My "Sustainable Development" college course

[miseleigh]

The computer science department at my college (the University of Massachusetts, Lowell) has this one small component listed as a graduation requirement. It's called a 'social science with an ethics component.' (We also need one with a diversity component.) Now, there are not many courses I can take that fit this requirement, but I did find one: Sustainable Development. So I sign up, and show up for class prepared for environmentalism, socialism, and who knows what else.

I've been receiving everything I expected. Luckily, at least, my professor has made it clear from the start that he knows he has a personal bias, expects everyone else to have their own personal bias, and having one will not affect one's grade as long as one presents arguments to support it. Oh, happy day, that I can argue in class and do well because of it! (Not that it would matter to me if he did lower my grade because of my views, since the only thing I need to take from this class is 3 measly credits that I could get simply by showing up.)

Step 1: Review the syllabus. Note that we will be watching many videos and reading many articles. Note, in particular, that the last video to be watched in class is... drumroll please... "An Inconvenient Truth." How inconvenient. I've already watched it once, and despised it the first time. Hopefully I'll be able to convince my professor to include "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as well.

Step 2: Raise my hand immediately when someone else in class expresses major concern over CERN and the LHC since it's going to create black holes that will swallow the earth. Explain politely but with certainty that there are no physicists expressing such a view, and that I will take a physicist's word on this matter over anyone else's any day. Cringe when my professor uses this opportunity to say the same about global warming. Delight in the fact that there are already several collectivist students in my class who despise me, and it's only day 1. They have no chance.

Step 3: A few classes into the course, expect to learn interesting information when my professor asks us if we have any questions regarding the current economic situation in the US, or any other topics. Ask him what effect he thinks the CRA had on the current situation. Ask if he thinks the proposed bailout is constitutional, and if it will help.

Now, my professor is actually in the Economics department, so I expected something other than complete confusion over my first question; he never answered my other ones. It is clear he supports the bailout, and does not think the government had anything to do with the mortgage problems. Cue emails.

Megan,

fyi

I really had a hard time understanding why you would think that the CRA was a factor in the current financial crisis.

Until I saw this was a creation of Fox news and National Review

I realize now this is part of a disinformation campaign and not so subtle racist strategy

See some of the following

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...snt-the-co.html

by Mark Thoma a highly respected economist blog

but also

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...8_09/014833.php

a political blog

and read down to about the 6th comment for details and reference to NY Times article and account of Bush admin rules that forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase subprime lending

~Email from my Sustainable Development professor.

My response:

Professor,

Thank you for sending me these links. Although I still believe the CRA had an impact, it may not have been as much of one as I thought.

As for why I still think the CRA had something to do with it: after reading more about it, it appears to me that the CRA mandates lending to potentially risky borrowers. Although, as one of the links you sent mentioned, it's been in place for 30 years without problems, it was still the means by which increased regulation was made possible. Without the CRA in place, the additional regulations that were a more direct cause would not have happened as easily.

In any case, whether it was the CRA in particular or one of the many other regulatory acts in place, or a combination, the fundamental issue doesn't change: the market didn't fail, it was made impossible. And the prime mover in the destruction of the market was the government. I don't much care which branch, or which party, especially now that both parties seem to aim for more regulations rather than fewer; in any case, without the government intervention in subprime mortgage lending, we would not have the situation we have now.

John R. Lott, someone you may have heard of, wrote an opinion piece for Fox news that I found informative. As much as I dislike Fox for being fear-mongering exaggerating "journalists", at least I can have some amount of trust in this particular author, as a PhD economist from UCLA. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424945,00.html

My angle on everything we discuss in class, as I'm sure you've noticed, is an individualist angle. A human's only means of survival is through the use of his mind, and in order to maintain that survival he must be free to use it. This is why I support laissez-faire capitalism and many other ideas that follow from freedom. Although these systems do not always work in that not everyone will do well under them, the ability to choose one's own investments and make one's own decisions and contracts at least gives everyone the chance to do well, without imposing on others. This applies to companies as well, since they are simply large groups of individuals. With acts such as the CRA, the owners and executive officers of large mortgage companies are no longer allowed to decide for themselves. So although it may not have been due to the CRA in particular, and certainly wasn't solely due to the CRA, the current situation only happened because of the idea that the government should be involved.

Thanks,

Megan

Email correspondence to be continued, as well as further updates on this wonderful class

(That's right, I'm a ninja in this class. You can't see my responses coming until they hit you in the back of the head. At least I can have fun with it!)

