Pollution Inequality and Living Income Guaranteed

One of the reasons pollution has been able to become such a huge problem is that those creating the pollution are usually not the ones suffering its consequences. Let’s take the classical fictional example of a paper factory using a nearby river in which to dump its waste-material. The river-current drags these materials away from the paper factory and to a nearby town that uses the river water for drinking purposes. The paper factory might use the same river for drinking water for its employees or production processes, but it will use the water a bit higher up the river, at a point where the water is still clean. So – even though the factory is producing the waste material, dumping it in the river and so contaminating the quality of the water – it is not the factory itself/those working at the factory who feel and experience the consequences of polluting the river to get rid of its waste. Since the factory doesn’t feel the harm in what it’s doing, it won’t change what it’s doing, unless there are complaints from the villagers who DO experience the consequences of the river pollution and take action so that solutions can be implemented.

Now – a study was done by James K. Boyce, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, where he investigated the ‘distribution’ of air pollution. Most people have heard about distribution of income and wealth and how unequal it is. But what about air pollution – is everyone suffering to the same extent or are certain groups/categories of people more exposed – and why?

In an interview with the professor the following was discussed:

LP: Do patterns of inequality differ across the country? How can a person of color or a poor person avoid air pollution?

JKB: Avoiding industrial air pollution is difficult, particularly if you're poor or a member of a racial or ethnic minority. That’s partly because of housing prices. It’s partly because of discrimination in housing and mortgage markets — the phenomenon of red-lining. And it’s also partly because of the tendency for firms to site polluting facilities in relatively low-income and relatively high-minority communities because they expect less political pushback.

Hmmm, that last statement is quite interesting, isn’t it? In the example of our paper factory we were giving the factory ‘the benefit of the doubt’ in saying that – they probably didn’t realize what they were doing within polluting the water of the river, because they weren’t experiencing the consequences of the polluted water. But this statement clearly shows that – polluting firms are not only aware that they are polluting, they are aware that it has negative consequences for others – and yet, so long as they think they can ‘get away with it’, they’ll still do it. And when can they get away with it? When those experiencing the negative outflows are unlikely to speak up or take action to hold the firm accountable.

Or maybe it doesn’t mean that at all. Perhaps – let us entertain this notion for a moment – perhaps people of color or poor people are less likely to initiate political push back because they just don’t mind the air pollution. Maybe they are the enlightened ones who realize that air pollution is really not a big deal and therefore simply don’t want to make a fuss when it isn’t necessary.

But then you get to the following part of the interview:

LP: What are some of the most concerning economic effects of industrial air pollution on communities?

JKB: Air pollution has adverse effects on people’s health, and that means that they have to spend more on healthcare and they miss more days of work, either because they themselves are too ill to go to work or because their kids are sick and they have to stay home and take care of them. It also has adverse effects on property values, which vary with the levels of air pollution in the community.

On top of those outcome effects, it also impacts equality of opportunity, particularly for children. Because communities that are heavily burdened with air pollution tend to have higher incidence and greater severity of childhood asthma, the kids miss more days of school, and partly because they’re missing school and perhaps partly because of the neurological impacts of air pollution on their young and developing cognitive function, there is an adverse effect on school performance.

If you believe, as I think most Americans believe, that every kid deserves an equal chance, that equality of opportunity for children is dear to our society for reasons of both equity and efficiency, then the impacts of disproportionate pollution burdens on the children in some communities – the fact that the playing field is tilted against them through no fault of their own – is a troubling feature of our environmental landscape.

That settles it then – air pollution is definitely a problem that impacts the lives of those who are most exposed to it in a harmful way. So, it’s highly unlikely that they don’t mind – it must be that there is a problem in their ability to voice themselves and push for solutions that would improve their standard of living. And that makes total sense. As we have argued before – political participation is currently a luxury that can only be afforded by those who have the money and the time to firstly educate themselves on what procedures are available to them to organize themselves, formulate complaints and propose solutions – and secondly, walk these procedures and taking action.

With the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed, companies would no longer have the ability to get away with excessive air pollution in low-income or minority community areas. No matter how much one currently struggles to get by income-wise and no matter if one belongs to a ‘minority community’ – each one’s economic situation would be secured and therefore, each one’s political influence is guaranteed as well. Herein, we could make an end to the cycle of impairing opportunities of those who already have a harder time to make the best of the opportunities they do have. Because once one is caught up in the struggle to survive, one has no bargaining power – one becomes the equivalent of a ‘slave’ within a system where one’s long term benefits are sacrificed for the short term goals of having enough money to put food on the table and pay the bills. And this is known by the bullies of the world who will ensure that the consequences they create are carried mostly by those who don’t have the luxury to put a stop to it.

