--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Anway there are other examples of perverse subsidies.
No kidding John, that was one of the main arguments of the paper, imo.
Getting rid of subsidies and policies that have perverse outcomes would go
a long way towards moving us towards sustainability (although the authors
didn't say so explicitly I'd be willing to be they would not argue that
such changes would not be sufficient). Your comments about the use of
irrigation and fertilizer are also at least partially addressed by the
paper, imo. They argue that getting rid of these perverse incentives
would result in a more balanced utilization of agricultural resources.
Instead of having really intensive farming in just a few countries there
could be less intensive farming in a larger number of countries.
This would also address the issue of economic equity. With the "correct"
terms of trade developing countries *could* compete against developed
countries and experience economic growth quite possibly with no increased
overall degradation of the environment.
Regarding Technology:
Careful here. This is where Malthus made his mistake. Now it is overly
optimistic to assume that technological break throughs will solve *all*
problems. But at the same time it is just as incorrect to assume that it
wont solve *any* problems.
Of course, it is also probably going to be the case that each new
technological break through will bring new problems with it.
Steve
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|