Talk:Chem395:January 23 discussion

After logging into your account, please sign all comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Suitable discussion times

Tuesdays during the daytime (US EST) are good for me, also Wednesday afternoons or Thursday mornings. Walkerma 03:29, 21 January 2008 (EST)

General comments and discussion

OK, what questions do you have for me? How are you finding the navigation around the website? Do you know how to edit the wiki? Are you following Unit 1 OK?

Do incentives for corporations actually work? Such as the pollution permits? I'm not sure how well corporations respond to these initiatives. J-Fed 16:24, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I suspect the answer to that may depend on your politics! The consensus view, though, is that in many cases they do work. They are popular with those who prefer a market-based approach (such as is common in the US or UK) rather than a government intervention approach (as might be preferred in France or Germany). However, they often do achieve the desired effect, and in a way that is more acceptable to corporations. Walkerma 16:28, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Taxes on such permits could undermine innovation on some levels. I wonder how much these corporations determine their cost-benefit ratio when it comes to true profit and estimated profits. How do you begin to calculate these costs?J-Fed 16:27, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Not sure I fully understand - can you explain further?

• How would it undermine innovation - wouldn't it encourage corporations to innovate, to reduce the environmental costs of their old technology?
• What do you mean by "true profit" and "estimated profits"? Do you mean "including the environmental costs normally treated as externalities"?

(Notice how I got a bulleted list by using * at the beginning of the line.)Walkerma 16:32, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I see. Do you believe the economists and ecologists approach the problems we face on the environment as human benefits vs ecosystems? I feel that economists look at social benefits rather than the extinction of a species. J-Fed 16:33, 25 January 2008 (EST)

The assumption is, "How can we drive society and industry towards sustainability?" We will look at both the social aspects - trying to save the human race - but also how to preserve the "natural capital". But you're right, I think the emphasis is more on saving humanity rather than saving the snowy owl. The snowy owl only gets saved because it's seen as good for genetic diversity - something we humans want to preserve! But remember - this stuff is mainly for the benefit of corporations, who need to see some sort of benefit.... Walkerma 16:41, 25 January 2008 (EST)

So the key is to get corperations to have a real concern with all of the "small issues" as a whole. In doing this, said corperations wiould be willing to work towards a sustainability that is benificial to all parties concerned. (themselves and the environment)Murphy44 16:47, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I feel that the heart of this problem is how man views himself in terms of nature. Most people, I feel, view man as seperate from nature(the economist for example). People who are truly concerned with the well being of the natural world, such as ecologists, place man as part of nature which we are. This then makes environmental issues issues for all of man kind not just another costly problem industry has to solve. Murphy44 16:41, 25 January 2008 (EST)

yes, many corporations would increase their innovation and means of production. Some, however, may not choose to upgrade for fear of loosing profits in the short run. In the long run it would be better to upgrade immediately and be more efficient. Maximizing these true profits, rather than 'estimations' or projections would be wiser. J-Fed 16:37, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I think, though, you have to be realistic in most cases. You can't simply tear down the world's coal power stations (say) and declare them illegal. You can't legally require all the world's population to scrap their gasoline cars and buy electric vehicles instead. These changes would be much better for the environment, and much more efficient, but they would bankrupt the country. What you try to do instead is to (a) try to ensure that true environmental costs appear in the accounts columns, and (b) where possible, use taxation (both + and -) and legislation to drive companies (and consumers) towards renewable energy and electric cars, etc. In time, the company that doesn't innovate will become uncompetitive. Walkerma 16:47, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I was referring to true profits as those which are actually obtained and estimated profits as those which are projected and undetermined. They are speculative. I don't know if taxing such common resources is truly a workable solution to integrate economics and ecology. J-Fed 16:42, 25 January 2008 (EST)

No questions currently, I just picked up the text yesterday and haven't had a chance to begin reading as of yet. Navigation of the wiki site seems to be going well and I have read through the course materals that have been posted. Im learning to edit wiki as I type this and will post another edit once I have read through the first two chapters and have more questions. Murphy44 16:30, 25 January 2008 (EST)

• Chris, I like what you said. Corporations, economists and the scientists are all in the same boat. I think the externalities that are used in these market models and prices make it inadequate for the government and citizens to truly recognize the importance of the environment. J-Fed 16:46, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I was wondering what your view is on taxing abiotic resources such as air, land, water etc/ J-Fed 16:38, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I like the idea of a carbon tax - I think that could help. But I hadn't thought about taxation on land, water etc. I'd have to really think about it. Walkerma 16:50, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I was just wondering how long we are going till. =]