Posts by Raf Manji
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Michael,
I wouldn't say that. I think you made an important point. Water is of exceptional importance, as a raw resource, an input to production and its value as an ecosystem service.
I think we need to look very carefully at allowing massive abstraction of water for irrigation purposes. It's one thing taking water from rivers that would just flow out to sea but another taking water from aquifers which are losing volume.
A story today is a reminder. In Brazil a plane went off the end of the runway in wet weather killing many hundreds of people. It turns out that recommendations were made to lengthen the runway many times and everyone agreed. However, economic considerations dictated that nothing was ever done. Ditto New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina.
When politicians say there isn't enough money to do something or it will have a negative economic impact we should examine things very closely.
Dairy farming should pay its way on all counts and that includes paying the true cost for the water it uses.
-
Michael,
I gave nitrogen as an example of an externality. Effluent run off is another. Work has been done on this in the UK (Jules Pretty at the University of Essex) and NZ (Steve Wratten at Lincoln University) and others are working on it.
As it happens i was one of the developers of Trucost which is based in the UK but founded here in NZ (see www.trucost.com).
So just to clarify i believe everyone should pay the true costs of their activity. Where physical limits are required then they come into play also. You can read more about this at my blog.
-
Some good points here and funny stories (Robyn!).
Eco guilt like eco consciousness is simply a process of evolution. When you come out the other side you relax and realise that the marketwill solve it way better than any bureaucratic intervention.
As Kyle and Nate note when externalities (those costs we don't pay for now but will do at some point) are priced into the system then consumers will make their normal purchasing decisions.
It's easy enough to price in the external cost of say dairy farming since its measurable and can be charged easily (ie levy per cow/tonne of nitrogen etc). Its also a local issue and therefore easy to manage.
Measuring the cost of carbon is a lot harder and its a global issue which is why its so hard to do much about it. Eventually something will happen but it wont be solved by silly ideas like Kyoto.
Bottom line: As a consumer you can only react to whats in front of you: price, quality (which includes environmental aspects) and brand (which includes ethical principles).
So forget the guilt.........worry more about attachment to material possessions but that's another story :-)
-
Actually Neil is spot on. The problem we have now is an enormous supply of cash, or more correctly debt in the form of money, sloshing around the global economy.
The Japanese have been printing yen for 10 years flat out and the money supply of all major nations has been expanded at a rate not often seen before.
Does no one wonder how house prices can increase 143% in the last 8 years when inflation has been 20%? Well the money supply has expanded 100%!
So much for price stability.
Globally there is major asset inflation and consumer goods deflation. CPI numbers in all the major nations are being measured incorrectly.
So in terms of managing the currency the intervention is all very well but really nothing more than a warning shot for people to be careful.
To do that and then in your next speech talk about inflationary pressures is mind boggling.
Cutting rates is a much better idea and then restrain the actual money supply by reining in bank lending. Suddenly banks might start looking more closely at property valuations.