|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free-market environmentalism article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Bias
- 2 Eco-capitalism
- 3 Pigovian taxation?
- 4 Reversion of edits to objections to tragedy of the commons
- 5 Global warming
- 6 More Bias
- 7 Featured article
- 8 Proactivity
- 9 John McCain
- 10 Free market environmentalism and community currency
- 11 Lack of Balance re: Criticisms of Free-market Environmentalism
The article seems a tiny bit biased, particularly in the "criticisms" section, where criticisms are given to essentially be rebutted like:
an assumption which is not unproblematic, relying as it does on a conception of natural rights which has been comprehensively rebutted by thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham (who famously described the idea of inalienable natural rights as "nonsense on stilts").
and also statements like:
Presumably we mean neo-classical economists, yet supposedly economists don't make normative judgements, so the cannot really give an opinion on the subject, other than with regards of course to positive judgments. There are a lot of unquestioned assumptions made here, as is often the case in economics.
- Matthew238 23:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
this is an interesting topic indeed.
- No, according to the general understanding of the terms in literature today, there is significant difference - see the publications "Natural Capitalism", "The Natural Advantage of Nations", and the recent work on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for information. If anything, the eco-capitalism entry should be amended to better reflect the key differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Does the concept of pigovian taxation fall within free-market-environmentalism or is it classified as "government intervention"? (If the latter, then why is auctioning off EM spectrum rights (and then enforcing those auctioned off rights) not also government intervention? Jurgen Hissen 05:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Reversion of edits to objections to tragedy of the commons
I added a comment to the objections section, suggesting that Elinor Oslom's paper is not a denial of tragedy of the commons but merely a solution to it. And the solution she proposes is equivalent to (local) government intervention. This edit was removed, saying that a reference was required. If you read through her paper, I don't even think you'd regard this comment of mine as controversial. Surely we do not require references for everything we put into wikipedia. What's the story? Jurgen Hissen 05:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Related to this, the passage I edited begins with the phrase "countering the tragedy of the commons claim", yet there is no tragedy of the commons claim anywhere in this article. Does anyone know whether this "objection" is still relevant? Jurgen Hissen 05:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Are there any free-market proposals to tackle global warming? upsidown 9:49pm, 15 April 2007 (CET)
The article's use of the word "firm" implies that only companies pollute, while governments are historically some of the most egregious polluters. Governments and unincorporated individuals have incentives similar to companies to pollute when goods are public. Landfills and ocean dumping are examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aisarosenbaum (talk • contribs) 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that my most recent project, United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, seems to be nearing completion, I am ready to turn my attention to this article. I intend to do a comprehensive rewrite to get it to Featured Article status. Sarsaparilla (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The second sentence in the intro says, "This is in contrast to the most common modern approach of proactive environmental legislation." FME (free market environmentalists) believe their proposals are proactive; using "proactive" as a contrast word in that sense is misleading. FMEs urge proactivity about changing the defects in laws regarding property rights and torts thaty they see as the source of the problem. Bonitammmm (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but John McCain isn't a free-market environmentalist. I removed his name. The first source cited was a dead link, and the second one was to a blog post made by a man arguing AGAINST his free-market environmentalism claims from a speech. The fact is: McCain is not a supporter of the free market, and can therefore not be a supporter of free-market environmentalism. He wants to offer tax incentives to corporations who develop alternative energy - how is that free-market? --22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Free market environmentalism and community currency
I'd like to see more material on community currency integrated into this page. I'm quite familiar with the topic of community currency, but less familiar with free-market environmentalism, but there seem to be numerous connections. For example, Thomas H. Greco, a major advocate for and scholar of community currency, outlines an argument that a lot of the problems in our society (including environmental problems and other problems that can be seen as a result of short-term thinking and a desire to make quick profits at the expense of others) stem from the nature of our currency supply--central reserve banking in particular. However, unlike most libertarians who advocate returning to currencies backed by precious metals, Greco advocates decentralized, local, community-based currencies that are backed by other means (such as businesses pledging to redeem them, or mutual credit systems backed by membership agreements and the trust in the relationships of the people in the network).
This material seems highly relevant here because the systems Greco (and other community currency advocates) are presenting are free-market solutions specifically designed to address community-level concerns without centralized government regulation. Does anyone have any thoughts or ideas about how we could start integrating this material into this page? Cazort (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Community currency's are not relevent to this topic. I don't think they should be included in any way in this article. Besides community currencys don't work, there are a lot of reasons why but the two main reasons being that most businesses purchase supplies nationally or internationally making a currency that is only traded locally useless and (at least in the US) it is illegal to pay employees in anything but legal tender. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Lack of Balance re: Criticisms of Free-market Environmentalism
It seems that a significant amount of debate about this topic has not been included in the article, but should be. For example, there has been significant criticism backed up by scientific data of the viability or reliability of free-market approaches to environmental protection in the context of global ecosystem services, some of which (e.g. disease regulation, disaster risk reduction, spiritual and mental health benefits etc) cannot possibly be protected or managed under private property, tort or market approaches because there is often no element which could be reasonably defined as property (e.g. the ecosystems involved are too diffuse and transboundary or the species are migratory), or because no objective definition of loss or benefit can be agreed (e.g. sense-of-place, and spiritual or social well-being, are entirely subjective). Someone involved in this area should add additonal iformation and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)