ext_48536 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
peristaltor.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2013-09-07 01:14 pm
peristaltor.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2013-09-07 01:14 pm
Entry tags:
Two Podcastic Perspectives on Wealth
Last February, NPR's Planet Money examined a unique strategy by Ecuador's government to preserve its Yasuni National Park, an isolated and wild place reached best by hours in a canoe. This is one of those places with amazing biodiversity, with more tree species in a hectare than most more northern countries have within their borders.
The problem threatening the Yasuni? It has oil, and President Correa, seeing the destruction other Latin American countries have suffered for oil exploration/extraction, wanted to avoid a similar fate for his most wild of national places. His solution: ask for money to preserve the park as is.
Seriously. Planet Money interviews those seeking to preserve the park by asking for money:
Sadly, the podcast to which I linked is an update. That $3.6 billion wasn't forthcoming, so Correa has no choice but to allow for some extraction. The park will undoubtedly suffer as a result.
The same week I heard that PM podcast, though, I also heard Seth and Justin over at the Extraenvironmentalist interview filmmaker John Dennis Liu in Episode #65: Restoring Function.
This Plateau sounds fascinating. Essentially, this is glacial dust (loess) from Himalaya erosion over thousands of years. It is also the seat of the Han Chinese civilization that spread out to become the most common ethnicity in that country today.
Why, then, was it a barren wasteland? Liu notes that, while the area has been farmed for millennia, the agricultural practices used slowly eroded the ecosystem to the point where the hydrological cycle was broken. The constant tilling had killed the soil biota to the point where the soil would not retain any water, so farmers were starving and the soil was blowing in sometimes massive storms that affected everyone downwind. Once it fell, it settled where it was not appreciated, such as in the Yellow River.
Visitors watch water gushing from the section of the Xiaolangdi Reservoir on the Yellow River, during a sand-washing operation
The Chinese government took an unusual step. They calculated these downwind and downstream costs, then added up the economic benefit the farmers on the Plateau contributed to the Chinese economy. The answer was extremely negative; the agricultural output was dwarfed by the impact the degraded ecology had on other parts of the country.
Here's the situation in a nutshell, according to Mr. Liu's article "Restoring Land and Hope in China" in New Agriculturalist magazine:
The Chinese government shut down the meager sorgum and corn crop farming. They gave the citizen food and jobs, first teaching them the basic goals the government ecologists had in mind. Those that were degrading the system the most were, well, prevented from continuing the degradation and given the job of policing the area to prevent others from engaging in this same activity.
The result? Judge for yourself.
Loess Plateau before restoration.
Loess Plateau after restoration.
Liu points out that China took an unusual step. It could. China is one of the few nations large enough to have an ecological disaster affect so many others within its borders. While economists call the negative effects of economic production "externalities", for China—a central government responsible for the whole of its economy—there are no such externalities, just cost shifts from one area to the other. Liu goes further, stating in the Extraenvironmental podcast that there are no such things as externalities at all. It's just a phrase economists coined to at least acknowledge the damage some activities had on other parts of the economy. It is a fiction, though, since really one cannot ignore the economic damage of any given activity without considering the negative impact it has elsewhere. One author quoted Liu from his movie:
In his EE interview, Liu suggested we have to "Naturalize the Economy" rather than exploit the ecology for economic gain. We have to return to what author John Michael Greer called The Wealth of Nature: Economics as If Survival Mattered. And nature cares not one whit for money. Money is, in fact, just an artifact, valued only by people. Money is not a measure of anything other than what people who issue and most widely use it value. If the people who issue money don't value functional ecosystems, they can put a price on destruction. Which is, as Liu points out, what happened on the Plateau.
Sadly, as David Graeber points out in his book Debt, money is just a way to move wealth from one place to another, to de-localize an economy. As long as the near-sustenance farmers on the Loess could sell even a meager portion of their crops for money to buy other things, they would continue and even accelerate the soil's degradation. China was big enough to realize this could not continue.
