I disagree that capitalism is incapable of taking a long term view. By capitalism we just mean individuals making decisions and they are no less capable of making long term decisions when capital is involved than when it isn't - witness anyone who has ever saved for their pension or tied money up in a trust for their children and grandchildren.
I think the problems of environmental issues arise more from two other factors.
One is lack of knowledge. 'Environmental' education for most people doesn't get beyond being taught a vague appreciation of trees because they are pretty and animals because they are cute. Unless someone understands the full ecological implications of their actions they can't make informed choices about the value they will put on anything.
The second problem is the tragedy of the commons. Every study shows how privately owned land or water courses tend to be in much better condition than communally owned ones - beyond just the tragedy of the commons this is logical, since ownership not only produces a greater sense of responsibility, but even at the simplest level a private owner has more intimate knowledge of his own land and more time to spend thinking about it than even the best intentioned communal owners. If that can be reinforced and increased by better knowledge and mechanisms for putting a value on things like biodiversity then private land ownership becomes the answer to most local scale environmental problems.
However, nobody has yet found a way to create a sense of private ownership of such things as the air or the weather, so we have a classic tragedy of the commons. That is why, to date, there is no alternative to communal compulsion to try to protect common resources. With the poor results that we see as regards for example carbon emissions.
but the cost of seedlings, property rights, and labor to do it should be borne by energy (and beef) consumers. Well it currently is being so born. The reforestation that I was talking about is being paid for by firms paying for carbon offsetting and hence paying the ranchers to plant trees instead of just running cattle.
no subject
I think the problems of environmental issues arise more from two other factors.
One is lack of knowledge. 'Environmental' education for most people doesn't get beyond being taught a vague appreciation of trees because they are pretty and animals because they are cute. Unless someone understands the full ecological implications of their actions they can't make informed choices about the value they will put on anything.
The second problem is the tragedy of the commons. Every study shows how privately owned land or water courses tend to be in much better condition than communally owned ones - beyond just the tragedy of the commons this is logical, since ownership not only produces a greater sense of responsibility, but even at the simplest level a private owner has more intimate knowledge of his own land and more time to spend thinking about it than even the best intentioned communal owners. If that can be reinforced and increased by better knowledge and mechanisms for putting a value on things like biodiversity then private land ownership becomes the answer to most local scale environmental problems.
However, nobody has yet found a way to create a sense of private ownership of such things as the air or the weather, so we have a classic tragedy of the commons. That is why, to date, there is no alternative to communal compulsion to try to protect common resources. With the poor results that we see as regards for example carbon emissions.
Well it currently is being so born. The reforestation that I was talking about is being paid for by firms paying for carbon offsetting and hence paying the ranchers to plant trees instead of just running cattle.