August 09, 2004
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: Prevaricator
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been hawking his new book, Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy, which according to the Grist appears to the environmentalists version of Fahrenheit 9/11.
What caught my eye the most in that interview was Kennedy's attempt to dress himself as a "free marketeer". The fact is that Kennedy is nothing of the sort, not even close. Kennedy has this to say about himself,
Grist: So is the culprit free-market capitalism?Kennedy: No! The best thing that could happen to the environment is free-market capitalism. In a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community. In a true free-market economy, you get efficiencies and efficiency means the elimination of waste. Waste is pollution. So in true free-market capitalism, you eliminate pollution and you properly value our natural resources so you won't cut them down. What polluters do is escape the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter, I'll show you a subsidy -- a fat cat who's using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market.
Grist: So you're saying free-market economies have to be controlled by regulations and strong central government?
Kennedy: Laissez-faire capitalism does not work, particularly in the commons. Individuals pursuing their own self-interest will devour the commons very quickly. That's the economic law -- the tragedy of the commons. You have to force companies to internalize costs. All of the federal environmental laws are designed to restore free-market capitalism in America in this regard.--bold in the original
Now it should be obvious that Kennedy has basically contradicted himself. Further, Kennedy is also prevaricating when he talks about both the tragedy of the commons as well as firms internalizing costs.
First, there is no law in economics that says a common resources has to result in the tragedy of the commons scenario. In fact, there are instances where common resources are managed just fine with little or no government internvention. This is the whole point behind the book, Governing the Commons : The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. The book's description:
The governance of natural resources used by many individuals in common is an issue of increasing concern to policy analysts. Both state control and privatization of resources have been advocated, but neither the state nor the market have been uniformly successful in solving common pool resource problems. After critiquing the foundations of policy analysis as applied to natural resources, Elinor Ostrom here provides a unique body of empirical data to explore conditions under which common pool resource problems have been satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily solved. Dr. Ostrom first describes three models most frequently used as the foundation for recommending state or market solutions. She then outlines theoretical and empirical alternatives to these models in order to illustrate the diversity of possible solutions. In the following chapters she uses institutional analysis to examine different ways--both successful and unsuccessful--of governing the commons. In contrast to the proposition of the tragedy of the commons argument, common pool problems sometimes are solved by voluntary organizations rather than by a coercive state. Among the cases considered are communal tenure in meadows and forests, irrigation communities and other water rights, and fisheries.--emphasis added
So we can see right here that not only is Kennedy contradicting himself, but is also clueless. He has an outdated mode of thinking on these kinds of problems. We can see this with later statements in his interview. Here are some examples (please click on the link and read the entire thing so you can be sure of the context),
Industry wants us reading those books that say "50 things you can do to help the environment" because it distracts you from what you ought to be doing, which is joining an environmental group and voting for politicians who support the environment and fighting against the lobbyists on Capitol Hill. I mean, you can go out and buy a car that gets 40 miles per gallon, but it's not going to change the planet. What's going to change the planet is if we have somebody standing up to the auto-industry lobbyists on Capitol Hill to pass standards that require that every car in this country gets 40 mpg.But consumers buying Priuses is not going to change the globe nearly as much as a law that says you cannot market a car in this country unless it gets 40 mpg. And that's going to happen on Capitol Hill.
Above all, government has a role, which is to say: There's a limited amount of fish out there. It's a shared resource and we're not going to let corporations exploit it in a way that's going to destroy it. We're going to use science and our regulatory authority to make sure that there is sustainable yield.
But government has to say to the automobile industry: Of course they want it, but you've got to make 40 mpg. And if we had that law, within a year, Detroit would be producing SUVs that have the same performance and the same comfort and safety as the ones they're making today.
If your choice is to buy a Prius or go work for a politician who is going to implement the CAFE standards, you better work for the politician. The most important thing you can do is participate in the political process. Support the environmental groups that wage legal action and lobby for these bills.
There you have it. The most important thing is a big government response. No it isn't sufficient to have a tax on SUVs if they are imposing an externality on those without SUVs, we need to have a nationwide standard that forces everybody into the same outcome. It doesn't matter if you literally need an SUV for some completely valid reason...you will drive a 40 MPG vehicle or...who knows, Kennedy might want to make SUV driving a capital offense.