Which brings us back to Ecuador. Rafael Correa could not convince the international community to preserve the oxygen generator, the carbon sequester that is the Yasuni National Park. Why? Unlike most of Ecuador, the international community is addicted to oil, and has priced that precious goo beyond all efforts aimed at ecology preservation. If the US gives Ecuador money (which it didn't), it removes future reserves from extraction and thus raises the price of future oil. The US cannot put a price on losing such reserves from the market, since doing so would be to admit that they were addicted to the stuff.
And thus, the market works. Back to Graeber: "Money always has the potential to become a moral imperative unto itself. Allow it to expand, and it can quickly become a morality so imperative that all others seem frivolous in comparison. For the debtor, the world is reduced to a collection of potential dangers, potential tools, and potential merchandise." (David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Melville House Printing, 2011, p. 319.) Since Ecuador is poor, they are reduced to the status of debtor, and forced to sell their most valuable assets to raise themselves and their people out of poverty.
The perversion of this logic can be found in the Loess Plateau. As Herbert Stein put it in the economic law that bears his name, "Any system that can't go on forever, won't." China recognized this, and is taking steps to avoid future dust storms and clogged rivers, as well as increasing the agricultural production of the Plateau itself.
Our own US and western world's addiction to petroleum (and other ancient carbon fuels) can't go on forever either; every drive miles to the next frivolous destination has exactly the same effect as tilling barren soil. Without facing this hard fact, though, places like the Yasuni will continue to fall.
That hard truth, though, is impossible to relate to economists who dismiss any symptom of unsustainable practices with words like "externality."
The problem threatening the Yasuni? It has oil, and President Correa, seeing the destruction other Latin American countries have suffered for oil exploration/extraction, wanted to avoid a similar fate for his most wild of national places. His solution: ask for money to preserve the park as is.
Seriously. Planet Money interviews those seeking to preserve the park by asking for money:
As payment for preserving the wilderness and preventing an estimated 410 million metric tons of fossil fuel-generated carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere, Correa has asked the world to ante up in the fight against global warming. He is seeking $3.6 billion in compensation, roughly half of what Ecuador would have realized in revenues from exploiting the resource at 2007 prices. The money would be used, he says, to finance alternative energy and community development projects.
Sadly, the podcast to which I linked is an update. That $3.6 billion wasn't forthcoming, so Correa has no choice but to allow for some extraction. The park will undoubtedly suffer as a result.
The same week I heard that PM podcast, though, I also heard Seth and Justin over at the Extraenvironmentalist interview filmmaker John Dennis Liu in Episode #65: Restoring Function.
This Plateau sounds fascinating. Essentially, this is glacial dust (loess) from Himalaya erosion over thousands of years. It is also the seat of the Han Chinese civilization that spread out to become the most common ethnicity in that country today.
Why, then, was it a barren wasteland? Liu notes that, while the area has been farmed for millennia, the agricultural practices used slowly eroded the ecosystem to the point where the hydrological cycle was broken. The constant tilling had killed the soil biota to the point where the soil would not retain any water, so farmers were starving and the soil was blowing in sometimes massive storms that affected everyone downwind. Once it fell, it settled where it was not appreciated, such as in the Yellow River.Visitors watch water gushing from the section of the Xiaolangdi Reservoir on the Yellow River, during a sand-washing operation
The Chinese government took an unusual step. They calculated these downwind and downstream costs, then added up the economic benefit the farmers on the Plateau contributed to the Chinese economy. The answer was extremely negative; the agricultural output was dwarfed by the impact the degraded ecology had on other parts of the country.
Here's the situation in a nutshell, according to Mr. Liu's article "Restoring Land and Hope in China" in New Agriculturalist magazine:
We have been documenting China's Loess Plateau since 1995. When we got there we found a fundamentally degraded ecosystem. . . .
Work began initially in the Loess Plateau due to a silt problem. Erosion of the deep Loess soils was clogging the Yellow River with 600 million tons of soil every year. This had such downstream implications that it was decided that rehabilitation upstream, to lower erosion rates, would be less expensive. We had to control soil erosion from the slopes and this was coupled with action against desert encroachment in the north. If you don't fight it on every side it will overwhelm everything. You cannot just garden around the edges.
