![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
peristaltor.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsLast 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)
Date: 8/9/13 18:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/9/13 19:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/9/13 19:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/9/13 21:47 (UTC)Some of the tactics used by resource extractors led to the socialism you were complaining about elsewhere. The chuckle heads who dumped whatever where they pleased, bribed the officials to look the other way and hired the private death squads when they didn't, all of this had the effect of saying, "If we socialize our stuff, we don't have to deal with these assholes."
(no subject)
Date: 8/9/13 21:59 (UTC)You're mixing two ideas here. The fate of Latin American countries is not necessarily tied to oil and the ecology. Correa is making a case based on ecological grounds, and it's not a strong one. It's also not one that applies to, say, Venezuela, which is in a deep hole due to mistaken oil economics and a brutal regime, not ecology.
Some of the tactics used by resource extractors led to the socialism you were complaining about elsewhere.
Correa is entirely able to stop the spread of socialism within his own borders. He's the president, after all.
The chuckle heads who dumped whatever where they pleased, bribed the officials to look the other way and hired the private death squads when they didn't, all of this had the effect of saying, "If we socialize our stuff, we don't have to deal with these assholes."
Short-sighted to the max in the rare cases that actually happened as you said. That does not mean that Correa learned the right lesson by saying "well, then no one gets the oil." Plenty of nations have democracy and oil production.
(no subject)
Date: 8/9/13 21:38 (UTC)Think about it: the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to the group's long-term best interests.
(no subject)
Date: 8/9/13 21:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 01:13 (UTC)Or, to put it in the simplest terms, wealth =/=virtue.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 11:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 14:20 (UTC)Consider the hypothetical Acme Manufacturing Company. Their line of roadrunner extermination products having gone kaput (there was only one guy in the desert Southwest buying them, turns out), they are looking at rolling out one of two possible products on the market. One nets them $10 profit per unit sold, but tests show it is dangerous to children and household pets and leaches toxic chemicals into the environment. The other is perfectly safe but only nets them $9 per unit sold. Both are totally legal to manufacture and sell. All other things being the same, it is in the company's best interest to sell the dangerous product because it makes an additional dollar of profit per unit.
Or, if you prefer real-world examples, consider these three dangerous compounds:
DDT. First used on large-scale basis in the 1930s. Tied to large-scale wildlife deaths and cancer and diabetes in humans in the 1950s. Banned in 1972.
Asbestos. First used on large-scale basis in the 1890s. Tied to various human ailments including several types of cancer as early as 1956. Banned in 1989 in the U.S.
Neoniconitid pesticides. First developed in the 1980s by petroleum engineers. Linked to bee colony collapse (you know, the critters we depend on a third of our food supply for) in the last 10 years. Still widely used in the U.S. and other countries.
In each case the harmful side effects to things other than the manufacturers' bottom line was evident long before the products were regulated. In all cases the manufacturers acted in their best interest and totally legally despite the clear and long-standing evidence of the damage done.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 14:30 (UTC)I've always read into it as the best society is one where everyone is acting in their own self-interest, in part because it's inevitable (every action is done in the name of self-interest) and in part because a person's self-interest is best served with societal structure, even if there's disagreement about how to create it.
The other is perfectly safe but only nets them $9 per unit sold. Both are totally legal to manufacture and sell. All other things being the same, it is in the company's best interest to sell the dangerous product because it makes an additional dollar of profit per unit.
This assumes that "self-interest" begins and ends at the financial bottom line, or that the financial bottom line is not impacted by being held responsible for the toxins, or that the financial bottom line is not impacted by the bad press, etc.
In each case the harmful side effects to things other than the manufacturers' bottom line was evident long before the products were regulated. In all cases the manufacturers acted in their best interest and totally legally despite the clear and long-standing evidence of the damage done.
I'd argue that "evident" is rather subjective. In the case of DDT, for example, we can quite possibly tie the explosion of malaria to the end of the use of DDT, which then raises the question as to which "self-interest" was being served, and whether we made the right choices at all.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 16:49 (UTC)I believe private for-profit companies exist for the purpose of making profits. So I would say it ultimately does begin and end at the bottom line. If my hypothetical company decided to make the $9 profit product instead, it would only be because they anticipated a costly PR nightmare if they went with the $10 product. It always comes down to the financial bottom line.
And you can't blame DDT for the increase in malaria, because there are other (arguably safer) pesticides on the market that are just as good at killing mosquitos. But they are also more expensive, so the blame still lies with the mechanism of corporate self-interest. I don't see any of these corporations that make these equally effective but more expensive pesticides offering to sell it to developing nations at cost or even at a loss- because, again, that would be against their self-interests. If they chose to do so, it would not be to save lives but rather for warm fuzzy fell-good points with the public.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 17:00 (UTC)So do you make more profit with the $9 product as is, or the $10 product with possible recalls, legal problems, and fewer future sales with an angry customer base?
Thus the self-interest is both concerned with the bottom line and doing the "right" thing.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 19:19 (UTC)I can think of half a dozen companies where this is exactly their modus operandus. Comcast wouldn't have customers if you didn't count the angry ones. Also, there are a few others that were taught a legal lesson only after they lost a key lawsuit challenging said MO. The biggest that comes to mind is McDonalds. The movie Hot Coffee well documents what happened there.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 20:50 (UTC)The McDonald's case was unjustly ruled in favor of the woman, IMO.
(no subject)
Date: 10/9/13 00:21 (UTC)I'd actually agree with that. Corporate capture at its most egregious.
The McDonald's case was unjustly ruled in favor of the woman, IMO.
I heard details of the case from overhearing some trial lawyers that stunned me (and the jury, it seems). Those details were critical (and offer a brilliant counter-point to completely unfettered market activity!).
If you base your decision only on the media coverage, it's not surprising to me that you would reach that conclusion. Why people continue to describe the media as other than overwhelmingly corporate is still stunning to me. I long for the days out media was more liberal, more progressive.
(no subject)
Date: 10/9/13 00:30 (UTC)Oy.
If you base your decision only on the media coverage
I don't. I reckon we've seen close to the same amount of information on it.
(no subject)
Date: 10/9/13 03:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/9/13 11:35 (UTC)I don't agree with this, either. Many corporate entities are concerned with morality.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 23:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 23:45 (UTC)