Edited October 1, 2008 by miseleigh

[Capitalism Forever]

I really had a hard time understanding why you would think that the CRA was a factor in the current financial crisis.

Until I saw this was a creation of Fox news and National Review

I realize now this is part of a disinformation campaign and not so subtle racist strategy

It was actually your professor that wrote this? I would have guessed it must have been from some stupid, immature liberal student in your class! "Not so subtle racist strategy" ?

Keep us posted on further developments (sustainable or not ), I'll be curious to read your arguments and the professor's reaction! You've done a pretty good job so far. Something tells me you're enjoying this!

[brian0918]

Send him this article, which was written 8 years ago and predicted the whole thing, blaming the reinvestment act:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_...ion_dollar.html

Essentially, the modifications to the CRA in the 90s allowed community groups (such as ACORN, and the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) to extort billions of dollars from banks on threat of stalling bank mergers through false complaints to the government. Since government permission is needed for these mergers, banks are forced to essentially hand over these large sums to the groups, who in turn hand out loans to high risk people. Surprise, surprise, these high risk people couldn't pay back the loans, and the banks were left to deal with it.

Read that article through, and you'll know the full story.

CRA's role can't get much clearer than this quote from one of the community groups that helped hand out these mortgages to high risk individuals:

CRA is the backbone of everything we do.

And if he doesn't like Fox News, how about the NYT, which posted this in 1999:

But [Fannie Mae] may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Edited October 1, 2008 by brian0918

[D'kian]

It was actually your professor that wrote this? I would have guessed it must have been from some stupid, immature liberal student in your class! "Not so subtle racist strategy" ?

Back in college, lo these many years ago, whenever I tried even the mildest defense of liberty, my sociology teacher, a women with a doctorate (as she never tired of informing us) would reply "That what they want you to believe!" And you should ahve seen her eyes go wide and her voice become shrill.

[Capitalism Forever]

"That what they want you to believe!" And you should ahve seen her eyes go wide and her voice become shrill.

ROFL! Sweet.

[brian0918]

In short: your professor's as braindead as they come. Here's the whole crux of his argument:

Are we supposed to believe that CRA was working smoothly throughout the Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton years and then only under Bush II did overzealous anti-"redlining" enforcement come into play, perhaps a result of Dubya's legendarily close relationship with ACORN?

What that ignores is that the CRA was changed during the Clinton administration. That first article I linked explains exactly what was changed, and how that led to the extortion of billions by community groups from banks:

The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made? Have banks invested in all neighborhoods within their assessment area? Do they operate branches in those neighborhoods?

Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition—a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA—issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled "The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved." "Timely comments," the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, "can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating."

This was an open invitation for abuse, and was readily taken advantage of (to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars).

As for the rest of his argument:

The mere existence of "subprime" loans ... isn't the problem here. The problems have to do with what was done with the loans after they were packaged, sold and used to make leveraged plays.

All he's saying is that one wrong was fine, but the other wrong was not fine. Both were bad for those affected, but only one was forced (by definition) upon the market.

As for the packaging of the loans, I could just as easily say that the real wrong was with the companies that were willing to buy these risky packages without demanding to know the source of their contents.

Is this Prof. Mass or Egan? I'd almost suggest reporting this idiocy to the department head. It's frightening that this guy's understanding goes as far as a couple random blogs, combined with the belief that one can reject an argument solely based on its source (despite being one of many such sources).

Edited October 1, 2008 by brian0918

[Tenure]

Send him this article, which was written 8 years ago and predicted the whole thing, blaming the reinvestment act:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_...ion_dollar.html

As much as I like that article, the general impression I got was that there was something wider than the CRA going on. I mean, wikipedia even uses it as a source for why the CRA couldn't have been the only factor (I remember he says at one point that lenders were still making hasty concessions to whichever board was in charge of monitoring this, even though they didn't need to).

[brian0918]

I remember he says at one point that lenders were still making hasty concessions to whichever board was in charge of monitoring this, even though they didn't need to.

Can you find the section you're referring to? I'd ask what the evidence is that "they didn't need to" make those concessions. I could easily envision a bank seeing these high-risk loans, and saying, "but these people are too risky", after which the community group says, "don't push us or we'll stall your merger", and the bank is forced to accept.

Edited October 1, 2008 by brian0918

[miseleigh]

Brian, thank you for the links. I will have to check out that article.

Continuing on, now that I have more time to post the rest of the email correspondence so far...

Megan

thanks for your thoughts.

Let's have a meeting briefly after class soon so you can understand my framework.

You may well disagree and continue to learn.

