Nature’s way

Today the Financial Times reports on an interview with Alistair Phillips-Davies, the head of SSE, an energy company.  Mr Phillips-Davies called for a review of government policies on funding renewable energy. [1]  His comments are eerily similar to some made in a speech by Sir Humphrey Gammon in London, some 30 years later…

In a speech to the city yesterday, Sir Humphrey Gammon lambasted the government for its wasteful and expensive sanitation policies.  The Chairman of the Shanghai-Gammon Utility Corp. [2] called for a complete rethink on sanitation, saying public support for cleanliness and health was waning.

He questioned whether the government should be supporting “green” policies such as water treatment, sewage networks or even domestic lavatories.

“If people want to see £20 taken off their utility bills rather than a reduction in cholera, typhoid, rat infestation, cockroach populations and street-level odours, then we have to re-evaluate what we are spending our money on,” he told the Financial Times.

The issue of rising sanitation costs has risen to the top of the political agenda since Ernst Schleimgruber, shadow minister for utilities, announced that the Petrol Party would eliminate wasteful sanitation legislation once it got into power.  [3]

Gammon explained that priorities on sanitation costs are shifting.  “As population levels are too high anyway, we need to be more tolerant of urban cholera and typhoid,” he said.  “Shanghai Gammon is an equal opportunities employer and we welcome diversity.  Therefore we call on others to nurture their vermin and insect population by eliminating sewage treatment.”

The Chairman of Shanghai Gammon enthusiastically listed a number of policies which would alleviate the high costs of sewage treatment.  “We recommend the abolition of toilets in all workplaces.  People need to feel that it’s perfectly acceptable to defecate or urinate in the street or in the company car park.  Nature has its own way of dealing with these kinds of things.  We did it like this for tens of thousands of years.  What makes us so special that we suddenly need fancy, expensive technology like toilets and water treatment plants?  If nature’s way is rats and cockroaches, who are we to say otherwise?”

Gammon finished his speech by removing his trousers and dumping on the podium.  “You have to put your money where your mouth is,” he explained.

——————–

[1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/415ed6d4-3199-11e3-817c-00144feab7de.html#axzz2hJeHwwWW

[2] For earlier reference to Shanghai Gammon, see https://www.thebustard.com/?p=373.

[3] Schleimgruber’s famous “Money first” pamphlet also argued for the elimination of compulsory education because it is too expensive.  “If people don’t want to waste hours learning to read and write, who are we to tell them they have to?”

Posted in Climate change policy, The Chronicles of Nat Eb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Property rights and loving nature

It is often said that property rights play a vital role in protecting the environment.  The classic case is when you get a piece of land that no-one owns, then everyone plunders it.  This is the tragedy of the commons.

But it is important to recognise that property rights are not sufficient.  When a cement company owns a mountain and turns it into concrete bollards or when a coal company owns a mountain and turns it into sacks of coal, that is a case of a company exercising its property rights.  This is the not the sort of exercise of property rights which helps nature.

So property rights are a start, but here are some other important conditions:

  • the holder of those rights should want to preserve the thing over which he has rights
  • a third party seeking to abuse the rights should know that he will get caught and get punished severely.  For this to happen the regulatory authority and its agents need to be determined to protect the rights of the holder.  And for this to happen, the authority needs a mandate, probably from the voters.
  • other parties seeking to lobby the government which supervises the rights should know that they will not succeed in undermining the strength of those rights.  Again, for this to happen, the government needs to be confident that it has a mandate to resist the lobbying.

In this way, the property rights system achieve its goal more effectively if all parties – the holder, would-be abusers and lobbyists, individuals in government bodies and subcontractors and voters – all love nature.  It’s so obvious that it is scarcely worth saying, but I don’t see a lot of policy effort around aimed at getting people to love nature.

You can imagine a case, however, where love of nature is so prevalent, that the property rights are, after all, rendered redundant.

If effectively supervised and motivated property rights can protect nature, can other things?  If the state owns the resource it is similarly subject to abuse, failed regulation, bribery of the guards; if a small, homogenous community owns the resource, unspoken agreement, custom and tradition or fear of God can also prevent people from plundering the commons.  But this protection quickly breaks down once newcomers arrive, undermining the shared code.

