Thanks to the Piton for linking up with the Economist's recent green piece. But honestly, dudes, did you actually read the article? Or has the sharp-tongued voice of the Left made a verrrrrry hard right turn.
Sure, the idea of valuation in the environmental movement is a cool idea, and one worth supporting. It'd be great to be able to show Exxon that they can save money in location A by not drilling the shit out of location B.
On the other hand, letting "market forces" regulate natural resources is about as smart as letting Jose Canseco have the keys to the medicine cabinet. Even the most pedestrian analysis of emission-trading schemes clearly points out that the system is totally ripe for abuse and that oversight would always be needed. Yes, oversight. Like, you know, the elected dudes and dudettes in the big building down the street.
And if governmental oversight is needed anyway, why risk one-of-a-kind natural creations like a native salmon run or a fragile wilderness area on the ability of Haliburton to play fair with McDonnel Douglas?
There is no natural elasticity to the environmental commodity. If you screw it up once, it's gone. It's not like we can plant more endangered species seeds next year to compensate for this year's screw up. And judging by the litany of environmental screw ups we've seen in the last 15 years, that's exactly what would happen.
LINK: The Economist