The Chinese government shut down the meager sorgum and corn crop farming. They gave the citizen food and jobs, first teaching them the basic goals the government ecologists had in mind. Those that were degrading the system the most were, well, prevented from continuing the degradation and given the job of policing the area to prevent others from engaging in this same activity.
The result? Judge for yourself.
Loess Plateau before restoration.
Loess Plateau after restoration.
Liu points out that China took an unusual step. It could. China is one of the few nations large enough to have an ecological disaster affect so many others within its borders. While economists call the negative effects of economic production "externalities", for China—a central government responsible for the whole of its economy—there are no such externalities, just cost shifts from one area to the other. Liu goes further, stating in the Extraenvironmental podcast that there are no such things as externalities at all. It's just a phrase economists coined to at least acknowledge the damage some activities had on other parts of the economy. It is a fiction, though, since really one cannot ignore the economic damage of any given activity without considering the negative impact it has elsewhere. One author quoted Liu from his movie:
The products and services that we derive from [functional ecosystems] are derivatives. It's impossible for the derivatives to be more valuable than the source. And yet in our economy now, as it stands, the products and services have monetary values, but the source—the functional ecosystems—are zero. So this cannot be true. It, it's false. So we've created a global institution . . . economic institutions and economic theory based on a flaw in logic. So if we carry that flaw in logic from generation to generation we compound the mistake. -John D. Liu [38:44]
(I underlined and edited.)
In his EE interview, Liu suggested we have to "Naturalize the Economy" rather than exploit the ecology for economic gain. We have to return to what author John Michael Greer called The Wealth of Nature: Economics as If Survival Mattered. And nature cares not one whit for money. Money is, in fact, just an artifact, valued only by people. Money is not a measure of anything other than what people who issue and most widely use it value. If the people who issue money don't value functional ecosystems, they can put a price on destruction. Which is, as Liu points out, what happened on the Plateau.
Sadly, as David Graeber points out in his book Debt, money is just a way to move wealth from one place to another, to de-localize an economy. As long as the near-sustenance farmers on the Loess could sell even a meager portion of their crops for money to buy other things, they would continue and even accelerate the soil's degradation. China was big enough to realize this could not continue.
Which brings us back to Ecuador. Rafael Correa could not convince the international community to preserve the oxygen generator, the carbon sequester that is the Yasuni National Park. Why? Unlike most of Ecuador, the international community is addicted to oil, and has priced that precious goo beyond all efforts aimed at ecology preservation. If the US gives Ecuador money (which it didn't), it removes future reserves from extraction and thus raises the price of future oil. The US cannot put a price on losing such reserves from the market, since doing so would be to admit that they were addicted to the stuff.
And thus, the market works. Back to Graeber: "Money always has the potential to become a moral imperative unto itself. Allow it to expand, and it can quickly become a morality so imperative that all others seem frivolous in comparison. For the debtor, the world is reduced to a collection of potential dangers, potential tools, and potential merchandise." (David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Melville House Printing, 2011, p. 319.) Since Ecuador is poor, they are reduced to the status of debtor, and forced to sell their most valuable assets to raise themselves and their people out of poverty.
The perversion of this logic can be found in the Loess Plateau. As Herbert Stein put it in the economic law that bears his name, "Any system that can't go on forever, won't." China recognized this, and is taking steps to avoid future dust storms and clogged rivers, as well as increasing the agricultural production of the Plateau itself.
Our own US and western world's addiction to petroleum (and other ancient carbon fuels) can't go on forever either; every drive miles to the next frivolous destination has exactly the same effect as tilling barren soil. Without facing this hard fact, though, places like the Yasuni will continue to fall.
That hard truth, though, is impossible to relate to economists who dismiss any symptom of unsustainable practices with words like "externality."
no subject
Or strengthens. If the citizenry cannot afford suburbs, they don't economically suffer when the cost of fuel makes their homes unaffordable.