I find it difficult to follow these types of arguments when clearly all evidence and even the majority of even those economists philosophically locked into strictly free market thinking do not believe the problem was too much government when the rapid expansion of mortgages came from new financial activities supported by ASBs (Asset Based Securities) which were completely and entirely unregulated. This wildly transformed incentives to give mortgages by those who just resold and resold them again. A strictly private market outcome of unregulated financial innovation.

Belief and faith can be held to strongly, but what does that mean about understanding when evidence is ignored?

Do you believe there was a great Depression? do you believe it originated in a large role of government, when the federal government was a very small part of the economy?

A market fundamentalist believes that markets alone bring "the greatest possible equity and prosperity, and that any interference with the market process decreases social well being." I believe this denies the reality of periods of significant and prolonged unemployment - except to always assume and then find (create?) the evidence this resulted from government action; ....much less the problem of managing the "Commons" which I see as quite pervasive. I share the perspective well stated by Josepth Stiglitiz: "...market fundamentalism, based on an incorrect understanding of economic theory and (what I viewed) as an inadequate interpretation of the historical data."

I know you begin from the point of view that government action will always make things worse but how do you explain the improvements in water and air quality when stricter standards are enforced? Saved lives and less illness less important than money for whom? I do not believe these standards significantly reduced rate of growth of economc output if at all, and may have increased output as well as well-being. The counterfactual assessment of what might have otherwise occurred is a diffcult task and easily biased so be careful to assess the bias of the analyst. Including my own.

As you might guess from my comments last class, I am very surprised that right wing congresspersons have so far blocked bailout legislation. If there are no actions taken - and I have my own preferences on the nature of the best policy remedy that I do not expect to be reflected in political compromise - the recession will deepen and last longer. If you think diminishing the role of government and deregulation as suggested by this group of congresspersons will succeed, I think this is a highly, highly risky proposition. - and if they succeed in blocking government action sooner or later will have serious consequences.

If you ae interested in views closer to mine in assessing the work of Milton Friedman, the most notable modern father of market fundamentalism see:

Agreeing to Disagree

Robert Kuttner speaks with Milton Friedman

By Robert Kuttner

Issue Date: 01.05.06

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...articleId=10764

Cant and Recant

From our January 2006 issue: The last major research Milton Friedman conducted on the Federal Reserve challenges key assumptions of a very prominent economist: Milton Friedman.

By Robert Kuttner

Web Exclusive: 11.16.06

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...articleId=10795

I look forward to a future conversation.

Now, I have not read these links yet. Although I've read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose, and enjoyed it, I'm not sure how deeply I want to delve into economics. I may have to, though, considering that I'm blaming government regulation for the current economic issues in the US. Ah, well, I can argue for freedom even without continuing to blame regulations for everything.

Professor,

I would like to see the evidence you speak of. I only use the word 'believe' because I know that I have not seen all evidence relevant, or even enough evidence to claim that I know what's been going on; I have not been interested in the economy until recently, and so I have a lot of catching-up to do. What I have seen does point to government regulations, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as major players in the current economic problems by providing incentives for banks and lenders to issue loans that would otherwise have been bad investments.

As for whether or not I believe there was a Great Depression is a rather ridiculous question. As for the reasons for the Great Depression, I know much less about it than I do about our current situation, and do not know enough to say. Since I have heard many parallels drawn between our current situation and the years leading up to the Great Depression, I may decide to look into it.

I am for free markets, but not for the reason that free markets provide the greatest good for the greatest possible number. I am for free markets because human beings require freedom to survive as humans. Without freedom, without the ability to choose and act upon that choice, humans can no longer rely upon reason and intelligence - the very things that humans must use for survival. The fact that free markets often do work better than other systems is a byproduct of that ability to use reason.

In addition, I do not think I have implied that government action always makes things worse. The government is there to protect citizens' rights. In areas such as pollution, the government ought to step in to protect those rights - the right not to be forced to breathe poisoned air or drink poisoned water. However, once a compound is proven safe, or if it only affects those who use it, it ought to be allowed. The government should also force transparency of production, ensuring that users know if a compound does have a negative effect, and therefore the user could avoid the product.

As for the bailout - I do not think it is constitutional, and I do think it is a bad idea. Many companies that failed have been bought by better ones. Not only is this preferable to the fascist state we will become if the government is allowed to continue controlling the economy, but it also allows banks to learn that they can, in fact, fail. Children learn this way too, and it's been proven effective. Why should the government initiate a plan that will cost every person in America about $3,000 to implement, rather than allow the failing companies to be bought by well-run ones? As John Allison, an executive at BB&T bank, wrote in a letter to congressmen and senators, "A significant and immediate tax credit for purchasing homes would be a far less expensive and more effective cure for the mortgage market and financial system than the proposed 'rescue' plan." I've attached a copy of this letter to provide the viewpoint of someone who is actually in the middle of this situation rather than standing on the edges.

