Enlightening and maddening. I especially liked the last two lines: "Our present mode of exploiting the Earth and its environmental resources-- unsustainable exploitation for the most part--suggests we view our planet as a business liquidating its capital, rather than one profiting from the interest on it. Should we not live on our planet as if we intended to stay, rather than as if we were visiting for a weekend?"
Natalia ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:23 PM Subject: [Futurework] Catch-22 subsidies > Excellent article in yesterday's FT. (I love their opening paragraph! I > could hang an entirely different article on it -- that when the looming > recession and likely international currency firestorm has gone on long > enough, then governments will adopt sound currencies again, transparent > taxation systems and no subsidies (and thus, no backhanders into > politicians' pockets). (Crispin Tickell is a retired senior civil servant > and no doubt has an extremely good pension. A case of > poacher-turned-gamekeeper, but one shouldn't complain, of course. All hands > to the pump.) > > KH > > <<<< > THE NO-WIN MADNESS OF CATCH-22 SUBSIDIES > Norman Myers and Crispin Tickell > > > Economists and environmentalists are not always best friends. But on one > issue they can, and should, unite. That is to oppose the propensity of > governments to misuse fiscal instruments. > > Few contest that such instruments, whatever their form, should be designed > to promote good policies and discourage bad ones. Instead almost every > government has created, almost without realising it, an encrusted apparatus > of subsidies which, once established, proves almost irremovable. Worse, > many of these subsidies are harmful to our economies as well as our > environments. In different ways such perverse subsidies bedevil all our > economics. The public interest, which was their justification, has been lost. > > To take some examples. German coal mines are so heavily subsidised that it > would be economically efficient for the government to close them all down > and send the workers home on full pay for the rest of their lives. That > would also reduce coal pollution in the form of acid rain, urban smog and > global warming. Here the economy and the environment are the losers. > > So, too, with marine fisheries. The annual global catch, well above > sustainable yield, is worth about $100bn at dockside, where it is sold for > some $80bn, the shortfall being made up with government subsidies. The > result is that more and more fishermen chase fewer and fewer fish until > stocks collapse. In 1992 one of the richest fisheries in the world, that of > the Grand Bank off north-eastern North America, had to be closed because of > a shortage of fish. Dozens of businesses went bankrupt. > > Elsewhere in the US, one government agency subsidises irrigation for crops > that another agency has paid farmers not to grow. To cite the economist, > Paul Hawken: "The government subsidises energy costs so that farmers can > deplete aquifers to grow alfalfa, to feed cows that make milk, that is > stored in warehouses as surplus cheese, that does not feed the hungry." > > In Britain the government subsidises the fossil fuel industries, in spite > of diminishing reserves of oil and gas in the North Sea, and the > government's own policies on the need to switch to clean renewable sources > of energy. The figures are astonishing. Every year the government gives > some �6-�8 ($10-$13) in fossil fuel subsidies for every �1 to support clean > and renewable energy. > > Worldwide, perverse subsidies are prominent in six main sectors: > agriculture, fossil fuels, road transport, water, forestry and fisheries. > In all cases the subsidies serve to undermine national economies as well as > environments. Subsidies for agriculture foster over-loading of croplands, > leading to erosion of topsoil, pollution from synthetic fertilisers and > pesticides, and release of greenhouse gases. Subsidies for fossil fuels are > a prime source of pollution. Subsidies for road transport also promote > pollution. Subsidies for water encourage misuse and over-use of supplies. > Subsidies for forestry encourage over-logging and other forms of > deforestation. Subsidies for fisheries foster over-exploitation of fish stocks. > > It is hard to calculate the value of such subsidies worldwide, but they > probably amount to at least $2,000bn a year. On both economic and > environmental grounds, they defer the time when we can achieve the holy > grail of sustainable development. The total of $2,000bn is 3� times as > large as the Rio Earth Summit's proposed budget for sustainable > development, a sum that governments then dismissed as simply not available. > The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries > account for two-thirds of perverse subsidies, and the US over one fifth. > > A typical British taxpayer pays at least �1,000 a year to fund perverse > subsidies, then pays another �500 through increased prices for consumer > goods and through environmental degradation. Yet perverse subsidies persist > virtually untouched. This is because subsidies tend to create powerful > interest groups and political lobbies. Were just half of these perverse > subsidies to be phased out, the funds released would help many governments > reduce or abolish their budget deficits, reorder their fiscal priorities in > the true public interest, and repair environmental damage. > > There are a few success stories. New Zealand has eliminated virtually all > its agricultural subsidies, even though -- or perhaps because -- its > economy is heavily dependent on agriculture. Today the country has more > farmers, more sheep, and a healthier environment. In similar style, China > and India have greatly reduced their fossil fuel subsidies. Australia, > Mexico and South Africa are moving towards more intelligent pricing of > their water supplies to reflect their true cost. Our present mode of > exploiting the Earth and its environmental resources - unsustainable > exploitation for the most part - suggests we view our planet as a business > liquidating its capital, rather than one profiting from the interest on it. > Should we not live on our planet as if we intended to stay, rather than as > if we were visiting for a weekend? > > ----------------- > Professor Norman Myers is honorary visiting fellow of Green College Oxford > and has acted as scientific consultant to the White House, the United > Nations and the European Commission. Sir Crispin Tickell is chancellor of > the University of Kent at Canterbury and chairman of the Climate Institute > of Washington DC > FT. Jul 27, 2003 > >>>> > > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