Technological progress is a good thing.
Shades of grey, actually. Some progress is a good thing. The US, though, has used a powerful technology (cheap transportation) to divide itself into ever-growing class differences and unsustainable communities. This the addiction thing I mentioned; when the fuel is no longer cheap, these lifestyles are no longer possible, and that becomes a problem.
Before you jump all over my mention of "class differences," consider what happens when people who grew up with a strong racial and social divide—whites with lots of money living in the gated 'burbs, blacks and others in the cities, the poor where ever they can eek out a living—suddenly find themselves forced to live as their ancestors once did, side by side with the racial and social minorities they don't really like. It could be a good thing, true; it could also be explosive.
no subject
If the citizenry cannot afford suburbs, they won't be in suburbs anymore. This is not an issue of taxes, but of basic market economics. Of course, if the citizenry can afford suburbs, but the government has made the tax structure as such where the suburbs are unattainable, that's a problem of policy.
The US, though, has used a powerful technology (cheap transportation) to divide itself into ever-growing class differences and unsustainable communities.
This is outright ridiculous. Is technological progress a good thing? Yes. Is technological progress 100% positive? Of course not. Is technological progress the cause of "class differences and unsustainable communities?" That's absolutely laughable. Those are, again, mostly the fault of policies put in place independent of technology, thanks to attempts at central planning, taxation-as-behavior-modification, and so on. Technology, more often than not, is the great equalizer in the areas where government has caused great problems.
This the addiction thing I mentioned; when the fuel is no longer cheap, these lifestyles are no longer possible, and that becomes a problem.
When the fuel is no longer cheap, a better alternative comes into play. It must, as a basic market point. And as it will impact all prices, and thus have to impact all wages, the net result will not be lawless disaster, but rather societal adjustment as it always has every other time there's been a shock to the system when it comes to technology and resources.
Humans are not "addicted" to oxygen. Society is not "addicted" to oil.
Before you jump all over my mention of "class differences," consider what happens when people who grew up with a strong racial and social divide—whites with lots of money living in the gated 'burbs, blacks and others in the cities, the poor where ever they can eek out a living—suddenly find themselves forced to live as their ancestors once did, side by side with the racial and social minorities they don't really like. It could be a good thing, true; it could also be explosive.
I'm hesitant to even dive into this one for any number of reasons, but if you think technology is segregating us as opposed to knocking down those walls, I can't even see your point of view to address it, never mind refute it.
no subject
Yes, exactly! Therefore, there's a problem looming. What happens to the wealth invested by all the homeowners living in the no-longer-affordable 'burbs? As James Howard Kunstler puts it, the scattered, diffuse and overly-spread suburban development is temporary and perhaps the greatest mis-allocation of resources in the history of the human species. It makes the Maginot Line look like a hobby by comparison.
Is technological progress the cause of "class differences and unsustainable communities?"
Again, you're missing the point. Tech in this case was not the direct cause, but rather an enabling factor. "White flight" as we know it was made possible by cheap transportation. When it is no longer cheap, things will return to normal, which might not be an alternative acceptable to many.
A friend with a very racist family notes of one uncle who moved the minute the neighborhood got too "shady." He wound up moving so far away he had to rent an apartment near work and only visit his house on weekends. Without cheap transport, he would have had to suck it up and live with his "shady" neighbors.
So, as opposed to thinking that "technology is segregating us as opposed to knocking down those walls," I think the opposite; it allows us to live near whom we want, exacerbating tensions between groups through the resulting segregation. The tech is not the force segregating; we are, and we can with help from tech.
Humans are not "addicted" to oxygen. Society is not "addicted" to oil.
Try living without either. Get back to me with how that worked out.
no subject
I didn't think you actually took such a ridiculous theoretical seriously.
Tech in this case was not the direct cause, but rather an enabling factor. "White flight" as we know it was made possible by cheap transportation. When it is no longer cheap, things will return to normal, which might not be an alternative acceptable to many.