Unfortunately I cannot meet with you after class to discuss this, since I have another class immediately afterwards. However, I'm free after that, at 2:30, if you have time then.

Sincerely,

Megan

His response to this is to thank me for my thoughtful email, along with more suggestions to meet in person, followed by:

I strongly endorse your emphasis on the value of freedom. One role of social and economic analysis is to advance understanding of conditions conducive to sustaining human rights and freedoms, and why there are differences among groups in their analysis.

I will be working up material on the financial crisis and the government repsonse, but I will wait until it best fits into course and a bit longer to analyze what is included in the legislation.

One thing I am going to do is create a small collection of links that help prove my points, and send that to him with the suggestion that he include some of it in his analysis. Although I have only been in his class twice a week for a month, he seems like a fairly reasonable man who has been indoctrinated into the arena of non-logic. I may actually be able to have some effect in this course. Coming up tonight, when I have more time: a critique of the movie we watched in class yesterday, one which I actually enjoyed, for the most part. (Except, of course, for the parts I'll be criticizing.)

Brian, as for reporting him to the department head - if it gets truly awful, I may, but since we have posters around the school about recycling, and sustainability, and the teacher's union, and advertising the coffee at the small cafes by lauding that it's solar-dried, I doubt it would help very much. And whether it's professor Mass or Egan - I'm not sure I should say, especially since I haven't asked his permission to post his emails to me online.

D'kian, I am so glad my professor doesn't react that way. I hate shrillness We'll see how he reacts when we get to the global warming section of the course, though. It may be similar.

And C.F., I am absolutely enjoying this I keep thinking of all my poor classmates who have never heard a different viewpoint on this kind of crap, and I keep hoping that one or more of them will listen a little. Plus I just enjoy debating, and I rarely have a good forum for that. It's already been helping me hone my debate skills

[brian0918]

Do you believe there was a great Depression? do you believe it originated in a large role of government, when the federal government was a very small part of the economy?

Yes, yes, and wrong. Ask him if he's willing to question his beliefs. Then ask him if the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, the interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve itself, and the National Recovery Act can be considered "small government".

Point him to this book for more information. GreedyCapitalist has a nice post on the causes of the Depression.

Edited October 1, 2008 by brian0918

[Capitalism Forever]

Regarding the Great Depression, see Richard Salsman's series of articles in TIA, starting in the June 2004 issue.

[miseleigh]

And now, finally, for the promised review of a video we watched in class.

"The Next Industrial Revolution", based on an article of the same name by William McDonough, is by far the best documentary I have seen from the sustainable development movement. Unlike most videos in the genre, this one actually had some amount of focus on how being sustainable is profitable. There were several impressive concrete examples; the new Ford Rouge factory was one such example. The major feature of this rebuilt plant is the plants - on the roof. A 'living roof' helps insulate the building, reducing energy costs; it prevents runoff, a major source of land damage around the site; and the internal design lets nine models to be built at any one time, allowing for changing customer demands.

Although there was some focus on the possible profitability for companies, this video still had more focus on preventing pollution and not harming the environment than on the benefits to humans. The idea that being green is now a very marketable position was entirely missed. The thought that pollution should be prevented because it harms people was thrown out - instead, it should be prevented because it harms animals, because it's not natural, because of a myriad of other reasons that did not involve people.

I happen to agree with McDonough on his end result - a form of architecture and production that utilizes every possible resource to save money. It is the way he gets there, and the way he presents his ideas, that I completely disagree with.

Emotion is a large factor in this video. The example involving Nike starts off with how our footprint is poisonous - referring to the minute amount of synthetic rubber we leave behind with every step. Showing a marathon afterwards is meant to induce a feeling of horror and guilt in the viewer, and it works. In presenting the Industrial Revolution as a design problem, something McDonough uses in his architecture classes at Oberlin, the makers of the video easily paint industry as a force that intends to pollute, intends to destroy life, and intends to be as unsustainable as possible. Nowhere is the Industrial Revolution given credit for creating the technologies necessary for McDonough's work and the green architecture he is so much in love with.

