Catastrophic Planetary Resource Plundering
So here's my pet apocalyptic musing: resource mismanagement. I find it apalling how much this species consumes on this planet. Some would argue that this is a simple consequence of being current top dog on a time scale measured in the millions of years. And it is true - on a time line of that magnitude, the existence of our species is just like an individual's life span: you know that there is a natural limit as to how long that person is going to live, and it is not going to be forever.
So why can't we apply the same values to the time allotted for our species that we apply to a single life, and give due consideration to the quality of life for the human race as a whole. In other words, consider every hour in a human life to be the equivalent of a generation in the life of our species. What if that person was to live every hour of their life expressing the epitome of selfish behaviour - consuming everything in sight and exhibiting an almost total disregard for the needs of the next hour. What kind of life would that be? Short and pathetic, I think. [And I think that right now, the beast appears to be in its teens!]
It would not be so bad if our consumption was a natural one. By that, I mean to consume, chew up, digest, and excrete the waste. That's bad enough, but that cycle is still governed by natural processes and the planet is smart enough to regulate that itself. On a global scale, I liken this to a species eating more than can sustain its numbers. The population will decrease, and the resources consumed are eventually recycled and returned to the bio-pool, as it were.
Alas, we have another kind of consumption where we alter or concentrate resources to such an extent that the half-life of nature returning them to the bio-pool probably exceeds the time allotted to our species. Every second, we transform gross amounts of resources into untold trillions of things that have ridiculously short lifespans, are not reusable (or at least never reused), and are tossed, to sit there - possibly outlasting us.
For example, how many things do you have around you right now that, if a part of them was cosmetically or functionally damaged or wore out, would be cheaper to throw out than have repaired? [And that is always the bottom line, isn't it. Money. The only value system that really seems to make a difference for us. After all, it is globally recognized (for the most part) and easily quantified.] It is so disheartening to me that mankind is societally encouraged and financially rewarded for producing objects that don't last and whose resources cannot be turned into something else or returned to the pool.
So here's my solution (at least the beginnings of one):
Tax the resources. At least the non-sustainable (or long-time-to-replace) ones. For the most part, these fall into four categories: Fossil fuels, Trees, Ores, and Land (developed and grossly altered). So I say, the people who plunder (to use the nasty word) these resources pay a high tax - as in money: the value system that got us here in the first place. And what do you do with that money? You pay people to take things apart, to recycle, to recover resources that are no longer economically viable to simply consume from the planetary pool. After all, it's the labour that always seems to be the major cost. Then you are using the economics that got us here in the first place to get us out. Suddenly, it will make sense to adopt sustainable practices. There will be sound reasoning for manufacturing reusable parts, and for seeking alternate sources of 'raw' materials.
I haven't thought the whole thing through yet - that's where your feedback might help. But, enough ranting and dreaming for today.
So why can't we apply the same values to the time allotted for our species that we apply to a single life, and give due consideration to the quality of life for the human race as a whole. In other words, consider every hour in a human life to be the equivalent of a generation in the life of our species. What if that person was to live every hour of their life expressing the epitome of selfish behaviour - consuming everything in sight and exhibiting an almost total disregard for the needs of the next hour. What kind of life would that be? Short and pathetic, I think. [And I think that right now, the beast appears to be in its teens!]
It would not be so bad if our consumption was a natural one. By that, I mean to consume, chew up, digest, and excrete the waste. That's bad enough, but that cycle is still governed by natural processes and the planet is smart enough to regulate that itself. On a global scale, I liken this to a species eating more than can sustain its numbers. The population will decrease, and the resources consumed are eventually recycled and returned to the bio-pool, as it were.
Alas, we have another kind of consumption where we alter or concentrate resources to such an extent that the half-life of nature returning them to the bio-pool probably exceeds the time allotted to our species. Every second, we transform gross amounts of resources into untold trillions of things that have ridiculously short lifespans, are not reusable (or at least never reused), and are tossed, to sit there - possibly outlasting us.
For example, how many things do you have around you right now that, if a part of them was cosmetically or functionally damaged or wore out, would be cheaper to throw out than have repaired? [And that is always the bottom line, isn't it. Money. The only value system that really seems to make a difference for us. After all, it is globally recognized (for the most part) and easily quantified.] It is so disheartening to me that mankind is societally encouraged and financially rewarded for producing objects that don't last and whose resources cannot be turned into something else or returned to the pool.
So here's my solution (at least the beginnings of one):
Tax the resources. At least the non-sustainable (or long-time-to-replace) ones. For the most part, these fall into four categories: Fossil fuels, Trees, Ores, and Land (developed and grossly altered). So I say, the people who plunder (to use the nasty word) these resources pay a high tax - as in money: the value system that got us here in the first place. And what do you do with that money? You pay people to take things apart, to recycle, to recover resources that are no longer economically viable to simply consume from the planetary pool. After all, it's the labour that always seems to be the major cost. Then you are using the economics that got us here in the first place to get us out. Suddenly, it will make sense to adopt sustainable practices. There will be sound reasoning for manufacturing reusable parts, and for seeking alternate sources of 'raw' materials.
