Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
I'm still on the waiting list for this book, but doggonit, I'm going to jump in anyway (after all, not having read the book hasn't stopped me from joining the discussions at my book club!). > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Jim wrote: > > > I have a bit of a problem with this idea that > environmentalism and > > economics are mortal enemies. There has to be some > middle ground. > > In fact, in the long run, environmentalism makes > good business sense. The problem is that so many > businesses in this country don't take the long run > into account - next week, next month, maybe next > year, but five years from now? WTF cares. > > And yet Diamond has written about oil or gas > exploration in his beloved New Guinea (either in > Collapse or an Op Ed piece can't remember) about one > of the companies being very cognizant of > environmental issues (had to do with how they built > the roads to and from the mining sites I think > amoung other things). He contrasted this to another > company with more traditional approach; the > environmentally aware company did better - sorry > that I can't remember the details. The conclusion > was that environmentally sensitive actions were not > more expensive. One way use the market to insure > environmental protection is to insure that the costs > of doing business include the environmental costs > (e.g how much will cost to clean up a site after it > is mined out). We have a better handle on this now. > If the true cots are figured in a corporation will > have to make a market driven choice as to how much > it is worth to do something to the environment since > it will have to pay those costs. Similarly, people are frequently willing to pay more for organic or 'fair trade' products, such as milk or coffee/tea. When educated about benefits to the environment or local populace, folks often choose to support those goals; of course, one has to have the income to back up one's desires. Debbi who had a boyfriend from Missoula, at one point, and has hiked in the Bitterroots __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
JDG said: > At the end of the day, this chapter seems like a laundry list of > environmental problems facing Montana. That's all well and good, but a > similar list of problems could probably be produced for almost any > location you care to name. What doesn't happen is that this list of > problems isn't really connected to collapse.I think it would be more > surprising if any civilization did not have any problems, but the > existence of imperfection hardly implies potential collapse. My reading of the entire book is that humans have had a substantial environmental impact wherever and whenever they've settled, and whether societies thrive or fail comes down in large part to whether they detect such problems and how (or even if) they try to solve them. I think the analogy that he was aiming for was between our globalised civilisation and any of his model cases, rather than merely between a local part of our civilisation - such as Montana or Australia - and one of those earlier models. What really surprised me was how optimistic the book was in the face of the many problems that Diamond outlines. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
This first chapter is also of particular interest to me, as I traveled extensively through the State of Montana two years ago while retracing the Lewis and Clark Trail - and I'll additionally find myself in the town of Big Sky, MT next week on business for work. The chapter certainly held my interest, and was a good read, but the more I reflect on it, the more it has left me unsatisifed. In fairness, we probably shouldn't expect a steak in the first chapter of a 500-or-so page book, but I'll see if I can express some of these iniital thoughts. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A similarity to my home town of Morgan Hill, Ca. to the Bitterroot Valley > is the contrast in attitudes of the old timers; farmers and ranchers with > sizeable land holdings and upper-middle class to upper class professionals > with a fondness for the small town atmosphere in close proximity to a > major metropolitan area. Morgan Hill has a slow-growth policy that allows > a limited number of new housing units per year. This is frustrating to > landowners because there is a huge demand for housing in the area. It seems to me that this policy is a boon for existing landholders in Morgan Hill, due to the artificially limited supply of housing. The big losers are anyone who wants to move to Morgan Hill, as they will find the price of housing there artificially inflated. > One interesting conundrum he discusses is the conflict between businesses > that exist to make money and "moral obligations" to clean up after > themselves. Is this a good argument against the preeminence of a free > market economy or can we have both a strong economy and a clean > environment? I don't think so. First, I think that Diamond unwittingly expresses some bias by using business as his primary example. I think a strong case could be made that it is simply a human tendency to avoid wanting to clean up after onesself. For example, one need only drive through West Virginia and see the instances of household trash being dumped on public lands by those who don't want to have to pay for trash removal. Likewise, Diamond's examples of householders who are unwilling to pay for the removal of decrepit dams located on their property also indicates that this phenomenon is hardly limited to businesses. Secondly, I think it is important to distinguish from a laissez-faire economy and a free market economy.Only the most strident anarcho-libertarians truly believe that government should have no role in the economy. Instead, I would say that at a minimum, most believers in the free market believe that the government has a role in enforcing property rights in the free market. In particular, this would include either prohibiting persons and businesses from dumping waste in a way that negatively affects the property of others, or at least requiring persons and businesses who do so to compesnate those who are affected for those negative effects. > Another interesting point that he raises is the fact that while native > Montanan's are extremely suspicious of government and especially > Washington, they are heavily subsidized by the federal government; "If > Montana were an isolated island, as Easter Island in the Pacific Ocean was > in Polynesian times before European arrival, its present first world > economy would already have collapsed, nor could it have developed that > economy in the first place." Is it hypocritical of Montanaâs people to be > unsupportive of the Federal Government while they have their hand in the > till? This was one of the bigger objections I had to this chapter. Although I don't recall the exact quote you have cited, this is certainly a theme of the chapter. In the setion on forest fires, for example, he contrasts Montanans desiring the US Forest Service to put out any fire that threatens any home - or even any view from a home with some Montanan's "rabidly anti-government attitudes that don't want to pay taxes towards the cost of fire-fighting." The problem here is that Diamond is mixing anecdotal and statistical evidence. For example, in the 2004 Presidential election, John Kerry still received nearly 40% of the vote in the State. I'd argue that this is evidence that it is entirely possible for separate significant groups of Montanans to hold all of the views that Diamond described - without there necessarily being a group of Montanans that hold paradoxical or hypocritical views. Thinking more about the quote you provide from Diamond, I'm not sure that Diamond really does establish that Montanan civilization would never have developed without subsidy from the federal government, nor that Montanan civilization would collapse if this subsidy was removed. Certainly, if Montana were an isolated island, it might never have developed its current civilization - but given that we don't really understand what produces economic development in the first place, that is hardly surpr
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
Jim wrote: > I have a bit of a problem with this idea that environmentalism and > economics are mortal enemies. There has to be some middle ground. In fact, in the long run, environmentalism makes good business sense. The problem is that so many businesses in this country don't take the long run into account - next week, next month, maybe next year, but five years from now? WTF cares. And yet Diamond has written about oil or gas exploration in his beloved New Guinea (either in Collapse or an Op Ed piece can't remember) about one of the companies being very cognizant of environmental issues (had to do with how they built the roads to and from the mining sites I think amoung other things). He contrasted this to another company with more traditional approach; the environmentally aware company did better - sorry that I can't remember the details. The conclusion was that environmentally sensitive actions were not more expensive. One way use the market to insure environmental protection is to insure that the costs of doing business include the environmental costs (e.g how much will cost to clean up a site after it is mined out). We have a better handle on this now. If the true cots are figured in a corporation will have to make a market driven choice as to how much it is worth to do something to the environment since it will have to pay those costs. Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
Bob wrote: What struck me was the absence of any easy answers. There are people of good will but they cannot agree. The issue of the long term effects of mining of non-renewable resources is more difficult and profound than I realized. I see no solution other than to hold the companies responsible at least in part. Mine Asteroids? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
Brother John wrote: Have you ever driven through the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula, Montana? No. Montana is one of sevenor eight states I've never set foot in. I have done it only once, but I was deeply impressed with the beauty of it, and the size of the huge wood frame houses along the way. They were enormous, not particularly fancy but very large. I think that Missoula is one of most beautifully situated cities in the world, right along the spine of the continent. Of course, it isn't any prettier than Ketchikan, Alaska where I live. But then a perfect 10 is a perfect 10. I haven't been to Ketchikan, but I visited Sitka for several days a couple years back. Very nice. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
Jim wrote: I have a bit of a problem with this idea that environmentalism and economics are mortal enemies. There has to be some middle ground. In fact, in the long run, environmentalism makes good business sense. The problem is that so many businesses in this country don't take the long run into account - next week, next month, maybe next year, but five years from now? WTF cares. We face them all over. I'll give you an example. My wife's relatives get together for a family reunion in Barnegat, NJ every year, at a modest ranch on the lagoon. People are buying up those houses on those small lots, tearing them down and putting up *HUGE* McMansions in their place, filling up the property to the point of bursting. Frankly, I can't see how the local infrastructure can handle it. And they'll be the first ones to bitch when the weather goes south on them, or when someone builds something bigger across the street, ruining "their" view. Yea, we get the same kind of thing around here. In Palo Alto, with some of the most expensive real estate in the country, they've had to pass an ordinance to keep people from building mansions on postage stamp sized lots that used to have cottages on them. And the tiny lots they put new houses on are ridiculous. I think it's just human nature to have myopic tunnel vision. We all do it, to some extent. Indeed we do. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
In a message dated 8/2/2006 1:31:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Montana's problems are somewhat interesting. We can understand and empathize with them because we face many of the same kinds of problems. In comparison with the disaster that occurred on Easter Island described in Chapter Two: Twilight at Easter, however, the problems our country faces (at least the short term ones) seem like small potatoes. Fascinating! Read on. What struck me was the absence of any easy answers. There are people of good will but they cannot agree. The issue of the long term effects of mining of non-renewable resources is more difficult and profound than I realized. I see no solution other than to hold the companies responsible at least in part. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
On 8/2/06, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Collapse by Jarred Diamond Part One: Modern Montana Chapter One: Under Montana's Big Sky Diamond picks Montana for his first chapter because he can gage the attitudes of the people that live there, because it provides a contrast to the more fragile societies discussed in later chapters and because it illustrates the five main themes of the book: human impacts on the environment; climate change; a society's relations with neighboring friendly societies; a society's exposure to acts of other potential hostile societies; and the importance of a society's responses to it's problems. He uses Montana as a reference for the reader. A familiar situation with which we can relate to the more severe problems he discusses later on. A similarity to my home town of Morgan Hill, Ca. to the Bitterroot Valley is the contrast in attitudes of the old timers; farmers and ranchers with sizeable land holdings and upper-middle class to upper class professionals with a fondness for the small town atmosphere in close proximity to a major metropolitan area. Morgan Hill has a slow-growth policy that allows a limited number of new housing units per year. This is frustrating to landowners because there is a huge demand for housing in the area. Montana's environmental problems include toxic wastes, forests, soils, water, climate change, biodiversity losses and introduced pests and while Diamond classifies Montana as probably the least damaged of the lower 48 states, the problems he describes seem severe. One interesting conundrum he discusses is the conflict between businesses that exist to make money and "moral obligations" to clean up after themselves. Is this a good argument against the preeminence of a free market economy or can we have both a strong economy and a clean environment? Fascinating! Read on. -- Doug Me and the pygmy pony over by the dental floss bush, maru This is a long-standing and fascinating (IMO) objection to market economies. After all, economic activities driven by market economics seem to inevitably fall into tragedies of the commons, which is exactly what one sees here: the penalties fall on (other people's) descendants in the far future, or even if they manifest soon enough to be on a company's radar (remember that there is discounting of possible future liabilities going on here; I dunno what the discount rate is, but it's probably pretty high when you consider examples like the tobacco companies), they are often negative externalities for which the company can get off scot-free. What makes Montana such a good example is that because of the light long-term population of Indians, we can see pretty well just how our birds done come home to roost. Unsurprisingly, I think this is very much a matter of tradeoffs. Clearly a market economy can find effective ways to minimize long-term impacts if the market is sufficiently distorted (say, by government regulations), but almost by definition, such a distorted market is not The Efficient Market, and so there's a real cost there. ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
Doug Pensinger wrote: Collapse by Jarred Diamond Part One: Modern Montana Chapter One: Under Montana's Big Sky [...] A similarity to my home town of Morgan Hill, Ca. to the Bitterroot Valley is the contrast in attitudes of the old timers; farmers and ranchers with sizeable land holdings and upper-middle class to upper class professionals with a fondness for the small town atmosphere in close proximity to a major metropolitan area. Morgan Hill has a slow-growth policy that allows a limited number of new housing units per year. This is frustrating to landowners because there is a huge demand for housing in the area. Have you ever driven through the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula, Montana? I have done it only once, but I was deeply impressed with the beauty of it, and the size of the huge wood frame houses along the way. They were enormous, not particularly fancy but very large. I think that Missoula is one of most beautifully situated cities in the world, right along the spine of the continent. Of course, it isn't any prettier than Ketchikan, Alaska where I live. But then a perfect 10 is a perfect 10. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Since we are all children of the same Heavenly Father, we really are all brothers and sisters." --Uncle Bob All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Moving to Montana Soon?
Doug Pensinger wrote: >One interesting conundrum he discusses is the conflict between >businesses that exist to make money and "moral obligations" to clean >up after themselves. Is this a good argument against the >preeminence of a free market economy or can we have both a strong >economy and a clean environment? That depends on your definition of a strong economy. That is, how much is enough for the wealthy owners/stockholders? For someone like me, who makes a comfortable living, I can't really comprehend the need to makes millions at the expense of others, the environment and the future. But for Charles Schwab, who bought so much of that land and (as rich baby boomers are going to be doing for the foreseeable future, I'll wager) drove local prices up beyond the means of the locals to pay readily, cutting into his millions may seem unreasonable. As an aside, if this crap of wealthy seniors buying up cheap land and driving prices up everywhere (Utah, where my brother lives, is facing a similar problem with Californians to Montana's), I wonder how young people are *ever* going to find places to live. Frex, my own house has more than *DOUBLED* in value in ~9 years. And it was built before WW I! I have a bit of a problem with this idea that environmentalism and economics are mortal enemies. There has to be some middle ground. >Another interesting point that he raises is the fact that while >native Montanan's are extremely suspicious of government and >especially Washington, they are heavily subsidized by the federal >government. Is it hypocritical of Montana's people to be >unsupportive of the Federal Government while they have their hand in >the till? Of course it is. But then, they may not even realize that it's so. But then I live in New Jersey, which IIRC gets about the least back from the US government per dollar that goes in, so I may not have an entirely unbiased opinion. Now, I do believe that sometimes the government's approach *is* unreasonable. Requiring landowners to pay for dams built 100 years ago, instead of trying to share the cost burden just seems crazy to me. Especially if the people who own the land now are not the builders. >Montana's problems are somewhat interesting. We can understand and >empathize with them because we face many of the same kinds of >problems. We face them all over. I'll give you an example. My wife's relatives get together for a family reunion in Barnegat, NJ every year, at a modest ranch on the lagoon. People are buying up those houses on those small lots, tearing them down and putting up *HUGE* McMansions in their place, filling up the property to the point of bursting. Frankly, I can't see how the local infrastructure can handle it. And they'll be the first ones to bitch when the weather goes south on them, or when someone builds something bigger across the street, ruining "their" view. I think it's just human nature to have myopic tunnel vision. We all do it, to some extent. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