Overall, if this is the best (read: most rational and effective) video the sustainable development movement can produce, the movement may be in trouble. Without focusing more specifically on the business and human aspects of the cause, the good parts of the video become lost in emotion and appeals to 'natural law.' Even so, there was enough focus on the business aspects for me to enjoy it, most of the time; and for businessmen to at least consider looking into 'eco-efficiency' as something that may make sense. With a little egocentric principle behind it, "The Next Industrial Revolution" may indeed come to pass.

[miseleigh]

Time for the take-home midterm exam.

1) As it is an election year, imagine that you are taking part in a debate about what policies (that is, laws or practices) the United States should pursue in the upcoming decade. Your opponent believes that environmental problems are exaggerated and that the environment should not be a focus of US policy. Draft a script that you would read from at the debate.

a. What facts would you cite to persuade your opponent and your audience that a focus on the environment, and on sustainability, should be a high priority? Draw on readings (both articles and web sites,) films, and class discussion where appropriate. Say what your sources are (but no need for formal citations.)

b. As part of your argument, offer a definition of sustainability in 2-4 sentences, drawing on the definitions used by authors of our readings (and mentioning their names when you use their words or ideas).

c. Select one policy or approach to protecting the environment that you think is best, describe it, and explain why you think it is the best or most important.

In class today, I clarified this question for myself, asking if I could argue from the other side if I preferred. My professor was hesitant to say yes, but later emailed me: "You may write your midterm essay as you wish. As I said in class just be sure you can identify accurately the perspectives of authors from class readings and then you can argue opposing viewpoints." I think he agreed partially because of the outside discussions we've had, and because it's clear I do some amount of research. Coming up (hopefully in an hour or so): my answer to question one, and if I have time, question two. (There are three.) However, if anyone has a comment about the question or possible responses, please wait until I post at least a rough draft, lest I be accused of asking others to write my test for me. Thanks!

[miseleigh]

Here is my answer for question one. It is longer than it needs to be, and needs some heavy editing to strengthen it; I would certainly appreciate ideas and comments now, if anyone is interested enough to offer them Critique of my application of Objectivism to the issues discussed would be especially helpful. I do not think what I've written will hold up to my professor's red pen just yet, and I probably hold some mistaken premise somewhere that I haven't discovered yet.

1A) My argument in such a debate would focus on the need to create laws regarding pollution that are based on individual rights. Too many laws, or badly written ones, would have as much a negative effect as too few.

Fact one: The Constitution was written to protect individual rights. In addition, the Constitution states that all individuals within the United States have the same rights. Since the government is sworn to uphold these rights, any laws written regarding development, environmentalism, or pollution must take individual rights into account. (Source: the US Constitution.)

Fact two: Liberty is one such right granted by the Constitution. If a company pollutes the air, water, or land such that the pollution does not negatively affect other individuals, the people that make up that company are asserting their right to liberty and not infringing on anyone else’s rights. In this case, to uphold individual rights, there is no basis for laws or regulations intended to stop that pollution. If, however, the pollution causes demonstrable harm to another person against their will, that person’s rights have been violated and they may sue the company. The government should then react by creating the necessary laws to prevent that harm. Such cases would include a company upstream of a township, where the company provably dumps harmful substances into the water. However, the main point is to uphold individual liberty, on all sides of a conflict. The government’s edict is to determine who’s rights have been violated, and what the appropriate punishment should be. (Source: the US Constitution.)

Fact three: DDT is an example of the dangers of over-regulation. It was banned by the EPA in 1972, even though a judge for the EPA had listened to seven months of testimony that led him to state "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man...DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man...The use of DDT under the regulations involved here [does] not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." The benefits of DDT to humans were immense: the number of cases of malaria in Venezuela dropped from over 8 million down to 800. India and Italy had similarly drastic drops. Food production soared as damaging insects were killed. Today, still, the only negative effect of DDT that has been proven is the thinning of eggshells in raptors: yet it remains banned. (Source: ReasonOnline, “Silent Spring at 40”)

The problem still remains of the Tragedy of the Commons, the problem that individual users of a common resource will use more of that resource than the resource can sustain, thereby depleting it. The fallacy that this claim uses, however, is that commons exist without some sort of agreement between the individuals using it. If the resource is truly a common resource, it is owned by all the individuals using it, equally; therefore, none may use more than his share, or he risks violating the implied contract, at which point the government may rightfully step in to correct his oversight. If the common resource is actually owned by no one, rather than by all, any one individual’s use of it may be as extensive as he wishes, but his use of it may not violate another’s rights through pollution or other directly harmful effects. (See fact two above.) Using the classic example with herds of sheep on a field, if all farmers agreed a field is a common resource, the first decision would have to be how many sheep the field can support; then, each farmer may keep his share of that number of sheep on the field. Individual farmers can trade sheep rights amongst themselves if one farmer has more sheep and another has fewer. If, however, the field is not owned, any farmer may keep as many sheep as he likes on that field. He simply risks starving them if too many sheep overgraze the field. In both cases, the farmers risk lawsuits from the townspeople downriver when the sheep pollute the stream. (Sources: Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”; Crowe, “The Tragedy of the Commons Revisited”.)

