| Return to Home Page |
| So what is our
commonality? What are the real questions we need to deal with in landscape change, ecosystem management, air quality and water quality? |
| Six Objectives |
| Review the fundamental relevant attributes of property rights. | |
| Discuss the key weakness of private property rights and environmental quality problems and relate this to pollution prevention incentives. | |
| Briefly evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the major methods for environmental conservation, quality protection, and improvement. | |
| Present a linked ecologic-economic-geographic optimization model which incorporates measures of equity and ecosystem services in a spatial context . | |
| Conclude with a call for a comprehensive environmental management systems model which utilizes educational, regulatory and market approaches. |
| The Four Key Property Rights |
| the right of alienation | |||
| the right to use the property | |||
| the right to earn a benefit stream from the property | |||
| the right of exclusivity | |||
| Three Key Types of Property |
| Private Property | |||
| Common Property | |||
| Public Property | |||
| Seven Major Approaches and Methods of Pollution Control Management |
| Moral Persuasion and Education |
| Educating and sensitizing people about their behavior | |
| Prepare people for action | |
| May produce ineffective guilt | |
| ÒFree riderÓ problems | |
| May penalize ecologically & socially responsible people & organizations | |
| Bottom line -> first steps, necessary, but not sufficient |
| Tort Solutions: Suing Òthe AmerikanisherÓ approach |
| Appealing from perspective of social justice | ||
| Time-consuming, expensive | ||
| Difficult to establish | ||
| who & what damaged | ||
| extent of damages | ||
| evaluate & agree on damages | ||
| legally responsible party or entities | ||
| Limited as a deterrent | ||
| A post facto approach, not a preventative approach | ||
| EIS important proactive tool | ||
| Needs a strong legal system | ||
| Prohibition |
| Shields individuals & environment from irresponsible acts of others | |
| Non-compliance issues | |
| Second law of thermodynamics often makes complete prohibition both practically and economically infeasible | |
| Òtests the ropesÓ of the politically feasible | |
| Risks Òpolitical backlashesÓ | |
| May not be optimal, i.e., natural biogeochemical processes can absorb some residuals | |
| Requires strong sense of legitimacy & significant financial & personnel resources to enforce prohibitions |
| Direct Governmental Regulation - 1 |
| zum Beispiel: | |||
| laws & regulations | |||
| required abatement equipment | |||
| worker safety equipment | |||
| product contamination standards | |||
| MPCs | |||
| land use ordinances | |||
| best available science | |||
| positive aspects: | |||
| internalize some of external costs | |||
| protect individuals from irresponsible acts of others | |||
| often more fair and just than outright prohibition | |||
| Òlevel the playing fieldÓ | |||
| Direct Governmental Regulation - 2 |
| positive aspects continued: | ||
| ÒstandardsÓ better than ÒtechnologiesÓ at creating positive incentives | ||
| maybe only practical & effective way to deal with small non-stationary air polluters & home heating furnaces | ||
| maybe only practical & effective way to deal with non-point source water pollution | ||
| American experience -> regulation has proven to be the easiest method to get approved by legislative bodies | ||
| Direct Governmental Regulation - 3 |
| problem areas: | ||
| use of ÒsameÓ standards internalizes only part of the external costs | ||
| fails to make use differing physical geographic environments | ||
| requiring ÒsameÓ technology discourages development of better & cheaper pollution control and resource conservation technology | ||
| can force out small firms lacking sufficient investment capital | ||
| standards & regulations tend to be ones that are enforceable rather than optimal | ||
| problems with overlapping & conflicting jurisdictions | ||
| complaints that ÒpollutersÓ donÕt pay for damages | ||
| lobbying efforts can delay & weaken compliance via courts, revised legislation & administrative procedures | ||
| Governmental Economic Payments & Incentives |
| zum Beispiel: | ||
| government grants | ||
| investment tax credits | ||
| conservation tax credits for pollution abatement equipment | ||
| Advantages: | ||
| focus upon prevention rather than remedial action | ||
| meet with less opposition | ||
| decrease private production and construction costs | ||
| can lead to higher profits and cheaper homes | ||
| improve enterprise competitiveness in international markets (WTO????) | ||
| Disadvantages: | ||
| do little to internalize costs | ||
| lower Òprivate costsÓ -> over consumption of pollution generating activities | ||
| increase output rather than conserve resources & improve environment | ||
| use rather than generate tax revenues | ||
| susceptible to political & financial influence | ||
| difficult to discontinue when no longer needed | ||
| divert tax revenues away from other needs | ||
| Resource Use & Pollution Emission Charges -1 |
| Advantages: | ||
| internalize external costs if charges are close to estimated marginal external costs | ||
| costs passed along to ultimate consumer | ||
| encourage reduction of resource and pollution to optimum levels | ||
| collected changes may be used to generate tax revenues & pay for abatement/prevention facilities | ||
| a positive, preventative, pro-active incentive approach rather than remedial, after the fact compensation strategy | ||
| lower transaction costs | ||
| allow fees to reflect increasingly scarce resources | ||
| can cope with economic growth vs environment | ||
| Resource Use & Pollution Emission Charges - 2 |
| Disadvantages: | ||
| how to find equilibrium level of fees | ||
| inflation -> increase in pollution & resource use waste unless inflation adjustment is built-in | ||
| in U.S. thus far, strong opposition to economically rational methods | ||
| approach not accepted by politicians, nor ÒGreensÓ | ||
| only modest charges such as water use and sewage processing fees | ||
| rarely have fees been high enough to elicit significant resource use conservation behaviors | ||
| Pollution & Resource Use Rights |
| zum Beispiel: | ||
| markets, stocks and auctions for pollution and resource use rights | ||
| Los Angeles Air Pollution Control Board auction market for air | ||
| Kyoto ???? | ||
| Dynamic Supply & Demand Curve for a Pollution Right |
| Pollution & Resource Use Rights |
| Advantages: | |||
| based on fixed known limits of rights | |||
| generate tax revenues | |||
| inflation & economic growth would automatically raise prices | |||
| Disadvantages: | |||
| requires extensive ÒobjectiveÓ scientific input to determine the Òfixed upper limitsÓ of rights | |||
| maximum pollution right, may be severely compromised by political processes | |||
| requires extensive monitoring and enforcement to ensure | |||
| non-purchasers do not pollute, degrade, and waste resources | |||
| purchasers do not exceed their purchased ÒrightsÓ | |||
| Slide 19 |
| Another look at Adiabatic & Environmental Lapse Rates and Unstable Air |
| Adiabatic & environmental lapse rates & stable air |
| Hot gases rising even if level the atmospheric conditions are stable |
| Summary of Environmental lapse rates in highly stable, stable, conditionally unstable, & unstable air |
| Rising ÒbubbleÓ of (unstable) warm air |
| Comparison of normal and inverted lapse rates |
| Upper Air Temperature Inversion |
| Low level (surface level) temperature inversion and ÒsmoggyÓ fog |
| Figure 3.10 Temperature Inversion |
| Fig. 3.10a Normal Temperature Profile |
| Fig. 3.10b Inverted Temperature Profile |