Further, it is not clear that the best way for firms to internalize costs is to force them to meet a uniform standard. There are alternatives to simply enacting a regulatory standard. For example, when the polluting activity is highly inelastic it might be a good idea to resurt to a standard, but when elastic a per unit tax. Even this kind of subtlety seems completely lost on the addle-brained Kennedy. He sees regulation as a hammer and all environmental problems as nails.
It is too bad that a boob like Kennedy is getting so much press. I was watching him on CNN and it was almost painful to watch. He was actually comparing running power plants that burn coal to bank robbery. To him the former were as bad as the latter. The fact that power plants, even if they are polluting and in violation of government standards, produce something useful was completely lost on the lunkhead. Bank robbery as far as I know has nothing at all about that is socially beneficial. For many being able to have electricity is a "good thing". Sure it would be better to have that electricity without the pollution, but the pollution does not negate the social benefits of electricity. And needless to say the simpleton interviewing him let it slide right on by her as if it made perfect sense.
So if you are going to buy a book about common resource problems buy Governing the Commons. It is written by people who actually know things about common resource problems as opposed to an elitist know-nothing.
Posted by Steve at August 9, 2004 12:40 AMRobert F. Kennedy Jr. is a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council the well known environmental organization which is a strong advocate of renewable non poluting energy sources, such as wind power.
"I'm strongly in favor of wind-energy production at sea," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmental lawyer, when asked about the issue after a recent speech to business leaders in Boston. But Mr. Kennedy said he believed Nantucket Sound was not an appropriate place to put a wind farm, adding, "You wouldn't put wind energy in Yosemite Park."
Mr. Kennedy spent part of his childhood visiting his family's compound in Hyannis on the cape - which would be about 6.8 miles from the wind farm, according to Cape Wind Associates. He said he also still fishes with his family on Horseshoe Shoals, where part of the farm would be situated.
"One of the most important assets we have in this state is Nantucket Sound," Mr. Kennedy said, adding that for many people, "it's their only access to wilderness."
Hypocrite? Jerk? Nimby? Let me ask this question, if his name were Robert Schwartz, would anybody give a rat's patootie what he said? let alone quote it in the New York Times?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz on August 9, 2004 07:52 AMWouldn't it be nice to go down a few paragraphs and see what he says?
""I don't even consider myself an environmentalist anymore. I'm a free-marketeer. I go out into the marketplace and I catch the polluters who are cheating the free market and I say, "We are going to force you to internalize your costs the same way you are internalizing your profit." That's what the federal environmental laws allow us to do: restore real property rights in America. You cannot get sustained environmental protection under any system but a democracy. There's a direct correlation around the planet between the level of tyranny in various countries and the level of environmental degradation."
Essentially, he's saying that he wants the costs to the environment to show up, and that a completely and entirely free economy won't do that. Say whatever you want about that, but make sure to include all of what he says so as to not distort reality.
"So we can see right here that not only is Kennedy contradicting himself, but is also clueless."
I don't know about that. You don't sound like you are describing something univeral - like you are saying that in all instances government intervention or something like that doesn't work.
"There you have it. The most important thing is a big government response."
Again, I don't know about that. I'm not sure that's exactly what he's saying. It seems like he's indicating that the problem is so large and that it's not going to do away by itself, so the government needs to step in and do something.
"There are alternatives to simply enacting a regulatory standard. For example, when the polluting activity is highly inelastic it might be a good idea to resurt to a standard, but when elastic a per unit tax. Even this kind of subtlety seems completely lost on the addle-brained Kennedy. He sees regulation as a hammer and all environmental problems as nails."
If you limit yourself to the one problem he's talked about in this interview, which is fuel consumption in automobiles, it's easy to make him appear to think anything.
"He was actually comparing running power plants that burn coal to bank robbery."
Really, where? Are you referring to this? http://publicdomainprogress.info/archives/2004_08_01_archive.html
"KENNEDY: It's like if you put a bank robber the head of the SEC and who said, "I'm going to turn my back on all bank robbers." That's what's happening. And it's laughable but it actually is happening throughout all these agencies, and, you know, I give hundreds and hundreds of examples of this in the book."