1B) Sustainability means ensuring that a resource or level of production can be sustained for an indefinite length of time – that it can continue at its current rate in the future. The logging industry, for example, is sustainable as long as the same numbers of trees are planted each year as are cut (excluding other factors such as a changing demand or climate.) Farmers ensure their fields remain sustainable by rotating crops such that each subsequent crop replenishes the nutrients in the soil that the previous one used.

1C) The environment should be protected only when, and always when, doing so protects individual rights. The environment only has value as it pertains to humans; therefore banning substances that do not adversely affect humans, even if they have some negative effect on the environment, violates individual rights: the rights of those producing that substance. The idea that the environment has intrinsic value, or value outside of what humans assign to it, destroys the concept of “value”: something which makes life better for the one doing the evaluating. In order for value to have meaning, a the evaluator must first choose life over death – humans are the only creatures known that can do this (animals do not commit suicide), and thus the only creatures that can have a concept of value. Therefore, the environment only has the value that humans assign to it. (General source: Ayn Rand.)

Many views of environmental protection actually rest on the unspoken idea that the environment holds value for humans. Most discussions of sustainability do not use the environment as an end in itself; instead, it is future generations that are thought of. Environmentalists often use the idea that the rainforest may hold hundreds of undiscovered wonder drugs as a reason for its protection. Making the human-centered view outspoken, and following it completely through individual rights, would do more to promote human welfare and wealth than allowing the intrinsic form on environmentalism to continue would.

Edited October 15, 2008 by miseleigh

[JMeganSnow]

In addition, I do not think I have implied that government action always makes things worse. The government is there to protect citizens' rights. In areas such as pollution, the government ought to step in to protect those rights - the right not to be forced to breathe poisoned air or drink poisoned water. However, once a compound is proven safe, or if it only affects those who use it, it ought to be allowed. The government should also force transparency of production, ensuring that users know if a compound does have a negative effect, and therefore the user could avoid the product.

I have problems with this paragraph. Firstly, the formulation "forced to breathe poisoned air or drink poisoned water" leaves a LOT of leeway for two reasons: you don't define "poisoned" and it makes it seem like water and air quality of a certain level are a "right". It would be better to say that an individual has the right to seek redress for provable damage, either to person or property. If your water tastes bad, you haven't been "harmed". If your water makes you ill, you have. There's a difference.

Secondly, it is wrong to force people to prove that the chemicals they are using are "safe". Safe for what? In what dosage? Under what conditions? As with all other legal cases, the burden should fall upon the *claimant* to prove the harm. You can't require omniscience as a condition of being *allowed* to do business, which is what this sort of thing would entail. Instead, a policy of treating industrial concerns the same as any other citizens (even if you act in good faith and do harm, you are still responsible for the results of your actions although you cannot rightfully be considered a *criminal*) will result in a satisfactory situation.

Nor should the government *force* transparency of production. It is up to the customers to *request* this as a condition of doing business. If they don't care to do so, well, caveat emptor.

Laissez-faire capitalism only works if it is accepted *absolutely*, as a principle, which means the government cannot regulate *any* aspect of business *even if it seems like a good idea*. All the government can do toward business is what it does toward any other citizen: protect their rights. You cannot have a right to *things*, including water or air of a particular quality, a guarantee of safety, or information. You certainly have a right to take your business elsewhere if you're not getting those things, however.

[JMeganSnow]

If, however, the pollution causes demonstrable harm to another person against their will, that person’s rights have been violated and they may sue the company. The government should then react by creating the necessary laws to prevent that harm.

GAH! No, no, no, no! Government should not be in the business of making laws to prevent ANYTHING!!!! I can't stress that enough. If harm has occurred, the court system allows the harmed to seek redress for those harms including such things as orders to clean up the mess so that other people are not harmed, but a specific law should *never* be made on the basis of a particular circumstance unless someone has somehow come up with an entirely new and unprecidented way to violate rights that is not covered under any existing legislation. I can't think of any way they might *do* that, since people have already been pretty durn creative on that score, but I won't rule it out.

