The other day I said Hillary's environmental plan is bogus. I found it to be especially disingenuous and pandering. In the multipage plan she used "Green" 44 times and "Conservation" 1 time, "Conserve" zero. Nobody reads my posts but if you want to it is here
Before anyone says, yeah but what about Obama, what about Edwards, it is better.....They all suck because they are dishonest.
In my view Obama is the most honest and while talking more about social issues than environmental, Obama is correct this is a Generational Problem.
Before anyone says, "I am tired of the Boomer-bashing," get over yourself. It is not about boomers, it is about your parents and their parents and their parents and an economic system that discounts the lives of future generations. Keep reading if want the simple truth.
I am sorry that I cannot find a simple graph that explains the problem visually, so I will have to do it verbally.
First off, the fundamental definition.
Externality
A situation in which the private costs or benefits to the producers or purchasers of a good or service differs from the total social costs or benefits entailed in its production and consumption. An externality exists whenever one individual's actions affect the well-being of another individual -- whether for the better or for the worse -- in ways that need not be paid for according to the existing definition of property rights in the society. An "external diseconomy," "external cost" or "negative externality" results when part of the cost of producing a good or service is born by a firm or household other than the producer or purchaser. An "external economy," "external benefit," or "positive externality" results when part of the benefit of producing or consuming a good or service accrues to a firm or household other than that which produces or purchases it. Example: If one neighbor decides to repaint his house and spruce up his yard so he can get a better price when selling it, he also at the same time is slightly improving the market value of other houses in the neighborhood, creating a "positive externality" benefitting his neighbors. On the other hand, another neighbor who is a grade-A slob and lets the external appearance of his house run down creates a "negative externality" by depressing the attractiveness and thus the market value of the whole neighborhood.
Public policy of the past ignored the concept of externalities. It did remedial cost-benefit analysis and in general looked at time horizons of 20 years. (not surprisingly a rough estimate of generational groupings).
As a result the costs were greatly under-estimated and benefits over estimated. This just for a 20 year time horizon. If you take it to a 40 year, or 60 year, or as the Native Americans said "Seven Generations" you would make entirely different choices.
Economics, government, public policy is about how do we prevent conflicts, improve efficiency, and allocate/treat scarce resources to maximize public welfare over multiple generations(at least that is how I see it).
What is the cost of a desert golf course? Is it the direct cost of building it and the variable cost of maintaining?
That is the business model. The environmental model is how much water is taken from future generations because the aquifers don't replenish as fast as pumped, if they ever replenish at all. The fertilizers and pesticides pollute and kill and we don't include the cost of cancer in a round of golf.
There is an economic question which is more valuable a glass of water or a diamond. Of course that depends on how much water you have.
There is a simple example of a recreational activity.
What is the cost of our nuclear stock pile?
Considering the half life of Uranium 238 (depleted U in stuff like armor piercing munitions) is 4.47 billion years it is infinite.
One lone person that read my comment ask for my environmental policy.
It is simple. You start with the most inefficient uses of resources and quit the counter productive activities. Then you go to the next and the next and the next. Now to do this you have to value not the costs, they are minor, compared to the externalities.
What is the most inefficient use of resources?
The military and military conflicts.
The US military budget it around 440 billion dollars. That is direct financial outlay but the real cost is infinite.
What is the cost of the dead or disabled, or the depleted uranium. The dead eco-systems? What of the dead children because the resources were used to kill another child instead of feeding a starving child.
There are 1 Billion people living on less than $1 a day. Our military budget would over double their income and have infinite benefit.
If you are a true environmentalist you cannot support a military. You can't be only anti-war. You have to be anti military. Improving fuel economy is nothing compared to the cost of dead soldiers and civilians and they are nothing compared to the injured eco-systems created by modern war.
The reason I am a pacifist is not because I am anti fighting. I have studied martial arts for over 20 years and love to spar. I am a pacifist because I am an environmental economist.
The cost of keeping a standing military and using it on occasion is infinite. The benefits are negative if looking at a multi-generational time horizon.
If you are thinking about your generation or your children's generation the military is potentially rational, if you are thinking seven generations and across our national borders it is entirely irrational.
Obama said people like Clinton are fighting the battles of the 60s. This is true. Kerry lost because of vietnam biases. McCain runs on the prison camps. Bushes national guard flap and Clinton's draft issues are all part of the irrational policy and politics.
Green stuff doesn't solve the problem.
Only Peace and altruistic behavior directed at your grand children's grand children.
The world and the environment will not begin a healing process if the United States does not lay down its weapons.