Article View: ca.environment
Article #7061Re: What "takings"? Private property? Ecology
From: Jim Barrett
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 00:00
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 00:00
63 lines
2762 bytes
2762 bytes
In ca.environment Mark.O.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark.O.Wilson) said: >In article <3oojen$2eg@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com>, Rick Herrick says... > >>Mining interests don't consider leaving a gaping >>scar in the mountains as a cost. > >If it's their land. So what? > Often times it is our land. Mining is often done on federally owned land that has been leased to mining companies at a cost far below the actual value. The cost of environmental destruction has been historically undervalued and externalized. Many companies do not consider the price enough to warrent caring for the land. This is a problem in the valuation of the land. The free market will argue that if it were more valuable it would be priced higher. I argue that if I promote the notion that the environment is a value this will increase demand and therefore price. >>Timber companies don't consider eroded bald mountains >>to be a cost. > >If it's their land, so what? ------- If they try and sell the land one should not pay as much for it. When one sells land with trees on it we should charge more for it (in particular when the land is owned by the government). If we recycle and buy produts that are recycled this will increase the demand for recycled products. If we buy products made out of alternative paper sources this will increase the demand for the alternatives. If we as a society begin to equate the environment and the economy it shall be so. >>Farming interests in the Midwest don't consider the loss of millions >>of tons of topsoil annually to be a cost > >Actually farmers do consider it a cost, which is why they try to avoid it. But >anyway, the farmers are the ones bearing the cost of this cost. > As it should be. It should be passed on to the consumer. They should also pay the cost of the increased health care due to any use of pesticides. At this point they do not. >>So is requiring a timber company to restore forestlands fair? > >If it is their land, it is not fair. >-- But it is certainly fair to say that I consider their land to be worthless.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3patsb$es@tuna.hooked.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<3nmquk$d5v@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3o3usb$b38@news.panix.com> <3o5t8s$ksl@hpscit.sc.hp.com> <D89yJt.M12@attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> <3oojen$2eg@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com><D8MDp4.6GF@attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10df74,b7b23e3700f6d4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid10df74,public From: jimbar@tuna.hooked.net (Jim Barrett) Subject: Re: What "takings"? Private property? Ecology Date: 1995/05/16 Message-ID: <3patsb$es@tuna.hooked.net> X-Deja-AN: 102749953 references: <3nmquk$d5v@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3o3usb$b38@news.panix.com> <3o5t8s$ksl@hpscit.sc.hp.com> <D89yJt.M12@attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> <3oojen$2eg@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com><D8MDp4.6GF@attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> organization: hooked newsgroups: ca.environment