Fact three: DDT is an example of the dangers of over-regulation.

Use of the word "over" here is irrelevant and misleading.

"DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man...DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man...

The characteristics of DDT are irrelevant, as the government should not be in the business of banning chemicals. The case should only have existed if some specific individuals were claiming some specific injury, but that wasn't the case.

The problem still remains of the Tragedy of the Commons, the problem that individual users of a common resource will use more of that resource than the resource can sustain, thereby depleting it. The fallacy that this claim uses, however, is that commons exist without some sort of agreement between the individuals using it. If the resource is truly a common resource, it is owned by all the individuals using it, equally; therefore, none may use more than his share, or he risks violating the implied contract, at which point the government may rightfully step in to correct his oversight. If the common resource is actually owned by no one, rather than by all, any one individual’s use of it may be as extensive as he wishes, but his use of it may not violate another’s rights through pollution or other directly harmful effects. (See fact two above.) Using the classic example with herds of sheep on a field, if all farmers agreed a field is a common resource, the first decision would have to be how many sheep the field can support; then, each farmer may keep his share of that number of sheep on the field. Individual farmers can trade sheep rights amongst themselves if one farmer has more sheep and another has fewer. If, however, the field is not owned, any farmer may keep as many sheep as he likes on that field. He simply risks starving them if too many sheep overgraze the field. In both cases, the farmers risk lawsuits from the townspeople downriver when the sheep pollute the stream. (Sources: Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”; Crowe, “The Tragedy of the Commons Revisited”.)

This part is cool.

1B) Sustainability means ensuring that a resource or level of production can be sustained for an indefinite length of time – that it can continue at its current rate in the future. The logging industry, for example, is sustainable as long as the same numbers of trees are planted each year as are cut (excluding other factors such as a changing demand or climate.) Farmers ensure their fields remain sustainable by rotating crops such that each subsequent crop replenishes the nutrients in the soil that the previous one used.

I'm assuming that's what it says in the textbook or something along those lines? I have problems with this formulation (and what it means), but since you're taking a class on sustainability I suppose you have to put up with this part, anyway.

Fundamentally, in economic terms, this sort of sustainability is nonsense because economic conditions are always changing and some things just exist in limited quantities--I'd like to see a construct such as a "sustainable" gold mine. When the vein or ore or whatever plays out, it's out.

Much better would be to recast the definition of sustainability in *human* terms instead of in terms of "resources" and undefined time periods. Sustainable development is the type that serves to benefit humans over the *long term*. Sometimes it really is better to use up what you have to springboard development rather than keep saving for a rainy day, such as a student who goes into debt in order to get an education. Oh, sure, they could probably work at a fast-food job for the rest of their lives, that would be the "sustainable" method, but it wouldn't be in their best interests over the long term, that's for sure.

If you cast your argument in those terms, you can make quite the compelling case *for* sustainability *and* that the government ought to keep out of it, which might be very interesting to your teacher. You can dig up information on the government pushing "green" technologies before they are economically viable being a bad thing because subsidies drain money and destroy resources.

I'm looking at the original question and finding it poorly-designed for your purposes, you may want to ask your professor about that. Starting with a list of facts is a bad way to persuade. From what I've seen, you start by stating your position, defining it so that the audience has a context, and only *then* submitting the facts that support it. Asking for facts *then* definition *then* policy is a bit awkward in my mind.

(A particular speaker may start out with a few facts as a lead-in to their position, but it's more of an attention-grabber than a support for their position at that point.)

[Matus1976]

1B) Sustainability means ensuring that a resource or level of production can be sustained for an indefinite length of time – that it can continue at its current rate in the future. The logging industry, for example, is sustainable as long as the same numbers of trees are planted each year as are cut (excluding other factors such as a changing demand or climate.) Farmers ensure their fields remain sustainable by rotating crops such that each subsequent crop replenishes the nutrients in the soil that the previous one used.

Everything about 'sustainability' is a bad idea. Lots of small communities producing locally only what they need is a recipe for disaster. The first drought, hurricane, or tornado that swings through will basically condemn all those inhabitants to certain death. Neighboring sustainable villages do not produce food or supplies 'in excess' as that is not sustainable. I love these people who complain that a typical watermelon travels 1,000 miles to get to your kitchen ignoring the fact that they can't actually grow watermelons, or most other crops, where they live.

