Pooping Where You Sleep: Bad for the Economy

grist.org

Let's take a look at a few studies that have come out recently and see if we can find a common thread.

• A West Virginia University researcher found that "coal mining costs Appalachians five times more in early deaths as the industry provides to the region in jobs, taxes and other economic benefits," reports the Charleston Gazette.
  
• The Mountain Association for Community Economic Development found that "the coal industry takes $115 million more from Kentucky's state government annually in services and programs than it contributes in taxes," reports the Lexington Herald-Leader.
• A recent peer-reviewed paper in the journal Science found that areas of Brazil that cut down their rainforests to sell the wood or plant crops "do see a short-term boost in per-capita income, life expectancy, and literacy rates," reports The Vine. "But once the trees are gone, those gains disappear, leaving deforested municipalities just as poor as those that preserved their forests."
• The International Fund for Animal Welfare found that "in 2008 whale-watching generated $2.1 billion of tourism revenue worldwide ... more than double the estimated $1 billion generated by the industry in 1998," reports Agence France-Presse. Said Australia Environment Minister Peter Garrett, "Whales are worth much more alive than dead."
• The University of Michigan found that "the Detroit Three automakers can become more profitable and slow the growth of their Japanese rivals if they simply meet tougher new government-mandated fuel economy standards," reports the Detroit Free Press.
  

These are disparate areas of study and disparate conclusions. One thing they all have in common: an environment-degrading practice often defended as necessary to economic health is revealed, upon closer inspection, to be uneconomic. I wonder how many other allegedly economic environment-degrading practices would also be revealed uneconomic if examined with a fresh eye?

It's almost like the economy is embedded in an environment, and degrading the latter ultimately degrades the former.

Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/david_h_roberts

Comments

[zizyphus]

Do something radical, plant trees.

[mamacat]

What does the title have to do with the article?

[research]

Rooftop solar is not only not expensive, it's the cheapest energy you can buy. See my profile for links.

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

Well let's see.

Detached matrosprawl houses are uneconomic and degrade the environment. The market is taking care of that problem by their becoming unaffordable.

The private automobile, if you add the roads needed to make them viable and the fuel needed to run them are also uneconomic not even counting ancillary costs such as deaths, law enforcement, real estate and so forth. And they degrade like bandits.

The market is taking care of this also by forcing down what can be charged for them.

It is almost enough to make one a free market conservative.

[sheila]

SO WHY ARE BIG ENVIROS SUPPORTING DESTROYING OUR DESERTS FOR INDUSTRIAL SOLAR WHEN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT CAN PRODUCE ALL THE POWER WE NEED?

Again, just because the desert is not "rainforest," that doesn't mean it's not a critical, intentional, and vibrant ecosystem required JUST AS MUCH AS OCEANS for our survival on this planet. The Mojave has proven to absorb as much CO2 as forestland when left intact, and the DOE has proven that 190% of the US' electricity needs can be met very cheaply and cleanly on existing rooftops and in-city brownfields with thin-film PV.

Killing our deserts for Big Energy profits is being greenwashed by Big Enviros and the media is cutting and pasting from their lies, no matter what the truth is and how fully it is proven to them. Democratic, harmless, reliable solar power is "shovel ready" in nearly every city in the nation - all we need are loans and feed in tariffs to make it work. Imagine - democratic, affordable, clean, reliable power that doesn't deplete our aquifers, slaughter our wildlife, increase global warming (see SF6), or hijack ratepayers and taxpayers, but which increases conservation, property values and jobs.

How can this not be the absolutely first solution on everyone's list?

[lightningbolt]

The fossil fuel companies don't care, they just care about their short-term profits. Don't even bother explaining it to them because they simply don't care. The only way to prevent them from continuing to pollute is to force them to do it. That would require ending private campaign financing so that these companies won't be able to bribe politicians anymore.

[peterg76]

What's more, the economists knew these things all along.

[robadeaux]

Virtually every environment degrading industry will be found to cost more in externalities, if they are looked at honestly and rationally. It is just common sense in the end. And the death of our planet. Every species, including we ourselves, are in danger of extinction due to the millions of tons of toxins we dump into our CLOSED system every year. As I tell my 10 year old, just because it doesn't kill you right away doesn't mean it's not a poison.

[Hope Lives]

Excellent, as usual. Thank you again.

[drkazmd65]

Thank you Mr. Roberts!

It is always more expensive to fix a problem in emergency mode than it is to prevernt that problem to begin with. Doesn't matter whether that problem is pollution, worker safety, energy dependence, or individual health.

When will we all wake up and learn that?

[tilted windmill]

So true, so true. And I LOVE the title!