If so, it's not like when Grover Norquist compared the estate tax to the Holocaust, to give you one example. Norquist implied that the estate tax is essentially like the Holocaust, whereas Kennedy is giving you a hypothetical situation that just happens to involve a bank robbery.
"Sure it would be better to have that electricity without the pollution, but the pollution does not negate the social benefits of electricity"
I looked over the comments posted on your site and didn't see it. I read through the interview again and didn't see it. So where do you think that he said or implied that?
"I don't even consider myself an environmentalist anymore. I'm a free-marketeer."
I can say that i consider myself Santa Claus, but that doesn't make it true. His statements about policy put the lie to his claims about being a free marketeer.
Essentially, he's saying that he wants the costs to the environment to show up, and that a completely and entirely free economy won't do that.
Yes, but he has a one-size-fits-all solution. Regulate, regulate, regulate.
I don't know about that. You don't sound like you are describing something univeral - like you are saying that in all instances government intervention or something like that doesn't work.
No, that is Kennedy's problem. I have explicitly noted that using the same solution in all cases wont work. Read the quote about Ostrom's book five more times. Then read it 5 more times. Then write it down 5 seperate times. Then think really hard. Then call your mom and have her explain it to you.
Again, I don't know about that. I'm not sure that's exactly what he's saying.
What don't you understand about forcing everybody to have cars with exactly the same MPG? It is a simple, big government solution.
If you limit yourself to the one problem he's talked about in this interview, which is fuel consumption in automobiles, it's easy to make him appear to think anything.
He isn't talking just about one thing. He doesn't like the idea of people making the right environmental choices, he wants a government that forces everybody to make a given choice irrespective of whether or not that choice is the right one or not. Read the description of Ostrom's book dammit. Government hasn't worked in all cases. The free market and voluntary processes haven't always worked either. What is needed is a more thought out approach. Instead we have a lawyer making up fake laws of economics, using out of date theories, and advocating big government responses which have been shown to be flawed when applied universally. Pretty simple; it is all right there in the interview.
"KENNEDY: It's like if you put a bank robber the head of the SEC and who said, "I'm going to turn my back on all bank robbers." That's what's happening. And it's laughable but it actually is happening throughout all these agencies, and, you know, I give hundreds and hundreds of examples of this in the book."If so, it's not like when Grover Norquist compared the estate tax to the Holocaust, to give you one example. Norquist implied that the estate tax is essentially like the Holocaust, whereas Kennedy is giving you a hypothetical situation that just happens to involve a bank robbery.
That may have been it, I don't know the bimbo's name who interviewed him. But your response is so childish Brian. You are dragging in irrelevant bullshit about Grover Norquist. I don't care what Norquist said about the estate tax as it is irrelevant to this topic. Is your entire defense of Kennedy going to be, "But Grover Norquist is an ass too!"?
I looked over the comments posted on your site and didn't see it. I read through the interview again and didn't see it. So where do you think that he said or implied that?
When he compared electric companies to bank robbers.
Posted by: Steve on August 9, 2004 12:18 PM"Then call your mom and have her explain it to you."
ROFL.
Reminds me of "Mr. Hart, here is a dime. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer".
Posted by: Robin Roberts on August 9, 2004 01:40 PM"I can say that i consider myself Santa Claus, but that doesn't make it true. His statements about policy put the lie to his claims about being a free marketeer."
"Yes, but he has a one-size-fits-all solution. Regulate, regulate, regulate."
You've contradicted yourself. Either he's not a free market person (which doesn't have to mean he's for LF capitalism), or he's not.
"I have explicitly noted that using the same solution in all cases wont work."
You aren't responding to what I was talking about. I was talking about his claim about the tragedy of the commons; you were talking about his solutions.
"What don't you understand about forcing everybody to have cars with exactly the same MPG? It is a simple, big government solution."
The discussion was limited to essentially one topic, so we can't be sure from this how he proposes to do everything.
"He isn't talking just about one thing."
In that interview, he was.
"He doesn't like the idea of people making the right environmental choices, he wants a government that forces everybody to make a given choice irrespective of whether or not that choice is the right one or not."
Actually, it seems that for the one issue discussed here - fuel efficiency in cars - he proposes a solution that involvements government regulation. He implies that people can make their own choices, but haven't do so, and thus, there's a need for the government to step in and do something.
