Hello folks,

If I may offer the following *points of view*, before this subject dies.  I
do believe that if we focus on the value/ethical aspects of the
enviromental/econ connection some light can be shed on the topic of this
list.

It seems to me that recent discussions have been about whether society
*should*
focus on "REM" (Rational Economic Man).  But, there are at least two REMs:
one being Rational *Economic* Man (REM1) and the other being Rational
*Environmental* Man (REM2).  I use this simplistic dicotomy only as
illustration, not to exclude the many other facets of being and acting
human.

1.   It seems to me that the fundamental economic theory is very helpful for
us to understand the mechanics of exchange in markets domestic and foreign.
A very serious problem arises when (imho) we try to force econ theory to
encompass other fields such as political choice in the public realm.  There
problems related to economy/theory can be analyzed in a context where a
range of social/political values must be considered, not just "homo
economicus".

2.   Even in economic reality, there are no such things as "free" markets or
"free" trade.  Both are subject to rules made by the community(ies) involved
via their political systems.

3.  Political polity formulation is inherrently about reaching accomodation
within
communities/societies about conflicting values - there is an allocation of
values to be used as guide for public action.

4.  The policy/program chosen results from some kind of accomodation among
the many competing values held within a society, expressed by individuals at
the negotiation table via their elected members (in a representative
society).

5.  Choosing the appropriate policy is based on ethical considerations - who
should win? who should lose?  whose values should count?  what are the
ethical considerations that should guide the decision-makers in reaching
those decisions?

6.  Consider the simple dicotomy posed above.  REM1, the econ parties and
REM2, the environ parties, represent for discussion, the range of values
(political positions) in country Z.

7.  Through education, advertising, raw power, other, a shift of support for
values takes place such that REM2 obtains more political representation than
REM1.

8.  As a result, policies are adopted that are more favourable to REM2
relative to REM1.  For example, the rules of markets and trade tend to shift
in support of REM2.  For extreme example, guidelines for permitting
pesticides shift to requiring proof of *no* damage to ecosystems.

9.  In association with that shift in 8. above, another important change is
that buyers in the market tend toward commodities more friendly to the
market.

10.  Each case will tend to result in relatively higher costs for
non-environmentally-friendly products, through (a)more restrictive rules and
(b)a shift in demand toward more environmentally-friendly products.

11.  Econ theory provides valuable information about the consequences of
policies/programs in the econ sphere of life.  It does not provide relevant
information (in addition to market-related) about the resulting health of
the ecosystem.   It seems to me that work of those valuing non-market
aspects (Costanza, etc.) is not very helpful outside the market domain.
That is, the economic analysis does not provide enough information to help
those holding the REM2 value set reach informed decisions.  Such information
must be sought in other areas (biology, ethics, "quality of life" changes,
etc.)

12.  Consequently, I do not think that the pervasive problems for our
ecosystems lie in econ theory per se but in the ethic and value dimensions
of society as a whole.  I understand that there are many important issues
and problems for economists; I just don't think that they are *mainly*
responsible for the larger picture.

This group needs to focus on environmental ethics.  It seems to me that
progress in understanding can be made if we emphasize the nexus of
economics, politics, society and the environment.  That nexus, imho, lies
somewhere at the value/ethic intersection of those 4 aspects and studying
practical problems can help us better understand environmental ethics in
general.

Sincerely,

Ray   ([log in to unmask])
           P.O. Box 698, Micanopy, FL  USA  32667


-----Original Message-----
From: Quentin Merritt <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 4:38 PM
Subject: Is this the ecol-econ list?


Dear listmembers

Can I respectfully request that the current discussion of
environmental economics be taken off list, or transferred to a more
appropriate list (eg ecol-econ - I'm sure someone can provide the
subscription details). Since this is far from the first request of
this nature, I am beginning to think that a more heavy-handed
intervention (ie forced removal from the list) might be needed - not
one which I favour but, in the interests of the list and the majority
of its members, one that might be justified nevertheless. (And I
would rather pursue this course of action than have any more
disaffected 'ethics' people leave the list.)

Quentin Merritt
============================================================
Quentin Merritt
Co-listowner, enviroethics
School of Humanities, University of Greenwich
Wellington Street, Woolwich, London, SE18 6PF, UK
Tel.    +44 (0)181 331 9065
Fax.    +44 (0)181 331 8805
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
=============================================================





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%