[saymaListserv] Fwd: Re: Speaking truth to mutterings

[Janet Minshall]

>Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 14:19:12 -0400
>To: "Steve Woodall" <woodshall at bellsouth.net>
>From: Janet  Minshall <jhminshall at comcast.net>
>Subject: Re: Speaking truth to mutterings
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>Thank you Woody.  Janet
>
>
>Janet,
>
>I should have replied earlier and thanked you for your courageous voice
>concerning globalization.  Now there are two reasons to thank you, the
>second being your May 3rd e-mail concerning the environment.
>
>As someone who earned a PhD in forest hydrology, worked as a researcher for
>the U.S. Forest Service for 7 years, worked 11 years in one of the most
>stringent hazardous waste regulatory programs in the country (Georgia's) and
>who subsequently observed the regulated community from my vantage point as
>an environmental consultant (working for a Canadian consulting engineering
>firm for 6 years), I have some experience in knowing what is working and
>what is not working concerning the environment.  Our cities are greener than
>ever, and the ivory-billed woodpecker survived on its own, with no help from
>humans.  George Bush has charged the Army Corps of Engineers with replacing
>the "no net loss" policy on wetlands with a policy of expanding wetlands
>(meaning that we are now creating large wetlands to compensate for impacts
>on small areas of wetlands).
>
>Truth 1:  there are good ideas and bad ideas, not good people and bad
>people.  Sierra Clubbers and Quakers can have both kinds of ideas; real
>estate developers and industrialists can too.  Truth 2:  The physical earth
>and the biological world are resilient.  Human resilience (well-documented)
>is a reflection of the general resilience of nature.  Corollary 1:  we can
>out-live the bad ideas.  Corollary 2: the good ideas should be embraced, no
>matter who expresses them.
>
>You and I may not end up on the same side of every controversy, but it is
>refreshing to hear a Quaker who has good credentials regarding social and
>personal justice (you) speak out against the anti-intellectual bias that is
>creeping into FGC meetings.  Thank you.
>
>Woody (Steve Woodall)
>office:  404/315-7395
>mobile: 678/431-0725
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: afmdiscussion at yahoogroups.com [mailto:afmdiscussion at yahoogroups.com]
>>On Behalf Of Janet Minshall
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 12:57 PM
>>To: afmdiscussion at yahoogroups.com; sayma at kitenet.net;
>>earthcare at yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: [afmdiscussion] Does This Sound Familiar? (Relevant to the
>>Testimony on Truth and the Proposed Testimony on Care of the Earth)
>>
>>Dear Friends, I think this article is
>>particularly timely for SAYMA Friends right now.
>>It makes a point that I've been trying to make in
>>messages and articles for several years, but this
>>piece makes the point more clearly.  We can help
>>the environment considerably more than we do by
>>understanding and promoting economically sound
>>proposals to fix what is broken.   We can also be
>>more effective as environmentalists by checking
>>our facts and being sure that what we say about
>>the environment is accurate and well founded (For
>>some painfully truthful discussion of commonly
>>misunderstood issues read
>>   The Skeptical Environmentalist, 2004, by Bjorn
>>Lomborg, a former Greenpeace activist).
>>			 In Peace, Janet Minshall   
>>
>>
>>Environmental economics
>>Rescuing environmentalism
>>Apr 21st 2005
>>From The Economist print edition
>>Market forces could prove the environment's best
>>friend-if only greens could learn to love them
>>
>>"THE environmental movement's foundational
>>concepts, its method for framing legislative
>>proposals, and its very institutions are
>>outmoded. Today environmentalism is just another
>>special interest." Those damning words come not
>>from any industry lobby or right-wing think-tank.
>>They are drawn from "The Death of
>>Environmentalism", an influential essay published
>>recently by two greens with impeccable
>>credentials. They claim that environmental groups
>>are politically adrift and dreadfully out of
>>touch.
>>
>>They are right. In America, greens have suffered
>>a string of defeats on high-profile issues. They
>>are losing the battle to prevent oil drilling in
>>Alaska's wild lands, and have failed to spark the
>>public's imagination over global warming. Even
>>the stridently ungreen George Bush has failed to
>>galvanise the environmental movement. The
>>solution, argue many elders of the sect, is to
>>step back from day-to-day politics and policies
>>and "energise" ordinary punters with talk of
>>global-warming calamities and a radical "vision
>>of the future commensurate with the magnitude of
>>the crisis".
>>
>>Europe's green groups, while politically
>>stronger, are also starting to lose their way
>>intellectually. Consider, for example, their
>>invocation of the woolly "precautionary
>>principle" to demonise any complex technology
>>(next-generation nuclear plants, say, or
>>genetically modified crops) that they do not like
>>the look of. A more sensible green analysis of
>>nuclear power would weigh its (very high)
>>economic costs and (fairly low) safety risks
>>against the important benefit of generating
>>electricity with no greenhouse-gas emissions.
