Direct Democracy

[ex_peasant441]

Daniel Hannan is one of the bright young things of the Conservative Party here in the UK. He is also something of a radical (yes, it is possible to be both conservative and radical) and is well known as a lively and outspoken proponent of more direct democracy.

His latest blog post on localism may be of interest to members. It raises some interesting points about what limits can and should be put on localism - and what should not.

The example he discusses is an intriguing one - of giving local people the ability to deny developments that are locally unwelcome but nationally necessary, such as power stations or waste disposal facilities, but at the same time bribing them by letting them share in the profits.

This has been tried on a small scale in this country with some wind generators. Wind generators are a hugely contentious topic since they are considered an eyesore, need to be sighted in open and hence valuably attractive areas, and are of doubtful value in generating electricity. Yet the Labour government has altered the planning laws to make them very hard to block because it is desperate for their contribution, however small, to reducing our carbon footprint. However there have been one or two cases where local people are entitled to a share of the profits from the turbines, and are far more accommodating as a result.

Hannan mentions A similar system works successfully in a number of US states. Does anyone have any thoughts or direct experience of this?

I would also be interested to hear what people thought of Hannan's use of the word 'localism' to describe his beliefs. A quick glance at the Wikipedia article shows that the word is more generally used by the left wing and green movements as part of their opposition to capitalism.

N.B. When he refers to a 'Sir Humphrey' he means a senior civil servant who is resistant to any erosion of his own powers.

ETA the tags don't seem to display for some reason. They should be:

• country: britain
• topic: *:direct democracy
• topic: *:power generation

Comments

[ashcomp]

This comment won't answer any of your questions, but is vaguely on point as related to "localism."

As a Brit, you may or may not be aware that there was a move afoot for years to force the state of Nevada to accept nuclear waste, which would be buried under a large rock pile called Yucca Mountain. The locals think this is a terrible idea, and since they came out strongly for Obama in the 2008 election, the President has shown his gratitude by eliminating Yucca mountain as a potential repository for everyone else's waste. That gesture is now coming back to bite him as he tries to add nuclear power to the mix of alternative carbon-free energy sources.

I was never a party to any of the negotiations on this matter, but everything I read or heard in the news implied that the decision was being forced on the state--don't recall any mention of compensation. It's always seemed to me that there's a deal which could be struck here. Nevada could be allowed to charge handsomely by the ton for waste storage. Another possibility for compensation would be to allow them to keep the Colorado river water now reserved for California farmers, who use it to irrigate very dry land and produce huge quantities of fruit and vegetables. The water would be very helpful in sustaining Nevada's population growth, which is hitting real limits.

All very well for Nevada, but California's farmers go out of business, and the cost of food goes through the roof. OK. . . .California can build an array of fine, earthquake-proof reactors, and use waste heat to desalinate seawater. And get a break on the disposal of their nuclear waste. (This piece of the fantasy looked a lot better before California became an economic basket case. And it's never been seen by an engineer. . .) Getting all those power & water stations funded would require some serious creativity. Possibly the wealthy Nevadans could build the facilities and lease them back to California. Or something.

I'd really love to be around to hear the negotiations if this notion ever gets any traction.

[ex_peasant441]

I think a big problem with many 'environmental' questions is that until recently they were only being discussed by the lunatic fringe green movement who all tend to be strongly left wing. They have only in the last two decades (at most) moved into the real world where the rest of us live. So we are still in very early days in terms of working out just how market mechanisms and democratic accountability can interact with environmentalism in order to make things actually happen. We now have enough examples to demonstrate that the market can work very well and effectively with environmental aims, but there are still a lot of fundamentals that need to be established and tested even as regards the theory let alone the practice.

I think so far the main thing that has been demonstrated is that for any environmental goal to be achieved long term it has to provide a positive economic incentive (as opposed to just a negative one of punitive taxation on pollution). Which is kind of 'duh' obvious, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated several times before it becomes obvious.

The classic example is the Amazonian rainforest. Green activists have railed against deforestation for decades and it made no difference. Then, in the last few years, people started offering cash for replanting trees (carbon offsetting) and lo and behold the biggest cattle barons have got together to start replanting trees - and coincidentally now have a stronger incentive to do something about the illegal squatters who so often contribute to deforestation. Of course the pure-blooded greens are furious because they don't want the nasty market being involved, and they like to see the cattle barons as their enemies, but the fact remains that for the first time ever trees are being encouraged on the biggest most productive ranches in Brazil. One would have to be churlish not to be pleased about that.

[ashcomp]

The real problem with environmentalism is the classic one of long-term vs short-term considerations. The developed countries of the world enjoy the benefits of (relatively) cheap energy, and absolutely do not *want* to believe in global warming or other environmental consequences. Nobody wants to spend his own money now for clean air or water later.

The case for government intervention is simply that capitalism is fundamentally incapable of taking the long view. Replanting the rain forest is definitely a laudable goal--but the cost of seedlings, property rights, and labor to do it should be borne by energy (and beef) consumers. At least, in an economically rational world.

[zorkian]

This is related to something I've been thinking about lately and trying to find sources to read up on: is an elected form of government with term limits inherently limited to short-term thinking? If you take it as fact that people are going to promote what's in their own self-interest, and then limit someone's seat in office to 4 or 8 years, then it seems like it ends up with nobody ever really caring about the long-term. If Bush knows he'll be gone in a few years, why not start a war with Iraq? If Obama won't have to deal with the consequences of 10 years of spending on healthcare, why not do it?

But that's an entirely separate issue to the one raised in the original post, and I'll try to be on topic at least some of the way. (And if the above paragraph is actually something people have thought about, I'd love some suggestions on books/blogs/whatever.)

Localism makes sense to me in a lot of ways. I can't say that I'm very familiar with it being applied that often here in the US except for in the 'not in my back yard!' type of protest sense. I've seen some ballots go by over the years that are designed to, for example, make it illegal to put up that Wal-Mart they want to put up. Lots of litigation when people try to pull stunts like that, too.

(Of course, with my move-every-2-years history, it's been pretty difficult to personally get that into the local politics. I suppose now that I'm in California for the long haul, I'll learn more about here...)

[cheyinka]

That's the first compelling argument I've seen against term limits. Usually I think of them as a "nobody should live their whole life as a politician" safeguard.

[ex_peasant441]

Maybe the answer is the old Roman method - nobody can enter into politics until they have reached a certain age and undergone certain experiences (in their case military service, in ours it would probably be having done a 'real' job). I'm not in favour of fixed terms because I believe it is beneficial for politicians to go on for as long as they like, using the benefit of their accumulated experience and wisdom, I just don't want them starting when they are barely out of university.

[ex_peasant441]

is an elected form of government with term limits inherently limited to short-term thinking?

I suspect the answer is yes. I can see why your constitution included the idea of term limits, evolving as it did from a society where corruption was such a big problem, but term limits definitely have disadvantages as well. If nothing else, it will on occasion go against democracy.

[ex_peasant441]

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.