- Aug 20, 2005
The pricing of environmental damage is very much apart of economic calculation under a market economy, what it requires is clearly defined and protected property rights. If Company A wants to dump their toxic waste into Joe farmer’s dam, they are not permitted to do so without Joe’s permission. Joe might require compensation to allow it to happen, he could ask for the waste to be treated first to bring the toxicity down he could ask for a monitoring plan to be established to ensure the waste isn’t toxic, etc. all of which company A needs to price into their cost structure to ensure they remain profitable.
So who’s property rights are the upper atmosphere? How do pollutants get priced in?What about long term effects or run off into a neighbouring property?
Do we need the NZ approach? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...iver-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being
Then joe can gagf because the land owns itself.
Joes rights’ in your example are an artificial construct anyway we created for our own purposes. They are very useful and clearly have many pros but weren’t set up to protect the environment or social goods. We’ve seen the market fail to deliver in this space multiple times because the market by its nature finds any way to exploit a free or low cost resource.