So, is a Living Income Guaranteed ‘bad news’ for firms? No – not at all. The philosophy of the free market is based on the premise that off-setting individual interests can create the best outcome for everyone. Of course, interests that are not voiced have no power to off-set anything at all – which is precisely what we’re witnessing in the world today. A Living Income Guaranteed would ensure that all interests are considered and play a role within the creation of an optimal outcome. Air pollution is a great example herein, because what is air pollution – it is a way in which the natural equilibrium is disturbed, which, as we are all too aware of, is having consequences on the larger natural systems that the air forms a part of. In essence, it is a form of poisoning the planet, the planet we all share. We can try for a while to keep the effects of pollution isolated so that most, or at least the more affluent, in society don’t have to worry about it. But the planet is an interconnected system and eventually – as we’re noticing with global warming – the effects will reach everyone. So – implementing a Living Income Guaranteed is not only a matter of empowering those without means or voice to make a decent living for themselves in this world – it is a vital step to ensure that we create optimal outcomes for everyone, that cannot be achieved if not everyone is part of the discussion.




http://livingincome.me
http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/
https://www.youtube.com/user/LivingIncome
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117690749220880074672
http://www.twitter.com/LivingIncome

Read More

Day 160 - Stewardship in an Equal Money System

Stewardship

Nature and Symbiosis

When left to operate naturally, the plant and animal world exist in a symbiotic relationship with each other. Symbiosis is, in essence, a giving and receiving – a form of value exchange. When all parts of nature are allowed to exist in a symbiotic way – they together exist as a massive and complex life-support system, which human beings are meant to be a part of.

A profit-driven system has altered how we view and participate in nature, where we have started to take more than we require and virtually stopped giving back, hereby disrupting the balancing effect nature requires in order to be able to perform its function as a symbiotic life-support system.

Monitoring the Well-Being of Animals and Plants

In an Equal Money System the human being will reintegrate himself as a full participant of nature – where nature is not just something ‘out there’ anymore – something we ‘visit’ once in a while when we want to ‘get away from it all’. Instead, nature is part of our world and we are a part of nature. This means a rediscovering of what it means to be a human as a physical being and a redefining of our relationship with our environment. In order to best support ourselves, we require to best support that which supports us: which is nature. The challenge before us is therefore to restore the Earth to a state of being where it can operate in optimal conditions, as a smooth-running life-support system.

Where the human is involved with animals and plants, the human will monitor the well-being of those plants and animals and become a care-taker of the area that they are occupying – because there is a human impact. Any form of problematic development, such as soil erosion or human waste, as a result of human impact – requires to be managed by the human.

Where humans are not a part of the environment, nature will take care of itself. For instance, if a certain animal or insect increases in numbers to such an extent that they become a negative or destructive impact on their environment – the forces of nature will bring about equilibrium through, for instance, some form of natural disaster that reduces the numbers. Those kinds of natural disasters, which bring about a new form of equilibrium, are part of the distribution cycle of nature. Or if, for instance, a rabbit population expands too rapidly in a certain area – it will cause predator birds to have more access to food, allowing more of them to survive and reproduce. Eventually these birds will be so big in numbers that they will reduce the rabbit population back to where it was. Having less food available, the birds will also reduce in numbers again. So, nature has a variety of ways to correct situations of disharmony and imbalance.

Unlike human beings, animals and plants are very proficient in using the least possible resources. They don’t have the tendency to simply hoard for the sake of having. That is why the form of competition that occurs within nature brings about actual equilibrium, whereas this is not happening in our economic system – because animals and plants will only compete for what is necessary and understand that if their environment as a whole exists in the most optimal way – they themselves will benefit most. Therefore, we will not be tracking every animal and plant to monitor the well-being of each life-form, we will, in essence, be tracking the human impact on nature. This will enable us to assist nature in re-establishing equilibrium where it has been lost. Our role as a human will thus be to rehabilitate nature as a steward so that it can correct itself and re-establish its expression into what it is meant to be.

It must be understood that nature, as a life-support system, has inherent value and that its importance does not only extend in so far as it gives us nice experiences – when we go to the beach or go for a safari-trip. Those experiences are of secondary importance and may not interfere with nature’s expression and optimal functioning. As said above, our interaction with nature will change, where we are not just ‘enjoyers’ of nature, where we no longer merely sit back and ‘enjoy the view’ – but where we are active participants – identifying where nature is struggling to maintain itself and step in with rehabilitative programs and projects – and thus, become a part of the flows of give and receive.

Related articles

• Day 128: What Is Nature Worth To Us?
• 250. Ignoring the Equilibrium of the Physical is our Doom
• Day 123: Health Obsession put Sharks in Peril
• Day 156: Honoring the Right to Life in an Equal Money System
• Day 158: Prevention is the Best Cure - Equal Money System

Read More

Day 128: What Is Nature Worth To Us?

Check out this slide-show: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/01/world/gallery/eco-sols-text-nature-economics/index.html

What they're trying to do is to put a price on various parts of the Natural world - like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, Thailand's mangrove, Colombia's rainforests, etc.