Disagree with him if you want, but don't try to present him as something that he's not or as believing something that he doesn't believe.
"Read the description of Ostrom's book dammit. Government hasn't worked in all cases. The free market and voluntary processes haven't always worked either."
I knew that before reading the description of the damn book, which I read before your petty insult.
"Instead we have a lawyer making up fake laws of economics, using out of date theories, and advocating big government responses which have been shown to be flawed when applied universally. Pretty simple; it is all right there in the interview."
Again, you are mixing everything up and not presenting a true picture of what was said.
"Is your entire defense of Kennedy going to be, "But Grover Norquist is an ass too!"?"
That's not my defense at all, not one bit. My point was that you are criticizing him for a type of statement he didn't make. He didn't compare coal to bank robberies, therefore making the two actions equal. He gave an analogy of what he felt was an absurd situation that happened to use bank robberies. He could have used anything else, and he chose to use that, he's not saying that bank robberies and coal plants are equal - at least not in any quote I've seen.
"When he compared electric companies to bank robbers."
Really, where? It wasn't in the interview that you posted. It wasn't on the link that I found, where he used that analogy about bank robberies and the SEC.
Posted by: Brian on August 9, 2004 02:10 PM"ROFL."
"Reminds me of "Mr. Hart, here is a dime. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer'."
I'm debating whether to ask you what your problem is, or why you post something when you don't have anything pertinent to add.
I'll go with both.
Posted by: Brian on August 9, 2004 02:12 PMYou've contradicted yourself. Either he's not a free market person (which doesn't have to mean he's for LF capitalism), or he's not.
I see no contradiction. He is not a free marketeer, he is in favor of heavy regulations. Controlling what people and corporations can do.
You aren't responding to what I was talking about. I was talking about his claim about the tragedy of the commons; you were talking about his solutions.
No you weren't you were talking about my claim about government intervention sometimes failing. You failed miserably to understand what I was writing. Here is what you wrote that I was responding too,
I don't know about that. You don't sound like you are describing something univeral - like you are saying that in all instances government intervention or something like that doesn't work.
The discussion was limited to essentially one topic, so we can't be sure from this how he proposes to do everything.
Considering that he views getting involved in politics and government intervention as the primary response to environmental problems you'll pardon me for thinking you are again not fully aware of what you are talking about.
Clearly you were talking about the solution to the tragedy of the commons...eirther that or you were completely confused and didn't know what you were writing.
In that interview, he was.
Nope, sorry he was talking about the environment in general. Look at his opening statements. The idea that big government (or even small or local government) is always the answer is not at all supported by the evidence. He is wrong, and so are you.
Actually, it seems that for the one issue discussed here - fuel efficiency in cars - he proposes a solution that involvements government regulation. He implies that people can make their own choices, but haven't do so, and thus, there's a need for the government to step in and do something.Disagree with him if you want, but don't try to present him as something that he's not or as believing something that he doesn't believe.
I haven't, it is your problem that you can't see the internal inconsistencies in his claims. He has a one size fits all approach. That isn't the free market that is totalitarianism. The State making a universal decision for everybody.
For example, why couldn't a tax system be implemented where people who really, really want an SUV pay a tax for that SUV, and those of us who don't switch to more fuel efficient cars. For RFK, Jr. that is a bad outcome even if it results in the same level of improvement in air quality as the forcing everybody to drive a vehicle with a 40 MPG.
Forcing everybody into a 40 MPG car is not a free market solution, it is the solution of the State which is the antithesis of the free market.
I knew that before reading the description of the damn book, which I read before your petty insult.
Thank you for confirming yet again that you are an idiot Brian. The description of the book is quite clear that big, one-size-fits-all government is not a good universal solution. Hence the idea of voting for candidates that favor such policies is also not a good idea. Therefore we can conclude RFK, Jr. does not know what he is talking about.
Again, you are mixing everything up and not presenting a true picture of what was said.
Considering you can't seem to understand the written word, I don't find this a worthwhile opinion.
That's not my defense at all, not one bit. My point was that you are criticizing him for a type of statement he didn't make. He didn't compare coal to bank robberies, therefore making the two actions equal.