>>Small victories and bigger defeats
>>
>>The coming into force of the UN's Kyoto protocol
>>on climate change might seem a victory for
>>Europe's greens, but it actually masks a larger
>>failure. The most promising aspect of the
>>treaty-its innovative use of market-based
>>instruments such as carbon-emissions trading-was
>>resisted tooth and nail by Europe's greens. With
>>courageous exceptions, American green groups also
>>remain deeply suspicious of market forces.
>>
>>If environmental groups continue to reject
>>pragmatic solutions and instead drift toward
>>Utopian (or dystopian) visions of the future,
>>they will lose the battle of ideas. And that
>>would be a pity, for the world would benefit from
>>having a thoughtful green movement. It would also
>>be ironic, because far-reaching advances are
>>already under way in the management of the
>>world's natural resources-changes that add up to
>>a different kind of green revolution. This could
>>yet save the greens (as well as doing the planet
>>a world of good).
>>
>>"Mandate, regulate, litigate." That has been the
>>green mantra. And it explains the world's
>>top-down, command-and-control approach to
>>environmental policymaking. Slowly, this is
>>changing. Yesterday's failed hopes, today's heavy
>>costs and tomorrow's demanding ambitions have
>>been driving public policy quietly towards
>>market-based approaches. One example lies in the
>>assignment of property rights over "commons",
>>such as fisheries, that are abused because they
>>belong at once to everyone and no one. Where
>>tradable fishing quotas have been issued, the
>>result has been a drop in over-fishing. Emissions
>>trading is also taking off. America led the way
>>with its sulphur-dioxide trading scheme, and
>>today the EU is pioneering carbon-dioxide trading
>>with the (albeit still controversial) goal of
>>slowing down climate change.
>>
>>These, however, are obvious targets. What is
>>really intriguing are efforts to value previously
>>ignored "ecological services", both basic ones
>>such as water filtration and flood prevention,
>>and luxuries such as preserving wildlife. At the
>>same time, advances in environmental science are
>>making those valuation studies more accurate.
>>Market mechanisms can then be employed to achieve
>>these goals at the lowest cost. Today, countries
>>from Panama to Papua New Guinea are investigating
>>ways to price nature in this way (see article).
>>Rachel Carson meets Adam Smith
>>
>>If this new green revolution is to succeed,
>>however, three things must happen. The most
>>important is that prices must be set correctly.
>>The best way to do this is through liquid
>>markets, as in the case of emissions trading.
>>Here, politics merely sets the goal. How that
>>goal is achieved is up to the traders.
>>
>>A proper price, however, requires proper
>>information. So the second goal must be to
>>provide it. The tendency to regard the
>>environment as a "free good" must be tempered
>>with an understanding of what it does for
>>humanity and how. Thanks to the recent Millennium
>>Ecosystem Assessment and the World Bank's annual
>>"Little Green Data Book" (released this week),
>>that is happening. More work is needed, but
>>thanks to technologies such as satellite
>>observation, computing and the internet, green
>>accounting is getting cheaper and easier.
>>
>>Which leads naturally to the third goal, the
>>embrace of cost-benefit analysis. At this, greens
>>roll their eyes, complaining that it reduces
>>nature to dollars and cents. In one sense, they
>>are right. Some things in nature are
>>irreplaceable-literally priceless. Even so, it is
>>essential to consider trade-offs when analysing
>>almost all green problems. The marginal cost of
>>removing the last 5% of a given pollutant is
>>often far higher than removing the first 5% or
>>even 50%: for public policy to ignore such facts
>>would be inexcusable.
>>
>>If governments invest seriously in green data
>>acquisition and co-ordination, they will no
>>longer be flying blind. And by advocating
>>data-based, analytically rigorous policies rather
>>than pious appeals to "save the planet", the
>>green movement could overcome the scepticism of
>>the ordinary voter. It might even move from the
>>fringes of politics to the middle ground where
>>most voters reside.
>>
>>Whether the big environmental groups join or not,
>>the next green revolution is already under way.
>>Rachel Carson, the crusading journalist who
>>inspired greens in the 1950s and 60s, is joining
>>hands with Adam Smith, the hero of
>>free-marketeers. The world may yet leapfrog from
>>the dark ages of clumsy, costly,
>>command-and-control regulations to an enlightened
>>age of informed, innovative, incentive-based
>>greenery.
>>
>>Copyright C 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group.
>>
>>
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
>>In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
>>At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
>>http://us.click.yahoo.com/hjtSRD/3MnJAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>><*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afmdiscussion/
>>
>><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>     afmdiscussion-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>>
>><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>