Nobel Prize for Environmental Concern: Which Country?

[KOMPRESSOR]

If electricity turned expensive it was because you were paying below market rates. The only way that you can do that is for your government to subsidize those rates and the only way that they can do that is by using your tax dollars. Eventually they run out of money when they have to increase your tax rates to the point where your economy can no longer stand it.

One ecological advantage to being hooked up to the EU power grid is that less power plants have to be built. If your country can no longer supply enough power for itself then it can either build a new power plant or import power from a country with excess capacity. Using power plants more efficiently ultimately results in lower market prices and results in less power plants being built.

What is market price in a limited market if the power plants are in the hands of the country's citizens ( = the state), instead of private enterprises? Our electricity prices weren't subsidiced. They were regulated by the state. And if you are worried, we are not running out of money. We are putting away billions of dollars every year for future generations.

Our electricity production has been (traditionally) from hydro-electric power plants, which needs huge water bassins to be filled in the summer since there's no filling in the winter because of the cold. And since our (private) consumption for heating is mainly in the winter, we are depentent on the bassins to be filled when the cold starts. Now a lot of power is produced before the cold starts, mainly for exporting electric power to the EU. -And the bassins are very often empty BEFORE the winter is over, creating a need to import power from the EU.

Anyway, our "cheap" and "clean" electric power didn't affect the prices in the EU, but the opening of the power market quadrupled our prices in a few years.

 

[vladimir]

Forgive me, for I have said something positive about our Country. May the pacifists beat me.

Just checking your reasoning here. Pacifism=environmentalism=anti-Americanism?

 

[riguerin]

Another vote for Costa Rica.

 

[Kim]

Some States in the US have done quite a bit. Unfortunately that seems to be undermined by others who don't. On a per capita as well as actual basis the US is still the largest producer of carbon emissions in the world. They might be spending the money, but it doesn't seem to be having much effect.
That said - according to this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_exp_pol_con_as_of_gdp
Spending for pollution control is highest in the Netherlands at 1.8% of GDP - Austria 2nd at 1.7% of GDP - The US, Japan and Switzerland are equal 3/4/5th at 1.6% of GDP. Finland does very well by most measurements.

 

[gangrel441]

I'll vote for Costa Rica as well, but not before putting in a nomination for Belize. For being as poor of a country as it is, Belize has done a tremendous job of protecting the barrier reef and atolls off of its coast, and do almost as good of a job on interior ecotourism as Coasta Rica, from what I have seen.

 

[gangrel441]

I guess I'm a bit too "idealistic" (I'd prefer to think it is "realistic") in believing that people can (and should) act out of sincere and altruistic interest rather than self interest.

Bill -

I share much of your view on this point, but I think you could benefit from studying a little bit of game theory, specifically on applications of the Tragedy of the Commons. There is much more to it, but in a nut shell, theory states that when given a natural resource to use responsibly, people will always cheat on acceptable use, even if it means giving up the long-term success of the resource to gain a short-term advantage.

While this sounds quite bleak, it has been used to develop several applications where policing the resource has created greater benefit than cheating on acceptable use. I can recommend some reading on the subject if you are interested. Feel free to PM me for more info.

 

[drbill]

Gangrel441- I'm pretty familiar with Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" although it has been ages since I read it. Taught courses back in the 60's and 70's in environmental science and compatible lifestyles.

I guess my wiring just must be different than many. I am perfectly willing to make choices and "sacrifice" some comforts and benefits to reduce my impact on the environment. I have a son and (God forbid!) he might create grandchildren for me some day. I like to think of them, and want them to experience the global environment as a healthy, functioning assemblage of ecosystems.

I'd like to think that humans have evolved, or at least could evolve, past strictly "selfish" (= survival) values. My favorite poet, Robinson Jeffers, spoke of a philosophy he called Inhumanism in which humans "uncentered" themselves and looked at the Earth and the Universe with a broader perspective. I'd like to think that kind of enlightenment is possible.

Kim- thanks for the figures based on percent of GDP. This is a much better indicator of the value placed on environmental health by a country than just looking at absolute spending. I am impressed that the US comes out that well. When you look at per capita production of pollutants and energy consumption, I think the US fares poorly for an industrial society. At least it did back when I was creating educational programs for a defense contractor years ago.

Vladimir- Obviously I don't see the logic either.

There are many great things about this country. However there are areas deserving of criticism, and it is our responsibility as citizens of whatever country we live in to try to push for better results. I just don't see the current climate receptive to that.

I do think of the days 30 years ago when I'd drive the streets of Los Angeles and could barely see 4-5 blocks ahead of me due to smog. Many of the visible pollutants and photochemical products have been controlled thanks to aggressive environmental rules, especially in view of the greatly increased population in the region.

But then I think of the more recent history where the Marine Life Protection Act, passed to create a series of scientifically-based marine protected areas in California, was sidelined due to political pressure and... oh, yes, the convenient excuse of our budget crisis.

 

[jbilicska]

Another vote for the US. Once we make giant strides foward it is up to each of us to make sure we don't slide backwards.
We have such a diversity of ecosystems that makes it hard to save them all at once.

 

[gcbryan]

Keep in mind that "self-interest" can include everything you refer to as altrustic. Self interest just means each person doing what each person will do. My self interest also includes trying to keep the environment healthy for future generations.

By the way, I didn't find the streets of Costa Rico to be particularly pollution free. They do take care of the rain forest.

 

[gangrel441]

Gangrel441- I'm pretty familiar with Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" although it has been ages since I read it. Taught courses back in the 60's and 70's in environmental science and compatible lifestyles.

I suspected you may have. I first came across the article a few years ago while taking a grad level economics class on Game Theory. The fact that I am talking to you about it now should be an indicator of how fascinated I was with it.

I guess my wiring just must be different than many. I am perfectly willing to make choices and "sacrifice" some comforts and benefits to reduce my impact on the environment. I have a son and (God forbid!) he might create grandchildren for me some day. I like to think of them, and want them to experience the global environment as a healthy, functioning assemblage of ecosystems.

In relation to my own life, I agree with you. I make such choices and "sacrifices". Many of us do. The problem, as I have come across from being a fan of American Open-Wheel racing, is that Americans as a whole have no attention span. They don't grasp road racing because ovals are much easier to follow. Who needs 80 minutes of continuous soccer when you can watch 15 second long plays in American football? I find the same to be true when it comes to environmental issues. The loudest among us are also quite conscious of the decisions we make and their impact on the future. The problem is the masses who's thinking has a hard time getting past the next 10 minutes or so. As I see it, the only way to get the message across to these folks is to find a way for it to benefit them in the immediate term. It is not good enough to tell them that it will allow their kids to have drinkable water and see the same creatures we get to see today.

I'd like to think that humans have evolved, or at least could evolve, past strictly "selfish" (= survival) values. My favorite poet, Robinson Jeffers, spoke of a philosophy he called Inhumanism in which humans "uncentered" themselves and looked at the Earth and the Universe with a broader perspective. I'd like to think that kind of enlightenment is possible.

Possible? Yes. For those who spend the time and effort to seek it. I am afraid the masses will never stop moving on to the next topic long enough to even glance over this one. Sad, but I do believe the solution can be found through manipulating the ADD that American society has picked up as a whole. It just requires different approaches. I fear the ones being employed today are not effective.