Yes, he did. If you read the interview he linked to there was an attempt at an question between the two responses, but he interrupted the interviewer and continued with his thought. It was quite clear to anybody with three or more firing nuerons. Here is the relevant section,
KENNEDY: No, of course not. I don't think that there's anything wrong with having people who work for corporations be in power. But if the corporations are actually dictating our federal policy -- which is happening with this administration -- I'll give you an example with mercury.In the state of Connecticut it's now unsafe to eat any fresh water fish in the state. The same is true in 17 other states. That mercury is coming from 1100 power plants primarily that are discharging it illegally.
The Clinton administration proposed a regulation that would force them to clean up within 3.5 years. It would have cost them -- we can do it easily -- it costs less than 1 percent of the revenues to the plants. But this is an industry that gave $100 million to the Bush administration, and six weeks ago the Bush administration announced that it was abandoning those regulations and adopting, instead, regulations that would require them never to clean up.
The new regulations were written by Latham & Watkins, a law firm for the utilities that were being prosecuted for breaking the law. The head of the chief lobbyists of that law firm is now the head of the Air Division at EPA.
PILGRIM: It's a compelling argument and you make it well. But isn't it incumbent on Congress to pass a legislation when it's proposed? It seems to have lagged in Congress.
KENNEDY: No. We have strong laws on the books. We have very good regulations and very good laws in this country to protect the environment. But those laws are being subverted. The enforcement has virtually stopped throughout the administration because the enforcement divisions have been de-funded. So, there's no money to enforce these laws. Then the people who are supposed to be enforcing the laws are the polluters from the companies that are being prosecuted.
And so, you've basically got a situation where we have very strong laws but the whole government is ignoring them and allowing criminals to flourish in our marketplace when we should be prosecuting them.
PILGRIM: You made this a lifetime...
KENNEDY: It's like if you put a bank robber the head of the SEC and who said, "I'm going to turn my back on all bank robbers." That's what's happening. And it's laughable but it actually is happening throughout all these agencies, and, you know, I give hundreds and hundreds of examples of this in the book
Notice that Kennedy is making an analogy between the power plant operators and the bank robbers. It was a stupid false analogy. It shows what a bonehead RFK, Jr. is.
Really, where? It wasn't in the interview that you posted. It wasn't on the link that I found, where he used that analogy about bank robberies and the SEC.
First, if you read my post you'll see I didn't claim it was what I linked too. It was something I pulled from memory while watching CNN.
Second, as I have pulled the relevant quote it was in the link you posted. That you cannot see that Kennedy was making an analogy between bank robbers and power plant operators (and polluting industries in general--i.e., all of them) is not my problem.
Posted by: Steve on August 9, 2004 02:47 PMMy problem? I enjoy Steve's humor. I'm sure that - come the Revolution - RFK Jr. will see that the State deprograms me.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on August 9, 2004 03:13 PMCongratulations, Steve. You appear to have your very own blogroach.
Posted by: Dave Schuler on August 9, 2004 03:30 PMThe ironic(?) thing about the car statement is that I read yesterday that a Californian congresscritter was complaining that since more people were buying fuel-efficient cars, the state wasn't collecting as much in fuel tax and needed to jack it up.
So, maybe Mr. Kennedy isn't exactly correct, and while the problem isn't being solved yesterday, right now or 100% failure-proof, it is working. It's hitting in the pocketbook. Starving the state of necessary revenue.
I find a certain karmic quality in that.
Posted by: Sandy P on August 9, 2004 07:18 PM"I see no contradiction. He is not a free marketeer, he is in favor of heavy regulations. Controlling what people and corporations can do."
There's a world of difference between some regulation and total regulation. You know that.
Besides, he explicitly states that he wants the cost to the environment factored into the price of things.
"Clearly you were talking about the solution to the tragedy of the commons...eirther that or you were completely confused and didn't know what you were writing."
I effed it up way back in the beginning. I apologize. But...
"The idea that big government (or even small or local government) is always the answer is not at all supported by the evidence. He is wrong, and so are you."
He's not saying that. Neither am I.
"I haven't, it is your problem that you can't see the internal inconsistencies in his claims."
Of course you are going to disagree with me, but I think you are thinking too narrowly.