The idea is to put a monetary value on these natural 'assets' to prove to people that it will be more expensive to destroy them than to preserve them.

The problem is in the way the price-tags are assigned. They are assigned in terms of what direct costs these ecological systems prevent to be unleashed on the economy and in terms of what people think and believe to be valuable/important. For instance - how much do they value having nice green views, or the idea that somewhere far away some tiger is being protected?

So - the value of nature is only measured in terms of human interests. Intrinsically - the value of an animal's natural habitat is - to him/her - priceless. He/she needs it to survive and without it, well - the animal dies. There's no money you can give the animal that will make the animal say "oh okay, if you give me so many million then you can destroy my habitat."

And, further, can we even put a price on Nature. Let's take the rainforest - without it, the oxygen levels on Earth would rapidly deteriorate to nothing. Now - let's ask: what would it cost to restore the oxygen levels to the optimal ones? We cannot 'make' oxygen - there's no money in the world that would allow us to do the job the rainforest does as well as it does it. Without oxygen, there will be no life on Earth - how much do we value all life on Earth in money-terms? Can we? People think it's impossible to place a price on how much their child is worth - one human life - are we seriously thinking we can put a price on something as important as the rainforest, which is responsible for ALL life on Earth?

We've got some serious re-considerations to do if this is how we decide to take care of the Earth - by putting a price on it's apparent value and then, accordingly, either protect it or destroy it. Who are we kidding? We will not make it without nature, we will not make it without the animal kingdom - we will die - it's really that simple. We are not independent of nature - we are a part of it and we are affected by it. It's time we realise that the only way we'll save ourselves is through taking responsibility for the damage we've done and doing what we can to correct it.

In an Equal Money System, the only Value will be Life - not Human Life - LIFE itself - that which humans don't even understand yet. Accordingly, no animal or plant will be treated with less respect and reverence than the human - and so, we will find our place in the world again - among those who have supported us for millenia, while we have done nothing but attempted to destroy them in return.

Read More

Day 30: Save the Planet, Kill the Camels! - Part 1

About a year ago - the Australian government was considering passing a law that would allow the killing of camels to reduce greenhouse gasses!

"Each camel belches an estimated 100 pounds (45 kilograms) of methane a year, which is equivalent to a metric ton (1.1 U.S. ton) of carbon dioxide in its impact on global warming. That’s roughly one-sixth the amount of CO2 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says an average car produces annually."
--Admin of B-Fair Project, 2011

And because camels are apparently such heavy polluters of our dear environment, it is okay to kill about one million of them. This is proof of the genius of the human mind - I mean - what a beautiful solution to save the world! In order to save our planet, let's go and kill some more wild animals! Instead of actually looking at the real polluters in the world - the humans - we'll go kill off animals because, what? - they fart?!?

The idea to kill all humans is a much less ridiculous and preposterous idea than to kill all camels - it's definitely more fair, seeing humans are the most destructive species alive today and it would also be a far more effective solution in actually saving the planet - as humans are the only species who deliberately destroy the planet knowing full well that there is another way, for the sake of greed and profit.

The truth behind the story is that the Australian government just wanted to get rid of the camels because they are seen as a threat - there are so many of them running amuck that they trample vegetation, invade human settlements and scare people as they rip open their bathroom pipes in order to find water. So - they are seen as a 'pest' and a 'threat' that needs to be 'taken care of'.

What they don't tell you is that camels are not indigenous to Australia - the cause of the problem, as usual - is the human. In the 1900s camels were introduced to Australia as a means of transportation. Once there was no need for them anymore, they let them go and now they're doing what they have to do in order to survive. So - instead of just re-locating them to an area that forms a natural habitat for them, it's easier and (more importantly) cheaper to just kill them all.

It's fascinating, on top of all this bullshit, that the 'truly' wild camels (camels that were never domesticated) of China and Mongolia are a highly endangered species - where there's only about 650 of them left in north-west China and 450 in the desert of Mongolia - making them the 8th most endangered large mammal on the planet.

I have tried to find any information relating to whether or not this law has been passed - but sadly enough, the media is just not there to properly inform us about the state of the world. There was a big hype when the information got out about the new law that was being proposed and countless of articles can be found about how the Australian government was considering this point - but I couldn't find a single article about whether or not the law had now been passed. If the media was truly concerned with informing the general population, then they would've followed through on their story and their would've been at least as many articles on the topic of the initial consideration of the law as on the actual result of the discussion. Media has shown once again that it merely cares about sensation and doesn't really have anyone's interests at heart.

Sources:

Admin of 'B-Fair Project', 2011. Killing Camels For Carbon Credits. 26/06/2012. http://www.b-fair.net/?p=2441

Wild Camel Protection Foundation. 2010. http://www.wildcamels.com/

Read More