For many centuries frontier life in America was essentially a life of sustainability. Families lived in small crowded houses, produced enough food for themselves, made candle from animal fat from animals they raised and slaughtered, made clothing from laboriously spinning various grass like plants, and spent virtually every waking moment doing what was required just to 'sustain' themselves. PBS ran a 'reality' show which humorously emphasized this, called (I think) Frontier life, it stuck wealthy families in the middle of the oregon forest with 1600's technology and asked them to survive the winter. The father did pretty much nothing but chop wood, and the mother almost nothing but pickle things. The children tended animals and crops. All of the families worked their butts off and by the end of the summer a judge determined that none of them would have survived the winter, not enough wood or food. It was quite the entertaining show.

Advanced technologies may enable a more comfortable vision of 'sustainability' The technologies that the advocates of sustainability rely on, like wind and solar power, can only be afforded because they are mass produced by giant industries. Show me a man living 'off the grid' who is able to manufacture his own solar cells, or even able to sun bake his own bricks.

And as Meghan pointed out, how do you have a 'sustainable' mine? This whole thing about 'running out of resources' is an absolute absurdity. My Econ professor tried to say the same thing, so I asked, ok, why then are there more people than ever before on the earth, but every one of the enjoys a higher standard of living with more material goods than ever before? He balked and the admitted that people have been making malthusian claims for decades. The problem is environmentalist compare potential available resources of the whole planet against the population of the earth, so they think, well if there's six billion people instead of 1 billion, then everyone has 1/6th the resources!

What they don't compare is the utilized and processed resources against the population. My favorite example is Aluminum. Aluminum makes up about 10% of the Earth's crust. The earth, weighing in at 5.98 x 10^ 24 kg, has about 1% of it's mass in the crust, or about 5.98 x 10^22. 10% of that is 5.98x10^21. That's how much aluminum is in the Earth's crust. This is our total available exploitable resource repository of aluminum. At a population of 1 billion people, that's 5.98x10^12 kg per person available of Aluminum. That's almost 6 TRILLION Kilograms PER PERSON. So during the course of the 20th century where the earths population rose from 1 billion to 6 billion, the available resources of aluminum per person dwindled from 6 trillion kilograms PER PERSON to a mere 1 trillion kilograms PER PERSON!!! OH NO! MY GOD! We are running out of resources!!!

1 cubic meter of solid aluminum weighs about 2,700 kg. If we were to build a skyscraper that is 1 km tall and 100 m square at it's base, it would have a total volume of 10 million cubic meters. A typical structure might use 10% of it's volume to hold itself up, making us use about 1 million cubic meters of aluminum per 1km tall skyscraper. At 2,700 kg per cubic meter, and 1 million cubic meters, our skyscraper made of aluminum weighs in at 2.7 billion kilograms. Since each person has almost 1 trillion kilograms of aluminum at his disposal, that comes out to be a large city of 370 skyscrapers FOR EACH PERSON!

Really, I think I would be happy with about a quarter of one skyscraper =P

The malthusiasts and dishonest economists are comparing a growing population number against an EXTREMELY large resource number, but not really acknowledging that the total available resources are so astronomically high that the idea we are running out of resources is a laughable absurdity (consider an every asteroid contains enough nickel and iron to bury the whole of the earth a few miles deep, and there are billions of these just in these asteroid belt) They just want that quick superficial knee jerk reaction. What they should compare against is the total useable exploited resources, since the potential is basically irrelevant, and the usable keeps going up every year.

The environmentalist fear mongers love to scare us about Global Warming, but ignore every other threat humanity and civilization face, like caldera volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, supernovae, solar flares, or even coming man made ones like an out of control self replicating nanotech device. We know that global warming poses no serious existential threat, but that these other things certainly do. The proposed solutions to global warming, like curtailing industrial or economic growth, or building 'sustainable' communities, is exactly what would make it difficult to survive any of these OTHER threats we face, which are best delt with by massive industrial and economic growth, until human civilization is wealthy enough and technological advanced enough to spread out into space, mitigated the chance that any individual threat will wipe it out. That asteroid impact won't give a damn what your carbon foot print was! And it may very well wipe out ALL life on earth. Some of sustainability is good, but only when it relates to self sustaining mobile biospheres (colonies or space stations) any talk of it on earth is a waste of time. Robustness and redundancy are good things, and decentralization of critical life sustaining technologies. But reducing everyone one of us to farmers making just enough food for ourselves is a horrible idea.

[JMeganSnow]

Everything about 'sustainability' is a bad idea.

Not really--that's what makes it so insidious. It's a package-deal combining long-term focus with stagnation and a large dollop of anxiety. Long-term focus *is* important, so not *everything* about sustainability is bad, but the other elements of the package-deal are a serious problem.