Comments on: Framing the World Away http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/01/framing-the-world-away/ The Sweet Release of Reason Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:17:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Pithlord http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/01/framing-the-world-away/#comment-576645 Pithlord Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:23:21 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1367#comment-576645 I will accept your relative expertise on how people at Cato think. It's been a while since I paid attention, but IIRC there were a bunch of books out of Cato denying that anthropogenic global warming was real, and opposing tradeable emission permits or Pigovian taxes, both of which seem like market mechanisms to me. I will accept your relative expertise on how people at Cato think. It’s been a while since I paid attention, but IIRC there were a bunch of books out of Cato denying that anthropogenic global warming was real, and opposing tradeable emission permits or Pigovian taxes, both of which seem like market mechanisms to me.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/01/framing-the-world-away/#comment-576521 Will Wilkinson Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:02:14 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1367#comment-576521 Pithlord, About Cato... In my experience, Cato folks have the usual views about the role of property regimes and pricing mechanisms in solving commons problems. It's kind of libertarian conventional wisdom. Pithlord, About Cato… In my experience, Cato folks have the usual views about the role of property regimes and pricing mechanisms in solving commons problems. It’s kind of libertarian conventional wisdom.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/01/framing-the-world-away/#comment-576506 Will Wilkinson Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:50:39 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1367#comment-576506 Pithlord, "On the environmentalist account, most of the costs of carbon emissions will occur in the future. Your argument that the places with high carbon emissions are also the wealthiest, including environmental goods within the concept of wealth, is totally non-responsive." Indeed, the incidence of the costs is so far in the future that people who will have to pay them now will be be dead. That can't make THOSE people wealthier, can it? And given steady growth, future people will be much wealthier, materially, than we are. It of course depends on the exact extent of the harm of carbon emissions, but there is more than a passing possibility that we have figured out a good way to transfer wealth from wealthier future people to ourselves. But, again, Brewer wants to rule out considering things in this way. Pithlord,

“On the environmentalist account, most of the costs of carbon emissions will occur in the future. Your argument that the places with high carbon emissions are also the wealthiest, including environmental goods within the concept of wealth, is totally non-responsive.”

Indeed, the incidence of the costs is so far in the future that people who will have to pay them now will be be dead. That can’t make THOSE people wealthier, can it?

And given steady growth, future people will be much wealthier, materially, than we are. It of course depends on the exact extent of the harm of carbon emissions, but there is more than a passing possibility that we have figured out a good way to transfer wealth from wealthier future people to ourselves. But, again, Brewer wants to rule out considering things in this way.

]]> By: Steve Horwitz http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/01/framing-the-world-away/#comment-576441 Steve Horwitz Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:48:02 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1367#comment-576441 "And so cleaner air can be a form of poverty. QED." Indeed. That reminds me of this classic cartoon: http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2007/04/24/cartoon-of-the-day-3/ Evidently, those cavemen were pretty wealthy.... “And so cleaner air can be a form of poverty. QED.”

Indeed. That reminds me of this classic cartoon:

http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2007/04/24/cartoon-of-the-day-3/

Evidently, those cavemen were pretty wealthy….

]]> By: Pithlord http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/01/framing-the-world-away/#comment-576412 Pithlord Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:12:43 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1367#comment-576412 And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Cato can be called "market environmentalist". It hasn't advocated the use of the price mechanism or property entitlements to combat environmental problems, like Resources for the Future. It has just spent a lot trying to show that environmental problems don't exist. And correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Cato can be called “market environmentalist”. It hasn’t advocated the use of the price mechanism or property entitlements to combat environmental problems, like Resources for the Future. It has just spent a lot trying to show that environmental problems don’t exist.

]]> By: Pithlord http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/01/framing-the-world-away/#comment-576407 Pithlord Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:08:57 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1367#comment-576407 I think you move from the indisputable proposition "environmental protection has costs" to the very disputable proposition "the marginal costs of more environmental protection exceed the marginal benefits." Brewer is trying (properly) to define wealth as including all economic value, whether traded on a market or not. On the environmentalist account, most of the costs of carbon emissions will occur in the future. Your argument that the places with high carbon emissions are also the wealthiest, including environmental goods within the concept of wealth, is totally non-responsive. I think you move from the indisputable proposition “environmental protection has costs” to the very disputable proposition “the marginal costs of more environmental protection exceed the marginal benefits.” Brewer is trying (properly) to define wealth as including all economic value, whether traded on a market or not.

On the environmentalist account, most of the costs of carbon emissions will occur in the future. Your argument that the places with high carbon emissions are also the wealthiest, including environmental goods within the concept of wealth, is totally non-responsive.

]]>