Ah, the "we're still as racist as ever" defense.
Technology isn't what enabled "white flight," wealth and legalized discrimination did. It's no wonder that the rise of suburbia happened while Jim Crow laws, which mandated discrimination, were still in effect. The white folks get money that the black folks can't get at, and they buy bigger houses and nicer cars in places where only they can get the jobs. Quite the racket that was set up, no?
The technology well predates the situation you speak of.
So, as opposed to thinking that "technology is segregating us as opposed to knocking down those walls," I think the opposite; it allows us to live near whom we want, exacerbating tensions between groups through the resulting segregation. The tech is not the force segregating; we are, and we can with help from tech.
As I said, I can't even begin to see that point of view. There's a reason the "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog" thing is so resonant, you know.
Try living without either. Get back to me with how that worked out.
You're making my point. Oil, like oxygen, is not an addiction. We cannot quit any time we want. It's a need.
no subject
The realization that the people will suffer when their homes become worth less than what they paid for them is "ridiculous?" We must have different definitions of that word.
Ah, the "we're still as racist as ever"
defenseobservation.FTFY.
As to your argument, before the cars were available people had to keep those they didn't value out of their neighborhoods through Sundown clauses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town) and outright threats of violence. As soon as additional mobility became available, these clauses were seen for what they are, racist. Therefore, no, the tech did NOT predate the situation.
Oil, like oxygen, is not an addiction. We cannot quit any time we want. It's a need.
No, it isn't. We had civilizations before we exploited oil's energy, and we could easily have civilizations after the oil dwindles. (Oxygen, yes, is less optional.)
The key is to step off the horse slowly and avoid the more devastating effects of withdrawal. We can't do that if we refuse to cut back our use until the last drop nigh.
no subject
More the idea that suburbia is temporary and the resources are misallocated because of it.
As to your argument, before the cars were available people had to keep those they didn't value out of their neighborhoods through Sundown clauses and outright threats of violence. As soon as additional mobility became available, these clauses were seen for what they are, racist. Therefore, no, the tech did NOT predate the situation.
Oh come on now. You're now ignoring my point in favor of more government action masked as market activity. Stop it.
No, it isn't. We had civilizations before we exploited oil's energy, and we could easily have civilizations after the oil dwindles. (Oxygen, yes, is less optional.)
I suppose if we want to go back to a pre-oil age, sure. That would be really, really, really dumb, though.
The key is to step off the horse slowly and avoid the more devastating effects of withdrawal. We can't do that if we refuse to cut back our use until the last drop nigh.
Or, conversely, use the progress we've made.
no subject
Stop what?!? I have no idea what you're trying to convey. Are you saying there were no Sundown laws before the automobile? That no one was racist except in the Civil War?
I suppose if we want to go back to a pre-oil age, sure. That would be really, really, really dumb, though.
Or inevitable. We'll see. I for one would like the gadgets and gizmos I have come to love to still work when we get there. We can, if we "use the progress we've made" to bridge the two eras.
We can't, though, make that bridge successful if we don't plan for the inevitable. Continuing consumption acceleration as usual is simply out of the question, not if you want the transition to be un-sucky.
no subject
I'm saying that the government is not the marketplace.
no subject
Yes, I've heard that trope tossed off many times before. Repetition only makes something true psychologically, not in reality.
When anyone (including a government) spends or buys in the market, that's market activity. When a people through their representatives wish to accomplish something that only the majority of the people can afford, they get the government to act on their behalf.
Deal with it.
no subject
no subject
No, granted. For me, it is more like an umpire or referee overseeing a market to ensure its fairness. Most importantly, a market without the oversight of its citizens is like a game without rules, the chaos of Calvin ball, where the most dominant players can make up the rules to fit their personal advantages.
So when a government participates in a market, yes, it "distorts" that market. Hopefully, the distortions will be beneficial over time. I know, I know, they often aren't. That doesn't mean the logic allowing these actions isn't sound.