Nobel Prize for Environmental Concern: Which Country?

[KOMPRESSOR]

Money rules in your economy as well. You give it all to the government and they rule

We may have more drive over here but it's because we get to keep more money so we work harder. I had a friend in graduate school from Norway and his father was a doctor. He got paid the same whether he saw 50 patients a day or 5, so he decided to see 5 and eventually he decided to move to Chicago so that he had some motivation to see more patients.

Many different systems work and your works pretty well in many regards.

Well, you might think taxes are so bad here. They're not. I large part of what we pay in taxes is set aside as our future personal pension. Of course rich people pay more, so they finance the pension of others who haven't made as much money as them during their life span. So there you have it. We have a social welfare system which is supposed to cover everyone, no regards to their income or private insurance abilities. Is it good enough? A lot of us don't think so. That's why we finally got rid of the conservative government we've had for some years.

About your friend's doctor father I can assure you this is not the way it works here. Our citizens may chose one doctor to be their regular, and so they are on his/her "list". Depending on the number of clients on this list the doctor receives a fixed sum pr client to maintain his/her services. And then they receive money for each treatment/visit they handle also. Most doctors will have a decent income after just a few years in service. If I say 100.000-250.000 USD it wouldn't be far off. Then I'd say their income tax would be around 40% of that. -So don't feel sorry for Norwegian medical doctors!

I think your Norwegian friend is bluffing to get your sympathy

I think it's a good thing that the government of any nation:

1. Spend money on saving the environment
2. Keeps the industry on a tight leach by regulating their "freedom of behavior" regarding the environment
3. Doesn't just leave it up to private citizens to contribute

That's my humble of opinion. Feel free to disagree!

 

[gcbryan]

Well, you might think taxes are so bad here. They're not. I large part of what we pay in taxes is set aside as our future personal pension. Of course rich people pay more, so they finance the pension of others who haven't made as much money as them during their life span. So there you have it. We have a social welfare system which is supposed to cover everyone, no regards to their income or private insurance abilities. Is it good enough? A lot of us don't think so. That's why we finally got rid of the conservative government we've had for some years.

About your friend's doctor father I can assure you this is not the way it works here. Our citizens may chose one doctor to be their regular, and so they are on his/her "list". Depending on the number of clients on this list the doctor receives a fixed sum pr client to maintain his/her services. And then they receive money for each treatment/visit they handle also. Most doctors will have a decent income after just a few years in service. If I say 100.000-250.000 USD it wouldn't be far off. Then I'd say their income tax would be around 40% of that. -So don't feel sorry for Norwegian medical doctors!

I think your Norwegian friend is bluffing to get your sympathy

I think it's a good thing that the government of any nation:

1. Spend money on saving the environment
2. Keeps the industry on a tight leach by regulating their "freedom of behavior" regarding the environment
3. Doesn't just leave it up to private citizens to contribute

That's my humble of opinion. Feel free to disagree!

I can't disagree with most of that. In fact it's probably time for our own government to swing a little (little) more back in that direction. You may be right about my friend. He always was a little dramatic

 

[drbill]

The entire school of thought on Psychological Egoism suggests that you are wrong on your thoughts above.

What a pity that we can't seem to rise above it.

And the sidelining of the MLPA was not only convienent, but it was quite constructive that a minority of extremists weren't able to put into place, their twisted definition of conservation, which is actually thinly veiled scheme of special interests to exclude minority groups from participating in the enjoyment of our natural resources. But you are entitled to your opinions.

This comment shows very little understanding about the MLPA process IMHO. "Twisted definition of conservation?" How many fishers actually have a concept of conservation (there are certainly a number who do, but most seem driven by their personal desire to take game without respect for the rights of others).

What minority groups would be excluded if the MLPA were fully implemented? If you are talking about fishers, many of them are among the most selfish of groups I've ever encountered. To feel one is entitled to 100% of the ocean excludes my "entitlement" to enjoy a portion of that ocean unaffected by consumptive users. I know of no responsible non-consumptive user who feels they are entitled to 100% of the ocean. Most proposals only suggest 20-30% be set aside for marine reserves... which ultimately are in the best interests of futur fishers (like my grandchildren).

