"Developing countries with weak property rights and low environmental standards are the main cause for marine litter. Pushing internationally for stronger property rights in countries such as China, Indonesia, or Brazil" Not sure what his point is? 'Strong' property rights have led to much more transitory populations getting booted out of their homes, ceteris paribus less likely to care about litter. And then you have Singapore.
M and MW. I think that's the opposite of what you think. People with strong property rights tend to be more careful of their environments. Just look at things like the Aral Sea.
How much was the Aral Sea disaster the result of the region being part of the Soviet Union, which wanted (for political reasons) to be as self-sufficient as possible and didn't have any wetter territories that were warm enough for cotton cultivation?
It is notable that in Nazi Germany (another regime which aspired to be autarkic) once of the most common gripes that ordinary Germans had with the regime (as noted by the Gestapo) was that they had to wear synthetic clothing as cotton was unavailable...
Ok, if you want to stop pollution of the oceans, but it makes sense cutting back on single use plastics if you want to conserve the finite resource that is oil.
B. Strictly speaking oil supply is not 'finite'. Resources are created not consumed. You could grow oil. You might use gas to oil or coal to oil plants. In any event as it became scarce substitutes would be found - hydrogen for example. And H is super abundant.
6 comments:
"Developing countries with weak property rights and low environmental standards are the main cause for marine litter. Pushing internationally for stronger property rights in countries such as China, Indonesia, or Brazil"
Not sure what his point is? 'Strong' property rights have led to much more transitory populations getting booted out of their homes, ceteris paribus less likely to care about litter. And then you have Singapore.
M, good point, why he put in that irrelevance is not clear.
M and MW. I think that's the opposite of what you think. People with strong property rights tend to be more careful of their environments. Just look at things like the Aral Sea.
How much was the Aral Sea disaster the result of the region being part of the Soviet Union, which wanted (for political reasons) to be as self-sufficient as possible and didn't have any wetter territories that were warm enough for cotton cultivation?
It is notable that in Nazi Germany (another regime which aspired to be autarkic) once of the most common gripes that ordinary Germans had with the regime (as noted by the Gestapo) was that they had to wear synthetic clothing as cotton was unavailable...
"ban littering"
Ok, if you want to stop pollution of the oceans, but it makes sense cutting back on single use plastics if you want to conserve the finite resource that is oil.
B. Strictly speaking oil supply is not 'finite'. Resources are created not consumed. You could grow oil. You might use gas to oil or coal to oil plants. In any event as it became scarce substitutes would be found - hydrogen for example. And H is super abundant.
Post a Comment