Comments on: Want a Cleaner Environment? Trade Freely. http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/want-a-cleaner-environment-trade-freely.html where orders emerge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/want-a-cleaner-environment-trade-freely.html/comment-page-1#comment-185406 Anonymous Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:21:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6803#comment-185406 I think there's a big difference between "nature taking over" and a healthy environment. A healthy environment really just means a functional sustainable environment given a human presence. The Earth was warmer than it is today - and the environment was fine. The Earth was cooler than it is today - and the environment is fine. Environmental health means sustainably healthy and enjoyable for humans. The only reason why warming is disconcerting now is because of how it negatively impacts us. The environment will change in response, but we provide the valuation of those changes. I think there’s a big difference between “nature taking over” and a healthy environment. A healthy environment really just means a functional sustainable environment given a human presence. The Earth was warmer than it is today – and the environment was fine. The Earth was cooler than it is today – and the environment is fine. Environmental health means sustainably healthy and enjoyable for humans. The only reason why warming is disconcerting now is because of how it negatively impacts us. The environment will change in response, but we provide the valuation of those changes.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/want-a-cleaner-environment-trade-freely.html/comment-page-1#comment-185405 Anonymous Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:15:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6803#comment-185405 That's an interesting interpretation of the tariffs discussed in these climate change talks. I always thought it was an issue of any reforms being useless if only the US and Europe did them, so other countries that did not sign on would need to have a de facto carbon tax instituted in the form of a tariff. I never heard about these "carbon tariffs" as a way of protecting domestic industry. That’s an interesting interpretation of the tariffs discussed in these climate change talks. I always thought it was an issue of any reforms being useless if only the US and Europe did them, so other countries that did not sign on would need to have a de facto carbon tax instituted in the form of a tariff. I never heard about these “carbon tariffs” as a way of protecting domestic industry.

]]> By: Name http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/want-a-cleaner-environment-trade-freely.html/comment-page-1#comment-185394 Name Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:28:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6803#comment-185394 My guess is that the footprint is just measured in distance to reach destination added in with the carbon emissions of the transport. This really has little to do with the real 'ecological footprint'. I won't bely my ignorance by talking about oranges in America, but I know here in New Zealand there has been some concern over European countries advertising the 'food miles' for all produce which makes NZ produce look really costly to the environment. However once you account for the fact that NZ has superior farming land than alot of the European countries and hence can produce food far more efficiently, the NZ produce has actually contributed much less carbon pollution than the European produce. Also I believe I read this in 'The Undercover Economist', transportation of goods is generally pretty efficient and therefore the pollution per good is generally very small, small enough that if you drive to the shops to pick up an orange, you have probably emitted more carbon on your way than the 'ecological footprint' of the transportation of that orange even if it were from the other side of the world. Hence i believe looking at 'ecological footprints' of goods is largely irrelavent to any environmental or economic considerations. My guess is that the footprint is just measured in distance to reach destination added in with the carbon emissions of the transport. This really has little to do with the real ‘ecological footprint’. I won’t bely my ignorance by talking about oranges in America, but I know here in New Zealand there has been some concern over European countries advertising the ‘food miles’ for all produce which makes NZ produce look really costly to the environment. However once you account for the fact that NZ has superior farming land than alot of the European countries and hence can produce food far more efficiently, the NZ produce has actually contributed much less carbon pollution than the European produce.
Also I believe I read this in ‘The Undercover Economist’, transportation of goods is generally pretty efficient and therefore the pollution per good is generally very small, small enough that if you drive to the shops to pick up an orange, you have probably emitted more carbon on your way than the ‘ecological footprint’ of the transportation of that orange even if it were from the other side of the world.
Hence i believe looking at ‘ecological footprints’ of goods is largely irrelavent to any environmental or economic considerations.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/want-a-cleaner-environment-trade-freely.html/comment-page-1#comment-185393 Anonymous Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:23:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6803#comment-185393 Think about those costs that are *free* to the producer. Then you can see why they make the decisions they make. Add those costs to your models. Make sure to include the "economic footprint" in your analysis of *free* services -- but try to identify who is paying for it, because it might be you. If your share of the cost to access *free* services is less than the "economic footprint" ... Are you really trying to interpret what I'm writing or do you understand that it is all bullshit? Think about those costs that are *free* to the producer. Then you can see why they make the decisions they make. Add those costs to your models. Make sure to include the “economic footprint” in your analysis of *free* services — but try to identify who is paying for it, because it might be you. If your share of the cost to access *free* services is less than the “economic footprint” …

Are you really trying to interpret what I’m writing or do you understand that it is all bullshit?

]]> By: Jonathan Catalán http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/want-a-cleaner-environment-trade-freely.html/comment-page-1#comment-185386 Jonathan Catalán Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:34:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6803#comment-185386 I'm sorry, but those are very poor arguments. I did not necessarily make a case. I stated arguments which I have not been able to reconcile yet. I’m sorry, but those are very poor arguments. I did not necessarily make a case. I stated arguments which I have not been able to reconcile yet.

]]>