 

[JustinW]

What I was referring to Bill is some lobbying attempts in Northern California by a subject few who wish to have the MLPA process exclude sportsmen from these areas, while still preserving their own access. If they genuinely wanted to reduce access, diving would be restricted also. I respect your opinion that you feel sportsmen disrespect the resources that they so very much care to preserve as a viable renewable resource. It may be your opinion that they don't care, but I beg to differ. The twist in the definition of conservation the MLPA takes is that it does not advocate responsible controlled harvest of our natural resources, but instead bans the take of anything. This is irresponsible for a myriad of reasons that could fill a bookshelf of doctoral theses.

Yeah, it is a pity that humans cannot overcome selfish motives, do some more study of the theory, its quite interesting too, I think you would like it.

 

[archman]

Based on *current efforts*, I would go with Australia for their work on the Great Barrier Reef and strong attempts to curb the sharkfinning and whaling trades.

I used to like Costa Rica a lot, until I heard about their nasty banana plantations. They keep that covered up pretty good.

Iceland's pretty clean, but they have an unfair advantage of a low population and abundant geothermal power. They're freakishly obsessive about protecting their native fishery stocks, from what I've heard.

Kenya's always been thought of rather highly, and Botswana's getting some good reviews.

 

[drbill]

What I was referring to Bill is some lobbying attempts in Northern California by a subject few who wish to have the MLPA process exclude sportsmen from these areas, while still preserving their own access. If they genuinely wanted to reduce access, diving would be restricted also.

I'm not familiar with the specific case you refer to here. The restrictions are regarding consumptive use vs non-consumptive use. If divers are not taking game, they probably do relatively little to affect the populations in the reserve areas vs the consumptive users who take game.

The twist in the definition of conservation the MLPA takes is that it does not advocate responsible controlled harvest of our natural resources, but instead bans the take of anything. This is irresponsible for a myriad of reasons that could fill a bookshelf of doctoral theses.

Of course not... it is a process to designate no-take reserves which will ensure areas the populations may grow without the impact of take. The spillover from these reserves will help repopulate the surrounding areas where take IS allowed. Under this concept there should be no take in the reserve areas. It does advocate controlled take from spillover areas however.

 

[drbill]

I used to like Costa Rica a lot, until I heard about their nasty banana plantations. They keep that covered up pretty good.

Aren't those largely owned by American (US) interests?

 

[archman]

Aren't those largely owned by American (US) interests?

If no, many of the chemicals are likely imported from the states. But it doesn't really matter... the plantations are super-nasty, and the Costa Rican government allows them. Just like lots of other central and south american countries.

 

[grazie42]

I think it may be difficult to get a "fair" view from any statistics you find...

For example:
"Any" european country, let´s use Sweden (since I´m the only one likely to be offended on the board), can decide to outsource all electricity production and simply buy from its neighbours. Swedens pollution would suddenly drop to 0 (for electicity, heating etc) making it one of the countries in the world with the least emissions. Does that make it enviromental friendly? What if all the imported electricity is produced by coal?

Take it one step further, outsource most of the production to asia (pretty common business practice right now), while maintaining ownership and patents, allowing all the profits to be transfered back to sweden.

Suddenly you have a country that only produces "ideas and management", uses no "harmful" energy and pollutes nothing yet has good economic growth. A model for the rest of the world? There´s a saying: "lies, damned lies and statistics" I think there´s more than a grain of truth to it...

 

[drbill]

Good points Grazie42. I often wonder whether the outsourcing that goes on in the States isn't due to more than "cheap" labor but also to circumvent environmental constraints here. Of course to some extent it is the consumer demanding low prices that helps fuel this phenomenon.

Archman- My Costa Rican housemate talks with disdain about the DDT banned here in the States but sold to Costa Rica and other Latin countries by US manufacturers for use on crops there. Shameful practice.