"He has a one size fits all approach. That isn't the free market that is totalitarianism. The State making a universal decision for everybody."
No, he doesn't. In the first part of the interview, he says when things are allowed to happen entirely by themselves, it doesn't work. (He's being broad, but he's right.) He believes that the costs of environmental damage should be factored into things. And while he says that the government should regulate the auto industry so that certain cars meet minimum standards, he's not advocating a government-solves-all approach. It's to think that, probably because you want to think that, but it's not true.
Additionally, it's ridiculous to imply that he's advocating totalitarianism. He's not saying that the government should make each and every decision for every single person.
"For RFK, Jr. that is a bad outcome even if it results in the same level of improvement in air quality as the forcing everybody to drive a vehicle with a 40 MPG."
I don't know how you can conclude that.
"Forcing everybody into a 40 MPG car is not a free market solution, it is the solution of the State which is the antithesis of the free market."
If we are speaking in absolutes, yes. But let's look at the definition:
free market
n.
An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free%20market
Making every car get 40 miles to the gallon is one regulation that would affect the entire industry, yes, but he's not dictating what type of car you drive or how much you drive.
"Thank you for confirming yet again that you are an idiot Brian."
I'm glad I could please you.
"The description of the book is quite clear that big, one-size-fits-all government is not a good universal solution. Hence the idea of voting for candidates that favor such policies is also not a good idea. Therefore we can conclude RFK, Jr. does not know what he is talking about."
We agree on the description of the book, but RFK is not advocating that the government decides everything.
"Considering you can't seem to understand the written word, I don't find this a worthwhile opinion."
I can understand the written word. I made a mistake above and said that I was sorry. Get over it.
------
"He was actually comparing running power plants that burn coal to bank robbery. To him the former were as bad as the latter."
You can think his analogy is stupid, but when you said that, you seemd to be implying that RFK was equating bank robberies with coal production. That's not what he was doing. He was using a hypothetical example involving the SEC and bank robberies, saying that it would be absurd to put someone who robbed a bank in charge of the SEC.
I'll try to expand on this a little more. Would anyone hire a child rapist to babysit? Of course not. It's absurd, for a variety of reasons. But if we use that comparison to putting someone with ties to polluting industries in charge of regulating those industries, we are not equating child rape with pollution.
Now, maybe you meant something else, but it didn't appear that way.
"That you cannot see that Kennedy was making an analogy between bank robbers and power plant operators (and polluting industries in general--i.e., all of them) is not my problem."
Actually, I can see exactly what he is doing. The problem is that he is not saying that the two are equal, and thus, "To him the former were as bad as the latter" is a false statement.
Posted by: Brian on August 9, 2004 07:27 PM"Congratulations, Steve. You appear to have your very own blogroach."
It's easy to throw around insults and nothing else.
Posted by: Brian on August 9, 2004 07:29 PMThe voice of experience speaks. Irony, much?
Posted by: Slartibartfast on August 9, 2004 08:41 PMThere's a world of difference between some regulation and total regulation. You know that.
That still doesn't make him a free market type Biran. And he isn't about choice, he is about taking choice away.
He's not saying that. Neither am I.
Unfortunately for you, yes that is precisely what he is saying. He isn't saying, "Hey if you can solve this problem via the market or via a voluntary process without the government then go ahead." He is saying, "It must be done via government fiat."
No, he doesn't. In the first part of the interview, he says when things are allowed to happen entirely by themselves, it doesn't work.
What is your mother's phone number? I need to call her to have her help you understand the description of Elinor Ostrom's book. Why can't you grasp the concept? Sometimes leaving people alone is precisely the right thing to do and government intervention screws things up. What is it about this concept that eludes you?
(He's being broad, but he's right.)
Yes, broad and wrong. Applying government broadly is a bad thing. That is one of the points of Ostrom's book.
He believes that the costs of environmental damage should be factored into things. And while he says that the government should regulate the auto industry so that certain cars meet minimum standards, he's not advocating a government-solves-all approach. It's to think that, probably because you want to think that, but it's not true.
Brian, Kennedy says the most important thing is to elect politicians that will implement broad policies. That is contra-indicated by the work in Ostrom, et. al. He says it several times in the Grist interview. It is right there in writing.
