Comments on: Sustainability: Not Just for Environmentalists

By: stop spam plugin

stop spam plugin — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:31:00 +0000

Stop Spam – WordPress plugin…

[...]please visit the site we follow, as it represents our picks from the most flexible wordpress plugin that stops spam.[...]……

By: Healthy Eating

Healthy Eating — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:08:11 +0000

Hey! I know this is kinda off topic but I’d figured I’d ask. Would you be interested in exchanging links or maybe guest writing a blog article or vice-versa? My blog discusses a lot of the same topics as yours and I think we could greatly benefit from each other. If you are interested feel free to shoot me an e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you! Great blog by the way!

By: Steven Handel

Steven Handel — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:47:47 +0000

I would love to see a legitimate movement of free market environmentalists. Of course the environment is worth preserving, and market incentives, uninhibited, tend to encourage individuals to protect natural resources. Walter Block adds some good input on this on YouTube.

By: Jim Henshaw

Jim Henshaw — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 07:58:04 +0000

Placebo said: “A real free market, though, would entail pricing in all the externalities. For example; the cost (today) of cleansing a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere is roughly 200$.”

CO2 production is not an externality to be “priced in”. CO2 is a plant food. Without CO2 virtually all life on earth would die, first plants and then the animals that feed on plants.

For those who claim that warmer weather would be disastrous — I live in Hawaii, where temperatures are much higher than the worst case scenario for AGW for, say, Seattle. And yet tourists flock here because of the weather.

By: Placebo

Placebo — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:00:41 +0000

Interesting article. A real free market, though, would entail pricing in all the externalities. For example; the cost (today) of cleansing a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere is roughly 200$. The current production mix of crude oil produces 317 kg of CO2 per barrel of crude. So what happens, is that we subsidize the oil companies with 63.5$ per barrel. The average price of a barrel of north sea oil in 2009 was 55$…..

This level of “subsidies” ensures that new cleansing technologies, alternative sources of energy, or plain energy saving scemes lose out due since it’s apparently not cost- effective.

(sorry for any linguistic errors, I’m not a native english speaker)

By: Jacob Steelman

Jacob Steelman — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:59:33 +0000

It is quite clear that the free market (including free market property rights) are not the enemy of the natural world and allocate resources in the most efficient manner demanded by consumers. It is also quite clear that government is the enemy of the natural world in that it allocates resources in the most inefficient manner. Let private property rights prevail and the effects of the commons will be gone. What everyone owns no one owns.

By: Steve Farmer

Steve Farmer — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:25:26 +0000

Great article and commentary. As a supporter of hunting rights and the 2nd amendment, I see a correlation with this articles premise to the way many well-meaning environmentalists and animal rights groups oppose gun, hunting and fishing rights; as they tend to see us as bloodthirsty wasters of life rather than the stewards of the earth and it’s wildlife that most of us are. You will not see a more enthusiastic interest in sustainability than that which beats in the heart of every true hunter and sport fisherman. And many of those same outdoorsmen and women operate businesses, employing people, that revolve around helping to ensure a pristine environment and well-managed, healthy wildlife that is sustainably harvested; and that bounty productively used and enjoyed as nourishment. They do this for themselves, their customers and clients; and most importantly, their posterity. In doing this, they usually pass along, foster and sustain: the wisdom and skills earned from generations past on how to accomplish these tasks of life; a healthy reverence and respect for the land and its bounty; and spark a self-sustaining appreciation of the importance of being a good steward of nature. The circle of life is an awesome thing when it is allowed to operate as nature intended without undue interference.
Unfortunately, some groups have twisted what probably started out as their well-intended environmental concerns into a fanatical, fascist-like zeal for government intervention and regulation through their progressive political agenda. In the process, they are achieving the very opposite of their desires and alienating those very people they should be learning to communicate with; and develop a cooperative, working relationship with, in fostering a healthy, sustainable environment that we all can enjoy, in perpetuity.
In addition to this, we have power hungry progressive elitist politicians who feel they have a both a moral mandate to tell us how to conduct our lives, and superior knowledge on how to order the course of nature and humanity. All while engaging in petty political games and attacks, sniping at each other as they do their best to keep us all divided and at each others throats, rather than working together to find common solutions to the universal desire for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Are there no leaders left, no patriots? May freedom, Constitutional liberty and free markets reign again! Remember this November! Get involved and choose wisely!
http://www.freedomworks.org/

By: Nicole

Nicole — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:21:26 +0000

This article talks about the concept of sustainability in a very fair and thoughtful way IMO, and so do the two comments posted so far. It is true, unfortunately, that most environmentalists these days have a much too static picture of what sustainability means, and have an undue faith in government as the means of addressing their concerns.
And unfortunately most of the reaction against environmentalism from conservatives and vulgar libertarians also assumes this static perception, hence all the polarization and talking past each other, which is exactly the kind of “divide and conquer” effect the global power elites want.
Some of the more peacefully anarchic subcultures within the environmental movement at large are moving away from the word “sustainability” because of the issues mentioned above, and now prefer the more dynamic “resiliency”. Maybe that can also help with the very necessary reconciling in the public perception of free market and environment.
I still think “sutainability” is a good word,worth saving from slipping irretrievably out of English and into Newspeak, though it would be nice if we could come up with a less fuzzy definition that takes the dynamic aspects into account.
But that might get us into the qualitative vs quantitative epistemological debate, which currently remains another culture barrier along roughly the same lines. That one also needs reconciling urgently!

By: Kwanijml

Kwanijml — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:55:53 +0000

Great article! sustainability and efficiency in the economic sense almost always correlates directly with sustainability and efficiency in our environment and use of natural resources. It’s not that hard to see the effects of one on the other.

For example: from Dr. Mary J. Ruwart’s book entitled ‘Healing Our World’ – “when subsidies decrease, conservation automatically follows. In Seattle, during the first year that customers were charged by the volume of trash they generated, 67% chose to become involved in the local recycling program. (8) Since about 18% of our yearly trash consists of leaves, grass, and other yard products, (9) composting coupled with recycling can dramatically lower a person’s disposal bill. As less waste is generated, fewer resources are needed to dispose of it. What could be more natural?”

This was of course a very direct example. . . but it doesn’t take a lot of effort to learn how even increased efficiency in the manufacturing and delivery of everyday items that we use, in turn, means greater conservation and more efficient use of natural resources. That’s why they’re called commodities. . . they generally don’t change in value, and so if a manufacturer somehow lowers the cost of their product, it means that they would have had to somehow start using less of one or all the commodities that they use in fabricating their product. Only the free market consistently produces the incentives and competition to continually reduce prices through innovation. Keynesians and population control advocates, alike, fail to inject ‘innovation’ as a variable in their forecasts. . . completely ignoring historical improvements we have made in how we use our resources.

By: James Smith

James Smith — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:53:55 +0000

Hi:
It would be really great to see positive examples of the way those who support the ideals of healthy relationships between strong and free and responsible people have created a beautiful world.

Enviornmentalists exist mostly because the world was getting polluted to death in the mid to later 20th century. It matters not why. Anyone would be asking to die not to have resisted industrial waste pouring into every major fresh body of water. They were right in intent and in assessing a problem. If we agree so far, then simply show the way those who support freedom are both being free, responsible, and profitable in real time.

I am convinced of the freedom route and free markets (which never existed and may never due to human nature) but believe our job is to show it working. Conscious capitalists are the only ones who come even close. More than close. We are doing it.
Jim