Comments on: Environmental Deregulation

By: eper fagyi

eper fagyi — Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:31:20 +0000

You the consumer can make it profitable, at least in this case, by purchasing your electricity from the cleanest producers. Good one.

By: James

James — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:59:26 +0000

Of course, you can’t attribute results in this area to one ‘worldview’ or another. I am old enough to remember nationalised power provision in the UK, and the long, unavailing Scandinavian efforts to get us to do something about our polluting power stations. No choosing a cleaner provider then. But the UK, which could claim to be among the more capitalist states in the EU, is one of a minority who will achieve their first Kyoto emissions reduction targets. None of this invalidates the comments made above by others about the weakness of voluntary agreements. Nor does it reduce the importance of individual consumer choices.

By: mitch

mitch — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:37:05 +0000

problems… the market can’t solve, pretty much by definition, because there is no profit to be made by solving them You the consumer can make it profitable, at least in this case, by purchasing your electricity from the cleanest producers.

By: asg

asg — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:13:20 +0000

Members of the church of the free market do talk as if the market solves all problems, even when the problems in question are ones the market can’t solve, pretty much by definition, because there is no profit to be made by solving them. Well, no, we “members of the church of the free market”, as you so charitably describe us, typically talk as if the market produces often the best solution and sometimes the least bad solution. And no real-world (as opposed to abstract logical) problem is ever unsolvable “by definition”. Thinking so sure makes it easier to dismiss the views of people who disagree with you out of hand, though, dunnit?

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 07:09:23 +0000

"Here’s the lead of a Washington Post story by Guy Gugliotta..."

I think that should be lede.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 01:44:27 +0000

Well that’s my point. Members of the church of the free market do talk as if the market solves all problems, even when the problems in question are ones the market can’t solve, pretty much by definition, because there is no profit to be made by solving them. Like providing medical care to penniless sick people, for example.

By: Cryptic Ned

Cryptic Ned — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 00:54:40 +0000

Glad to hear that “solve all problems” is the standard the free-market worldview is being held to. Is this a universal standard? Well, I think if all economic decisions are going to be made based on ideology from one “worldview”, then yes, it should be held to that standard. However, maybe another “worldview” might be consulted for a better approach to this issue.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 00:51:30 +0000

So he has had as much luck as the French have had in convincing Russia to ratify Kyoto?

By: asg

asg — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 00:03:58 +0000

Glad to hear that “solve all problems” is the standard the free-market worldview is being held to. Is this a universal standard?

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:04:40 +0000

For some reason, yes. Because it cuts into profits, that’s why. A lot of free marketeers (I’m tempted to say ‘most’ but it occurs to me that I don’t actually know that) are vastly better at maximising profit than they are at noticing that the market can’t and won’t solve all problems (or do I mean at re-defining problems so that only the ones the market can solve get classified as problems).

By: Idiot/Savant

Idiot/Savant — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:50:32 +0000

Voluntary schemes don’t work because polluters are still able to externalise their costs and dump cleanup, health effects and restoration in the lap of others. This is a perfect example of the market failing to work properly, but for some reason free marketeers are opposed to regulation to ensure that it does…