Whatever system is used to protect nature – property rights, customs, government regulation – the protection will be more effective if love of nature is instilled in the people involved.

 

[1] Love of nature – for a definition see: https://www.thebustard.com/?p=1141.  Note that the definition includes understanding: much damage to nature is done unwittingly, such as the harm done to the ozone layer; some is done despite understanding: surely the chaps on Easter Island realised that they needed trees and the trees weren’t growing back as fast as they were being used up.  This is why understanding is not enough: reverence and responsibility are also important.  Responsibility is the hardest: it calls for restraint which is not obviously a natural human characteristic.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who and what is bigger than how.

Sometimes you see an argument that communist or socialist approaches to environmental protection are doomed to fail.  They say: “Just look at what happened in the Soviet Union.”

Then a communist might say: “Well, they did it wrong in that instance.”  Implying that in a re-run they could get it right.

There is a similar argument about communism itself.  People point to the dismal lives people had in Central and Eastern Europe and say that shows that communism doesn’t work.  And to that a communist might say: “Well, they did it wrong.  The ideas were right, but the implementation was bad.  Like Christians who did inquisitions and so forth.”

Are these two arguments similar?  The fact that communism didn’t work out over 40 years or more in many countries is very good evidence that there is something seriously wrong with communism.  The defence that it was poorly practised is stretched.  There must have been someone who practised it accurately among all those country-wide experiments in the 20th century.

Does the fact that communists really messed up the environment prove that communism is not the right way to deal with environmental questions?  Probably, but there are two important things to consider: the leaders and the type of economy you have.

Leaders: If Stalin and Brezhnev and their chums had been really keen on nature and abhorred the destruction of nature, then he would have had all the polluters lined up and shot.  That would have created an incentive not to pollute more powerful than any property right.

Type of economy: the Soviets were obsessed with industrialisation.  So they built massive factories which polluted.  If they had been more into gardening than industry, we would have seen a lot more gardens and significantly less pollution.

So we can say that communism implies environmental destruction, but that destruction will be much less or more depending on the character of the leaders and the nature of economic activity.

This is important because the same goes for the modern, post-communist world, which has no right to be smug.  The most significant political questions for environmental protection are not to do with left or right.  They are: Do the leaders care and what do we dream of?

I don’t think that many of our political leaders – left or right – do care seriously about nature.  If they have a philosophy, it is entirely anthropocentric.  And as long as they and we dream of speed and convenience and steaks and huge, energy-hungry infrastructure made out of cement and steel, then there is no hope for nature.

Posted in Climate change policy, Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Belief economics in short

Someone wrote to me: “If you can persuade people that cutting off their kids’ foreskins, putting plates through their lips, blowing themselves up with gelignite or celibacy is a grand idea, it shouldn’t be so hard to persuade them to get proud of their caterpillars”.

This also goes for flared trousers.  The point being that there might be a way to change people’s views about nature.  This would have significant implications for climate policy.  We must ask rabbis, imams, priests and witch doctors for their advice.

Posted in Climate change policy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Lobbying in perspective

From Reuters: “Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government wants to water down draft car emissions legislation agreed in June by introducing the phase-in period, under a proposal circulated by German diplomats and seen by Reuters.  Renault and PSA Peugeot Citroen have broken ranks with Paris to side with their Germany-based industrial partners Daimler, BMW and General Motors.”

Five companies with an aggregate market capitalisation of about 200 billion euro.  In comparison the companies listed on the London Stock exchange have a total value of something like 3 trillion euro.  So the the value of European companies, listed and not listed, must be at least 10 trillion euro.

So lobbyists representing 2% of business value and about 1% of the workforce are squeezing down on the German government’s environmental policy.

But there’s no need to be angry about this or feel a sense of injustice.  Walk.  Bike.  Take the bus.  A life choice which causes dependency on a car is, for many people, that: a choice.

However powerful a corporation is at lobbying, its power all derives from the customer.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment