🚀 go-pugleaf

 
In ca.politics brockman@netcom.com (daniel brockman) said: 
 
 
>In article <3pda94$8rg@worm.hooked.net> jimbar@worm.hooked.net (Jim
Barrett)  
>writes: 
>>In ca.politics phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) said:  
>>  
>>  
>>>In article <3p84j5$517@tuna.hooked.net> jimbar@tuna.hooked.net (Jim 
>>Barrett)   
>>>writes:  
>>>    >I suggest that we try to look at ways that induce the free  
>>>    >market system to promote environmental well being while at  
>>>    >the same time preserve notions of private property. I beleive  
>>>    >that this suggestion has something for everybody.  
>>>  
>>>Since pollution is only a problem because we DON'T have a strong system
of 
>>  
>>>private property, we need to strengthen private property rights.  
>>>  
>>>For that which is not feasible to own, such as air and many rivers and 
>>oceans,   
>>>the riparian concept of leave it as you found it would suffice. Of
course, 
>>this   
>>>means zero-polluting cars, but, hey, I'm in favor of that.  
> 
>It is feasible to own rivers, or the right to use them.  While 'leave it
as you  
>found it' may satisfy you, it may not satisfy those who derive income from
 
>water rights based on other principles.  In order to get to 'leave it as
you  
>found it', we must devise an equitable transition from 'use it for
agriculture  
>or lose it', a principle underlying much water law in the western US. 
> 
 
I also think we need to get away from the "use it or lose it" idea. I
thought that the "Central Valley Improvement Act" made some attempts to
allow for the sale of allocated water that wasn't used in the "Central
Valley Project". If someone owns water or water rights it does none of us
any good to force the owner to use water they do not need that year but may
need the next. This seems to be an area where free market principles are
beneficial to the environment. 
 
 
 
 
>Secondly, is 'leave it as you found it' possible?  If my avocado orchard
of 50  
>trees is located on a river bank, and if I take water from the river to
water  
>the trees, then some of that water will evaporate, and that which flows
back  
>into the river will not reenter the river where it was found.  Further,
the  
>water returning to the river will include leachings of minerals, etc, from
the  
>soil in my orchard.  Perhaps I could put plastic over the trees and the
ground  
>to catch the transpiration and evaporation, and maybe I could construct
sealed  
>drainage and pumps and treatment plants so that I could catch close to all
of  
>the water and throw it back in the river where I got it out.  But in that
case,  
>aren't we overlooking something?  Is throwing a little water from the
river  
>onto the trees an reasonable thing to do?  Even with the tranformations of
the  
>water discussed above?   
>And let us consider also that the population of fish will expand to fill
the  
>water available.  So if we reduce the available water by even a few
gallons, we  
>reduce the population of fish. 
> 
>If you were the king of California and, being concerned about the
environment,  
>you ordered avocado farmers to cover their trees and grounds with plastic
and  
>construct drainage and treatemnts and carefully monitor the water taken
and  
>returned to streams, then would you compensate me for the new expense of  
>continuing the income from my avocado orchard?  Or will you have your new 

>environmental policy, and its undeniable benefits, at my expense? 
>>>  
>>> 
 
I don't think I would (as king) order anyone to cover their trees with
plastic or even presume to know all the solutions or methods to promote the
wellbeing of the environment. I do think that it makes sense that there be
compensation and payments when the government changes the value of ones
enterprise due to laws or regulations of zoning. I think it should go both
ways. But I would prefer that the government not have to be as invloved as
much as the free market. I prefer that you not be required to do anything
but pay the costs of whatever detremental effects you cause. If you wash
pesticides into the river you should pay. If you deplete the fish you
should pay. 
 
You can never really leave it as you found it. This would be a nice goal
but we are all part of the ecosystem and will always have an effect. I
believe that we need an economic system that doesn't allow for the
"externalization" of costs. When we do change something that is detremental
to our ecosystem we should be required to pay all of the costs. 
 
 
 
 
  
>>  
>>  
>>Here we go. We now have a point that we can build on. I would prefer 
>>zero-polluting cars also. How do you think we can get to zero-polluting 
>>cars without decreasing private property. Do you think that there are
ways 
>>that we can hold those who pollute responsible for the consequences. Are 
>>there any corporate subsidies to oil or car companies that promote this 
>>technology while at the same time decreasing the viability of the 
>>alternatives. How about the proposal to open up the California coast to
oil 
>>drilling. How much are we as citizens getting from the oil companies for 
>>these leases. I bet we are getting ripped off. 
> 
>It is my understanding that the successful bidder in an auction for these 

>leases must forfeit the lease if he or she chooses not to drill. So you
can not  
>acquire the lease to preserve it from drilling. The leases go to the
highest  
>bidder and the govt gets the money (if that's what you mean by "we as  
>citizens").  Who do you suspect is ripping us off, and how would they or
could  
>they go about not ripping us off, if they chose not to rip us off, and how
 
>would you know they were not ripping us off? 
> 
> 
> 
 
 
I have previously agreed that if oil leases are being sold on the free
market and everybody is allowed to bid than this is the free market in
action. In this case we are not being ripped off. I suggest that those of
us who don't want oil drilling start engaging in the bidding. This will
either decrease the drilling (prefered outcome) or it will drive the price
up. I had suspected that the government is ripping us (the citizens off) by
leasing below market cost. This would be similar to the way that the
goverment charges for grazing fees on federal land. I know that these fees
are well below market value.