Making every car get 40 miles to the gallon is one regulation that would affect the entire industry, yes, but he's not dictating what type of car you drive or how much you drive.
It is a huge regulation. Think: no more SUVs. Some people need SUVs (granted many current drivers probably don't but that is beside the point). With this regulation certain classes of cars that people would be willing to buy even paying a premium to compensate for the additional environmental damage will not be allowed. That is not some absolute thing, it strikes at the very core of the notion of a market economy.
We agree on the description of the book, but RFK is not advocating that the government decides everything.
Yes he is. Look at where Kennedy says,
If your choice is to buy a Prius or go work for a politician who is going to implement the CAFE standards, you better work for the politician.
In other words, personal action is not as good as government controls. Notice how Amanda Griscom tried to bring the responsibility of consumers into the picture and he dismissed it.
Finally, the site we are talking about that has the interview, PERC, is an environmentalist web site that favors market oriented approaches and they feel pretty sure that Kennedy is not one of them. The reason they feel this way is because he isn't a free market type. He is a big government type.
A solution like this is not important to Kennedy because it is a private venture and it is being done on a small scale. Kennedy favors major sweeping changes...so long as they don't affect his favorite natural places.
Posted by: Steve on August 9, 2004 09:06 PM"That still doesn't make him a free market type Biran. And he isn't about choice, he is about taking choice away."
You are ignoring the fact that not everything is black and white, to use a cliched phrase. He can support the government regulating the minimum MPG of a car, but that doesn't have to mean that he supports the government's involvement in everything. And that's where you are wrong: he doesn't support government involvement in everything.
"Unfortunately for you, yes that is precisely what he is saying. He isn't saying, "Hey if you can solve this problem via the market or via a voluntary process without the government then go ahead." He is saying, "It must be done via government fiat.'"
Unfornately for you, that's not what he's saying.
"I need to call her to have her help you understand the description of Elinor Ostrom's book. Why can't you grasp the concept? Sometimes leaving people alone is precisely the right thing to do and government intervention screws things up. What is it about this concept that eludes you?"
I have never ever denied that and I also understand what Ostrom, et al are saying. Why don't you understand that? I don't think the government needs to be involved in everything and know that Ostrom and the others say that not everything will be solved by government regulation. There, I said it in the most basic way possible.
"Yes, broad and wrong."
He's broad in the sense that he's not specific as to what problems merit government intervention, other tnan fuel standards.
"Brian, Kennedy says the most important thing is to elect politicians that will implement broad policies."
Actually, he says the most important thing is for people to participate in the political process.
"That is not some absolute thing, it strikes at the very core of the notion of a market economy."
Assuming this sort of thing does happen (again), it's an unintended consequence. It's like when blind people get upset that sidewalks are altered for people with wheelchairs. It may happen, but he doesn't intend for it to happen.
"In other words, personal action is not as good as government controls."
Actually, his point there was to say that if we want to get rid of one big problem, which is politicians "whoring" for industry, we have to go after the politicians.
If you want to try and prove your point, but still be wrong, go up one pagagraph. As I have said before, if you up above, he talks about environmental costs being factored into consumer costs. He doesn't say something like, "We are going to pass a law that says they can't put Harmful Substance X into Product Y." Once again, he favors the government, but not all the time.
"Finally, the site we are talking about that has the interview, PERC, is an environmentalist web site that favors market oriented approaches and they feel pretty sure that Kennedy is not one of them. The reason they feel this way is because he isn't a free market type. He is a big government type."
Really? I did a search with his name, but it didn't turn up anything that we haven't seen.
"Kennedy favors major sweeping changes...so long as they don't affect his favorite natural places."
Ah, what a defense. You presume to know his position on something he hasn't commented on, through a false assumption that he favors the government all the time. And to top it all off, you say that he only cares about the environment as long as it doesn't affect his choice of location.
--------------------
Anyway, I am going to another state for a wedding/vacation (not by choice) and won't be here the rest of the week. I'm merely telling you this so you'll know why I won't respond right away. (There's a small chance I may go on before I leave, but it's not likely.)
Ah, what a defense. You presume to know his position on something he hasn't commented on, through a false assumption that he favors the government all the time. And to top it all off, you say that he only cares about the environment as long as it doesn't affect his choice of location.
