|
Malcolm, "Environmental concerns" is a red herring. A
free functioning market will produce the most efficient result - more of what
you want for less cost to sustainability and to the environment. Free trade is the most efficient market. An example in Large subsidized rice paddies occupy the north of the Enough water is lost by evaporation to supply the
entire city of Not that this is the only problem. One closes the
windows and turns up the air conditioning as one drives across the Why? Well, the farmers of the valley do not pay a market
price for water. While
the Angelenos pay from $400 to $600 an acre foot, a farmer may pay only $80.
(Figure an acre-foot as almost 326,000 gallons.) There is no incentive for them to invest in subsurface
drip feed irrigation, so they flood the fields under the The answer to water shortage – surely looming as
a major problem in our near future – is to let supply and demand be
controlled by the market price mechanism. One notes that LA water is metered and the Angelenos
use 155 gallons a day. LA usage has been diminished by the installation of
over a million low flush toilets. These use 1.6 gallons a flush. The old ‘wash
down’ toilets use as much as 10-12 gallons per flush. The Department of Water and power started this off by offering
the low flush toilets for free. Now, I notice that in the hardware stores you
can buy a little float arrangement that will turn any toilet into a ‘low
flush’, for about $5-$10. All this to show how one environmental problem is exacerbated
by using controlled economy methods rather than the free market. Large corporations are not the consequences of the
free market, but are directly given growth by privileges – not least the
land privilege. I would suggest that in other countries, any
environmental damage follows from the actions of corrupt politicians and those
who own the land keeping the people in a state of peonage. Not
exactly a recipe for maintaining a good environment. I’ll expand on that if you want me to. Harry ******************************** of 818 352-4141 ******************************** -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of M.Blackmore Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bad Neighbor Policy On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 11:37 -0700, > Drop
all our import restrictions except health and safety stuff. What about environmental elements? It is increasingly
clear that environmental impact isn't a
local issue, but one that affects everyone globally. Corporates are already cheating hard enough with
regard to those costs via "globalisation". Where exceptions are to be made, they must be made as
globally conceded "licences", for
example giving some developing areas a break for a few years. That might work as well as
tarrif breaks to boost initial development. As would getting
large corporations to butt out of buying up everything in sight, choking
off indigenous development. This won't be bad for them necessarily. If they can be
sticked hard enough they could leapfrog energy
inefficient polluting technologies straight into developing tech
that will be much more sustainable. No need to recapitulate the sorry ontogeny of
the old industrial revolution, surely? _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