I haven't thought the whole thing through yet - that's where your feedback might help. But, enough ranting and dreaming for today.
5 Comments on "Catastrophic Planetary Resource Plundering":
Non-sustainable (or long-time-to-replace) resources should include: Fossil fuels, Trees, Ores, and Land (developed and grossly altered), and fresh water, living topsoil, and sunlight.
Yeah, I was wondering about water. I guess it's a bit more difficult to tax it, but your point is well taken. I left it out because, for the purposes of my idea, fresh water is less often "consumed and altered (in the chemical sense)" and more often defiled by being used as a waste bin - a different problem.
I figure that living topsoil was covered in my "developed or grossly altered land".
But sunlight? Surely sunlight is the energy-root of all sustainable processes on the planet. True, the sun would take a long time to replace, but I doubt the species will be around when the need arises. :-)
Soil... is sold by Canada to other countries. Its essentially non-renewable, like oil. Oops. And yes, it is much like silver or nickel in that way, except we require it for growing food. Seems on the level of trees. Or fresh water, which we also sell.
Sunlight... Replacing the sun would be rather challenging for our engineers. I was thinking more along the lines of it being vital to the ecosphere in the right levels. Too much is bad - hence the green house problems which cause the received light and heat to stay longer in our atmosphere than has been the norm. Too little is bad - we just starve slowly - hence the stories of neclear winter where the sunlight is blocked by too many particles in the atmosphere.
So the resource is in maintaining us within the useful range of sunlight reception. Sustainable here is possible within our species lifetime, just not happening right now.
Purr.
I don't agree at all. What's wrong with depleting the oil?--as it depletes, those who own what's left will charge more, protecting the remaining resource. (Unless of course politicians try to be popular by preventing oil owners from charging what the market will bear. Price controls are a very bad thing.) I think the real problem is the one you refer to as "returning them to the bio-pool", e.g. the effect on the atmosphere of burning a barrel of oil.
Burning a barrel of oil should be taxed, and the proceeds distributed to those affected by it. Each time I burn a litre of gasoline as I drive my car, I should have to pay, with the amount determined by emissions testing (already done every second year in Ontario, Canada, where I live), and every person on this planet should get a share of that money. The share might be a little higher locally, because some of the pollutants might not make it out of the area before they go into the soil (I don't know whether this is true for burning oil, but I'm sure it's true for other activities).
That is, when people damage the "commons", they should have to pay the owners of the commons, meaning everyone. Governments, as the stewards of the commons, should collect and distribute the money.
Of course there are lots of practical difficulties, and approximations will need to be made. One is that it's not just humans who are affected by, say, the chopping down of a tree. We'd probably have to live with the unfortunate axiom that humans own everything (as we always have so at least this is not new). Another approximation is that because it's difficult for my government to measure how much gasoline my car actually goes through, it will need to use some proxy for that. One choice is to tax at the point of sale, but then I might avoid that by buying my gas across the border in the USA if the USA doesn't (yet) have this tax. Another choice is to take the distance the car's been driven lately (according to the odometer, which admittedly is vulnerable to being rolled back), and multiply it by Transport Canada's gasoline consumption rating for a 1990 Nissan 240SX driven a typical combination of city and highway driving at typical speeds. While averaging is unfortunately used here for practical reasons (e.g. I often drive fast and should really have to pay more), at least it properly distinguishes between fuel-efficient vehicles and gas guzzlers.
I'm too lazy to go and find the link, but I have read in more than one place that economists have been surprised that the price elasticity of demand for petroleum seems to remain under 1 even at $70 a barrel, (ok, here’s a link http://cascadiascorecard.typepad.com/blog/2005/09/is_gas_elastic.html -) so it seems that allowing price to adjust demand for petroleum may not be the best course of action. One of the Princes of Saud pointed out recently that it still only costs $.05 a barrel to pump Saudi crude out of the ground so all the subsequent price is market delivered. Remember too that gasoline in particular is heavily taxed worldwide (just like alcohol and tobacco). Relying on pure economics to slow our lifestyle may be inefficient - by the time demand slips the damage may be to much to bear. (Pardon the pun). A moral appeal, like the one used to reduce smoking and driving while drinking may have a more immediate effect. Personally I don't think we act that smart as a race and changes in behaviour will not occur until they are forced on us by circumstances - i.e. it is very difficult to drive a car when the economic structure of the world has collapsed and gasoline is no longer delivered. Recent studies that show rats live longer on a calorie reduced diet will have little effect on people in the western world until famine produces an involuntary caloric reduction and so on. Hopefully other, less drastic changes will happen first (for instance a practical electric car would sell very well and do much to reduce the direct use of petroleum).
Post a Comment
<< back to .:. fuck decaf .:.