Nope, wrong again. Kennedy's interview in Grist supports the first part and Kennedy has commmented on environmental/energy projects that would impact areas he frequents. Needless to say that since these projects are in areas he frequents he thinks they are bad. Kind of raises the specter of hypocrisy, IMO.
You are ignoring the fact that not everything is black and white, to use a cliched phrase. He can support the government regulating the minimum MPG of a car, but that doesn't have to mean that he supports the government's involvement in everything. And that's where you are wrong: he doesn't support government involvement in everything.
Okay, lets go through it slowly. Sure, if Kennedy came out and said, "We need to get government to do things to help the environment when the government can help the environment. At other times we need to look to other processes when government isn't the answer." Then you'd be absolutely correct. However, Kennedy hasn't said anything like that at all. Instead he has said, the single most important thing anybody can do is not try to live with as little environmental impact as possible. Now it is to elect politicians who will force change upon the rest of us.
This isn't the same as saying, "We need to get government to do things to help the environment when the government can help the environment. At other times we need to look to other processes when government isn't the answer." It just isn't. In fact, Kennedy calls solutions relying on non-governmental processes "distractions". Let me translate that for you, he thinks non-governmental actions are trivial, will do very little, wont help. The thing is the evidence says this is definitely not the case. You have to go on a case by case basis and try to figure out which institutional framework is best to address the problem.
I have never ever denied that and I also understand what Ostrom, et al are saying. Why don't you understand that? I don't think the government needs to be involved in everything and know that Ostrom and the others say that not everything will be solved by government regulation. There, I said it in the most basic way possible.
Then why can't you see that Kennedy's position in contrary to this solution. Remember he sees non-governmental action as "distractions". I have even quoted the relevant comment,
Industry wants us reading those books that say "50 things you can do to help the environment" because it distracts you from what you ought to be doing, which is joining an environmental group and voting for politicians who support the environment and fighting against the lobbyists on Capitol Hill....Above all, government has a role, which is to say: There's a limited amount of fish out there. It's a shared resource and we're not going to let corporations exploit it in a way that's going to destroy it. We're going to use science and our regulatory authority to make sure that there is sustainable yield.
Kennedy has chosen to cloak himself as a free market type to avoid the standard criticism of environmentalists. It works with the news idiots, but not with me. He is the same basic environmentalist that we have always seen. He believes the tragedy of the commons is some sort of iron law when it isn't.
Actually, he says the most important thing is for people to participate in the political process.
No. That is wrong. Participating isn't the point, otherwise the book would be titled something like, Participating in Politics is Important in and of Itself. The poitn of participating is to get a desired outcome. The outcome for Kennedy is a set of politicians that will implement government regulations.
Actually, his point there was to say that if we want to get rid of one big problem, which is politicians "whoring" for industry, we have to go after the politicians.
In a sense, but the big problem is the environment. As I've indicated many, many times the political/government approach isn't always going to work. In fact, it can make the situation worse. Kennedy has used both power plants and the auto industry in interviews. He isn't limiting this to one part of the environmental issue, but all of the environmental issues. This is why I say he is full of crap.
If you want to try and prove your point, but still be wrong, go up one pagagraph. As I have said before, if you up above, he talks about environmental costs being factored into consumer costs.
No, I'm still right. I'm right because he is talking about doing is all the same way. As I have indicated multiple times and which, despite your claims to the contrary, you still don't grasp this isn't going to always work and will exacerbate some of the problems.
Once again, he favors the government, but not all the time.
The only thing I see him talking about is government action. The paragraph where he talks about internalizing costs he specifically mentions federal regulations. He doesn't talk about non-governmental solutions to these problems.
Really? I did a search with his name, but it didn't turn up anything that we haven't seen.
Just because you haven't looked hard enough doesn't mean these views aren't out there. In fact, scroll up to the top of the Grist interview and you'll see Amanda Griscom give her views. Radley Balko is another who thinks Kennedy is your standard environmentalist in free market garb. Then there is Jonathan Adler, and Amy Ridenour from The Commons Blog. Gee...wonder what these people are interested in? In other words we have market types all saying that Kennedy is full of shit.
Posted by: Steve on August 10, 2004 07:20 AM