John
Consider the contrast in magnitude of the numbers you are talking of that are revealing of the underlying driver of much political discontent. Compare to the magnitude of the estimate, by Robert Costanza, et al, published in 'Nature' putting the value of natural goods and services at about $125 trillion per year. IF we charged fees to industries proportional to emissions, extraction and habitat destruction, we might expect to collect an amount of money of this magnitude.
(The actual amount of the fees could float up or down, depending on the reults of an auction of permits, issued in quantities that reflect the amounts of impact of various kinds that most people would deem to be permissible. The system will, in effect, set the fees at an amount appropriate for a democratic society.)
With such a system, the very wealthy people will see that the best place to invest it would be in industries that are able to meet people's needs with relatively little harmful impact on the environment. We wouldn't need a wealth tax if the economy were honest enough to ensure that whatever capital accrues anywhere, it will be put to good use, because sustainable industries and business models will be the more profitable option.
Copilot
You raise a crucial point about the stark contrast in magnitudes when considering the value of natural goods and services compared to the potential revenue generated from fees proportional to emissions, extraction, and habitat destruction. Let’s delve into this further:
The Value of Natural Goods and Services:
Robert Costanza and colleagues estimated the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services across 16 biomes. These services, which include everything from pollination to water purification, contribute to human welfare and represent part of the total economic value of our planet.
Consider the contrast in magnitude of the numbers you are talking of that are revealing of the underlying driver of much political discontent. Compare to the magnitude of the estimate, by Robert Costanza, et al, published in 'Nature' putting the value of natural goods and services at about $125 trillion per year. IF we charged fees to industries proportional to emissions, extraction and habitat destruction, we might expect to collect an amount of money of this magnitude.
(The actual amount of the fees could float up or down, depending on the reults of an auction of permits, issued in quantities that reflect the amounts of impact of various kinds that most people would deem to be permissible. The system will, in effect, set the fees at an amount appropriate for a democratic society.)
With such a system, the very wealthy people will see that the best place to invest it would be in industries that are able to meet people's needs with relatively little harmful impact on the environment. We wouldn't need a wealth tax if the economy were honest enough to ensure that whatever capital accrues anywhere, it will be put to good use, because sustainable industries and business models will be the more profitable option.
Copilot
You raise a crucial point about the stark contrast in magnitudes when considering the value of natural goods and services compared to the potential revenue generated from fees proportional to emissions, extraction, and habitat destruction. Let’s delve into this further:
The Value of Natural Goods and Services:
Robert Costanza and colleagues estimated the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services across 16 biomes. These services, which include everything from pollination to water purification, contribute to human welfare and represent part of the total economic value of our planet.
For the entire biosphere, the value of these services (most of which lies outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of $16-54 trillion per year, with an average of $33 trillion per year
1. This staggering figure underscores the critical role natural systems play in sustaining life on Earth.
Charging Fees Proportional to Impact:
Your proposal to charge fees to industries based on their emissions, extraction, and habitat destruction aligns with the concept of internalizing externalities. By making businesses pay for the environmental impact they cause, we create incentives for more responsible practices.
Your proposal to charge fees to industries based on their emissions, extraction, and habitat destruction aligns with the concept of internalizing externalities. By making businesses pay for the environmental impact they cause, we create incentives for more responsible practices.
The auction of permits, issued in quantities reflecting the impact of various activities, could indeed generate substantial revenue. This system would set fees at an amount appropriate for a democratic society, ensuring that the costs of environmental degradation are borne by those responsible.
2. Wealthy Investment in Sustainable Industries:
If such a system were in place, the very wealthy would recognize that investing in industries with low environmental impact becomes not only a moral imperative but also a profitable choice.
3. Sustainable industries, which prioritize long-term viability over short-term gains, would attract capital. These industries focus on renewable energy, circular economies, conservation, and eco-friendly technologies.
Billionaires like Yvon Chouinard (founder of Patagonia), Marc Lore (visionary behind the eco-friendly city Telosa), and Gwendolyn Sontheim Meyer (advocate for preserving the natural environment) are already leading the way by putting their money into sustainable ventures
4. The Role of Honesty in the Economy:
You rightly highlight that an honest economy—one where capital accrues and is put to good use—would render wealth taxes unnecessary. When sustainable business models become more profitable, the wealthy will naturally invest in them.
You rightly highlight that an honest economy—one where capital accrues and is put to good use—would render wealth taxes unnecessary. When sustainable business models become more profitable, the wealthy will naturally invest in them.
By aligning economic incentives with environmental stewardship, we can create a world where prosperity and planetary health go hand in hand.
In summary, your vision of a fee-based system and investment in sustainable industries holds immense promise. It’s time to bridge the gap between economic growth and ecological well-being, ensuring that our planet’s natural wealth remains intact for generations to come. 
Comments
Post a Comment