Environment

Over at Grist, there has been a discussion emerging about the relative merits of command-and-control regulation versus “free-market environmentalism” that is supported by secure property rights.

Before being shoved aside in the 1970s by the more politically attractive federal statute law, common law made it clear that no polluter had the right to impose unwanted costs on the owners of private property. Centuries of legal precedence affirmed that people had a legal right to have their property free from pollution. Upon examining the history of the common law, economists Roger Meiners and Bruce Yandleconcluded that the common law “can protect the environment more effectively and fairly than can congressional statutes and bureaucratic regulations.”

This article digs into the issue of transaction costs and to me that is the key of making a common-law, property-rights based model work.

The red colors absolutely dominate indicating an increase in vegetation status

In the United States, the EPA is proposing to regulate emissions of mercury and other toxic substances from coal and oil fired electrical plants.  Grist has posted an article that discusses the background of this proposed regulation in more detail.

Proponents of the action argue that there is a technological capability to meet the new standards, the new standards are justified on a cost-benefit test, and the action protects human health and the environment (more detail here).

Over the last few years of wet weather, the Shoal Lakes have been expanding and flooding surrounding lands.

The lakes only need to rise 30 or 40 centimetres higher before they spill into Grassmere Drain, with unknown and potentially disastrous effects on downstream agricultural and residential communities, said Steve Topping, executive director of Manitoba Water Stewardship.

In the fight to protect the environment, it may be time to pause and ask oneself: what is really helping, and what isn’t?

This week’s issue of The Atlantic contains an article outlining the plans of Better Place to roll out a system of swapping batteries in electric cars in Israel and Denmark.  It will be interesting to see how their attempt will fare.

In the past, I have read critics contend that no one will want to participate in the system because of the risk of receiving a faulty battery.  I suppose that is a concern, but on the other hand, there are services that sell you propane with exchangeable tanks instead of requiring the user to own their own tank.  To me, the Better Place business model is just an extension of one that works in the propane sector.