not reparable.
And, no, there are not nice neat fixes out there waiting. There are a few fixes for a few very small pieces of the problem, but any real solution will require far more change than the market alone will ever promote on its own.
Tell us a story, PLAYER. Expand on the underlined, if you don't mind.
One classic example is found in fisheries CPU or "catch per unit effort". Because it is so difficult to assess fish stocks directly (in the past has been impossible), indirect methods like CPU are used. Theoretically, if there are more fish, you should catch them more readily. If there are fewer, it should take more time. Right off, I am sure you can see quite a few problems. People's skill varies, etc. Those can be corrected for to a large extent. When direct assessments were lacking, it was one of the data points used to assess fishery stocks, just taken with the understanding of its limits.
So, what happens when a fishery stock starts to go?
The first thing is that people wind up spending more time and get better equipment. They keep the catch rates up, but it takes longer. According to standard market economics, the price increases. In fisheries, that happens slowly because there are a lot of different fish out there and a lot of options for buying things other than fish. Even so, it does happen. This fuels the already wealthier fishermen to improve their boats more, to keep up their fishing take.
Note the problem? The lack of/increase in demand is not really tied to the base stock, it is tied to the amount delivered
to the market. In fisheries, the end result is that by the time a fishery becomes untenable, the stocks have already been depleted too far to readily rebound. This happened with Cod, with just about every stock you can think about.
There are various "fixes" that have been tried. I won't go into all of that because you just asked for an explanation of why the market is too slow to respond. If you want me to get into the biology , I can.
OR-- take agriculture.
Agriculture is a different case. I will take just one problem. A lot of the arable land west of the Sierras, over to roughly the Mississippi get their water from several underground aquifers. These aquifers are being depleted and not restored. The water is essentially being "mined", not cycled. Even when the "natural" water cycle is all that is being used for agriculture, we find that the water is being polluted, being withdrawn or diverted in various ways. Note.. I am not saying that farms don't pollute. Large factory farms, in particular are a big problem. (smaller farms usually are not, though there can be exceptions). BUT.. there is nothing in the market place to reflect these losses.