http://liberationraj.org/2008/04/can-environmentalists-and-economists-agree/ Life, liberty and pursuits Wed, 29 Dec 2010 07:19:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 http://liberationraj.org/2008/04/can-environmentalists-and-economists-agree/comment-page-1/#comment-307 Jerome Drummond Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:21:59 +0000 http://liberationraj.org/?p=19#comment-307 Mssrs. Carden and Hammock show why you never send economists to do a man's job.<br> <br>The main theme of the article is that economics is a "science" and that environmentalism is a "belief" or "religion" making "moral" assumptions.<br> <br>The right likes to focus on public demonstrators as "the environmentalists" and make them the straw men to attack when they don't want to clean up after themselves. Part of this fairy tale is that economists (in this context usually corporate toadies like Milton Friedman) are scientists and environmentalists are daydreamers who pull their beliefs out of thin air.<br> <br>"Economists do not judge whether a parking lot is morally superior to a forest." The only moral question here exists in the writer's mind. A forest is superior to a parking lot because if the world was only covered with parking lots you and I would die. If the world were only covered which what naturally grows on it a minimum human population would be sustained. I consider my continuing existence a provable good. Economists would think so too if they thought at all.<br> <br>We will battle over a particular parking lot because we know that we can only have so many of them, and so each one must prove its worth.<br> <br>Most environmental scientists would be able to tell you what would happen if you altered an ecosystem's PH level by two points. I haven't heard any economists yet with any coherent explanation for the spike in oil prices. Economics seems to be a science which explains what the underwriter intends.<br> <br>"Consider ceramic versus styrofoam cups." Most of the coffee mugs in my cupboard are twenty years old. If I were to drink only one cup of coffee per day I would have avoided over 7000 cups of waste and (are you listening economists?)saved considerable money to invest wisely. Generally, I wash my mug with the rest of the dishes. Perhaps economists do not eat from clean dishes and so washing the mugs would in fact be an extraordinary use of resources for them.<br> <br>"Convenience and labor also matter." Do these stooges actually pretend that Microsoft loses business because its employees use reusable chopsticks? This point is as unprovable as it is absurd.<br> <br>Here is the upshot. You and I are living beings who are dependent on biologic processes on this planet which we cannot duplicate. Therefore it is wise to err on the side of caution. Common sense, usually in short supply in the corporate world, tells us that there are consequences to our actions, and we simply do not know enough about the biology of the earth to state with conviction what the consequences of our actions are. This is not a moral nicety - it is a hardnosed, secular and scientific conclusion that corporate lackies ignore at the peril of us all, and the leaders of multinational corporate capitalism have no standing to make these decisions. Mssrs. Carden and Hammock show why you never send economists to do a man’s job. The main theme of the article is that economics is a “science” and that environmentalism is a “belief” or “religion” making “moral” assumptions. The right likes to focus on public demonstrators as “the environmentalists” and make them the straw men to attack when they don’t want to clean up after themselves. Part of this fairy tale is that economists (in this context usually corporate toadies like Milton Friedman) are scientists and environmentalists are daydreamers who pull their beliefs out of thin air. “Economists do not judge whether a parking lot is morally superior to a forest.” The only moral question here exists in the writer’s mind. A forest is superior to a parking lot because if the world was only covered with parking lots you and I would die. If the world were only covered which what naturally grows on it a minimum human population would be sustained. I consider my continuing existence a provable good. Economists would think so too if they thought at all. We will battle over a particular parking lot because we know that we can only have so many of them, and so each one must prove its worth. Most environmental scientists would be able to tell you what would happen if you altered an ecosystem’s PH level by two points. I haven’t heard any economists yet with any coherent explanation for the spike in oil prices. Economics seems to be a science which explains what the underwriter intends. “Consider ceramic versus styrofoam cups.” Most of the coffee mugs in my cupboard are twenty years old. If I were to drink only one cup of coffee per day I would have avoided over 7000 cups of waste and (are you listening economists?)saved considerable money to invest wisely. Generally, I wash my mug with the rest of the dishes. Perhaps economists do not eat from clean dishes and so washing the mugs would in fact be an extraordinary use of resources for them. “Convenience and labor also matter.” Do these stooges actually pretend that Microsoft loses business because its employees use reusable chopsticks? This point is as unprovable as it is absurd. Here is the upshot. You and I are living beings who are dependent on biologic processes on this planet which we cannot duplicate. Therefore it is wise to err on the side of caution. Common sense, usually in short supply in the corporate world, tells us that there are consequences to our actions, and we simply do not know enough about the biology of the earth to state with conviction what the consequences of our actions are. This is not a moral nicety – it is a hardnosed, secular and scientific conclusion that corporate lackies ignore at the peril of us all, and the leaders of multinational corporate capitalism have no standing to make these decisions.

]]>