Environmental quality is a luxury good

[Bronzeage]

People need food, shelter, and clothing before they are gonna give a shit about the environment.

Are you saying the environment is fucked up because people need food, shelter and clothing. At last check neither food, shelter nor clothing had to come from an oilwell or a coal strip mine.

Of course it does.

 

[NobleSavage]

People need food, shelter, and clothing before they are gonna give a shit about the environment.

Are you saying the environment is fucked up because people need food, shelter and clothing. At last check neither food, shelter nor clothing had to come from an oilwell or a coal strip mine.

Um, all those industries are highly dependent on the fossil fuels and petrochemicals. You think you are gonna feed the world picking berries and farming little organic plots with oxen? Slaves worked for picking cotton, you like that option? Not everyone can afford free range goose down. I guess we can get rid of windows, but how are we going to make multistory low income housing without steel and concrete?

 

[bilby]

Unless you eat cooked food; or wear synthetic fabrics; or live in a house none of the materials for which were delivered by truck.

Were you Amish, the last time you looked? Because if not, you probably didn't look hard enough.

Maybe you are not thinking yet for today.

I am thinking fine, thanks.

None of these things come from an oil well, or a coal strip mine.

Yes, they do. Perhaps they needn't, but they most certainly do.

This faith you have in fossil fuels goes deep doesn't it?

To observe needs no faith. Fossil fuels are used for the things I mentioned. This remains true whether or not you like it.

Tell me if you will, just what would you sacrifice to insure we will always run on coal and oil?

Not one thing. You seem to have made the common mistake of assuming that any objection to your piss-poor arguments is an objection to your entire position. It isn't.

I think you should stop using bad arguments, not because I disagree with your cause, but because I support it - and your dreadful logic in its support is doing more harm than good.

The actual usage of these fuels is mostly in service of industrialized centralization of production to serve the investment class.

No. Just no. If you don't understand how things work, go and find out. Please stop discussing some kind of malevolent boogeyman 'investment class', as if it was a real thing; It makes you seem as sane as someone whose argument is based on thwarting the evil designs of Bigfoot.

We can indeed have other means of living which folks like the Kochs would rather you did not consider. You are simply making them very happy fellows indeed. They really don't give a shit what happens to you. It astonishes me that you are so firmly in their pocket.

I don't give a shit about them either. In fact, outside this board, I don't think I have ever heard them even mentioned - apparently they are world famous in America. None of these caricatures of ultimate good and ultimate evil have a place in rational discussion.

Your passion does you credit; but your logic leaves me wondering whether you are supporting the right cause by pure random chance, because there seems to be no underlying reason for your position at all.

Fossil fuels need to be phased out. Your bizarre claims that they are currently needless do not help with explaining this to those with the power to make that happen. And your vituperation against anyone who suggests that your wooly thinking is in anyway imperfect is positively counterproductive.

 

[ronburgundy]

In case the absurdity of the OP isn't well illustrated by the fact that it leads to the conclusion that not being rape or beaten every day is a "luxury good",
let's look at the definition of "luxury good"

"products that are not essential but are highly desired and associated with wealthy or affluent people."

Now let's look at what he OP data shows. It shows that....

"Individuals with higher relative income within countries display higher levels of
environmental concern than their compatriots, and additionally, more concern is reported
in wealthier countries than in poorer nations."

IOW, it shows nothing other than a non-causal correlation between wealth and concern about the environment. It only meets the underlined part of the definition and not its most central feature of being "not essential". Nothing about essentialness cannot be inferred from the correlation between subjective concern and wealth. Also, a more formal definition of "luxury good" requires more than a simple linear correlation between demand and wealth, it requires a non-linear exponential relation, such "the demand increases more than proportionallyl as income rises". That would mean that double the wealth means "double the concern". But the graph shows the opposite, namely that the demand goes up less than proportional to an increase in wealth, which is the definition of a "neccessary good".
For example, in the OP graph, country "at" has 300% the GDP of country "cl", yet its "environmental concern" is only 7% higher, when it must be more than 300% higher to be a "luxury good".

In sum, the OP tell us nothing about whether the product is "essential" and the correlation shown meets the definition of a "necessity good" and not a luxury good.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People need food, shelter, and clothing before they are gonna give a shit about the environment.

Are you saying the environment is fucked up because people need food, shelter and clothing. At last check neither food, shelter nor clothing had to come from an oilwell or a coal strip mine.

Most food needs oil to run the equipment that farms it.

It's currently 109F outside (and that's after 7pm, it was even hotter earlier)--shelter basically requires electricity, most of that comes from coal or oil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless you eat cooked food; or wear synthetic fabrics; or live in a house none of the materials for which were delivered by truck.

Were you Amish, the last time you looked? Because if not, you probably didn't look hard enough.

Maybe you are not thinking yet for today. None of these things come from an oil well, or a coal strip mine. This faith you have in fossil fuels goes deep doesn't it? Tell me if you will, just what would you sacrifice to insure we will always run on coal and oil? The actual usage of these fuels is mostly in service of industrialized centralization of production to serve the investment class. We can indeed have other means of living which folks like the Kochs would rather you did not consider. You are simply making them very happy fellows indeed. They really don't give a shit what happens to you. It astonishes me that you are so firmly in their pocket.

You're the one not thinking things through. No coal or oil and we would have basically nothing. You have to think more than one level deep.

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe you are not thinking yet for today. None of these things come from an oil well, or a coal strip mine. This faith you have in fossil fuels goes deep doesn't it? Tell me if you will, just what would you sacrifice to insure we will always run on coal and oil? The actual usage of these fuels is mostly in service of industrialized centralization of production to serve the investment class. We can indeed have other means of living which folks like the Kochs would rather you did not consider. You are simply making them very happy fellows indeed. They really don't give a shit what happens to you. It astonishes me that you are so firmly in their pocket.

You're the one not thinking things through. No coal or oil and we would have basically nothing. You have to think more than one level deep.

Does this mean the people who profit from the production of coal and oil can dispose of their waste products anywhere they please, with no regard for how it effects other people?

 

[ronburgundy]

People need food, shelter, and clothing before they are gonna give a shit about the environment.

Which says nothing about the environment being a luxury good. People need food well before they give a shit about shelter. Does that make shelter a "luxury good"?

People need food before they give a shit that they might be ingesting poison in that food. Does that make avoiding deadly toxins a "luxury good"?

IF a tidal wave certain to kill everyon within a mile of the coast is coming, and many people don't know about it or want to believe it, so they don't care? Does that make ability to avoid certain death by getting away from the coast, a "luxury good"?

A luxury good is NOT merely something that is less immediately essential than the most immediately essential things. It is not just a relative term, but and absolute term. It is something that is not at all essential or neccessary, meaning that never has any short or long term impact upon survival basic health.

In addition, demand for it cannot just be correlated with wealth. Amount of demand for nearly all goods, both neccessary and luxury (especially fossil fuels) are correlated with wealth.
To be luxury, it must have an exponential relation such that proportional increase in wealth produces an even larger proportional increase in demand. As I explained in my other post, environment has the inverse of that relationship, and instead meets the expected relationship of a "necessity good".

Every person would die if they don't have access to non-toxic drinking water. Plenty of people could live just fine without fossil fuels. Just because our current dominant methods of food production depend heavily on fossil fuels, does not make such use neccessary. There is no reasonable criteria by which fossil fuels get categorized as neccessary but various basic aspects of the environment do not. Sure, some concerns about the environment, like survival of a particular almost extinct species are luxury. But the vast majority of uses of fossil fuels are luxury too. Even under the constraints of our current unnecessary methods, the amount of fossil fuels needed to supply anything that would qualify as essential is a tiny fraction of what we use.

This illustrates another important point that the very notion of categorizing a type of object or service as either "necessary" or "luxury" has no validity, because it it the where, when, how, and how much of something that is used that will determine whether that use was essential. A certain amount of clean water to drink is essential, as are a certain amount of calories from food. But watering one's lawn is not, and consuming many if not most of the foods we do and in the amounts we do are not, such as consuming a pound of beef, which means that neither are any of the things used in producing that beef, such as X amount of grains, water, and energy, which are determined by the way companies choose (not need) to do it to produce the beef we don't need in the first place. BTW, water is more essential to crops than fossil fuels, and numerous aspects of the environment including global climate issues are essential to having clean and plentiful water in the places we need it. The fact that the world's poor don't think that far ahead about what is essential because they are focused on the empty plate in front of them says nothing about those concerns being a luxury.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're the one not thinking things through. No coal or oil and we would have basically nothing. You have to think more than one level deep.

Does this mean the people who profit from the production of coal and oil can dispose of their waste products anywhere they please, with no regard for how it effects other people?

Non-sequitur.

 

[arkirk]

You're the one not thinking things through. No coal or oil and we would have basically nothing. You have to think more than one level deep.

Does this mean the people who profit from the production of coal and oil can dispose of their waste products anywhere they please, with no regard for how it effects other people?

I am always amused when Loren tells me to think more deeply! We are at the end of a long road of development when it comes to fossil fuels. They are deeply dug into our thinking and indeed into our infrastructure. To suddenly just quit using either of these two fuels would be catastrophic. To continue to build and operate coal plants and built more and more automobiles to run on gasoline and trucks on diesel is equally a formula for disaster. The Koch brothers think this is just fine for their bottom line and are spending billions to keep the bubble machine going. They are lucky they have so many followers who deny the denialism of the fossil fuel industry. They also are constantly attacking and slowing the development of alternative energy programs they cannot control and have been doing it for more than 40 years I know of. They are sick in the head and their money allows them their sickness.

 

[Bronzeage]

Does this mean the people who profit from the production of coal and oil can dispose of their waste products anywhere they please, with no regard for how it effects other people?

Non-sequitur.

Okay, respond as if it were unrelated to the previous discussion. What part of the public good must be sacrificed to allow a private entity to exploit or degrade public resources? I like my car and my polyester slacks as much as the next guy, but I paid for them. They weren't a gift. Does a manufacturer have a right to pollute my drinking water so he can sell shirts at low low prices?

If I have to buy bottled water because he saved money by dumping his waste byproducts, has he made me an involuntary investor in his business?

 

[Bronzeage]

Does this mean the people who profit from the production of coal and oil can dispose of their waste products anywhere they please, with no regard for how it effects other people?

I am always amused when Loren tells me to think more deeply! We are at the end of a long road of development when it comes to fossil fuels. They are deeply dug into our thinking and indeed into our infrastructure. To suddenly just quit using either of these two fuels would be catastrophic. To continue to build and operate coal plants and built more and more automobiles to run on gasoline and trucks on diesel is equally a formula for disaster. The Koch brothers think this is just fine for their bottom line and are spending billions to keep the bubble machine going. They are lucky they have so many followers who deny the denialism of the fossil fuel industry. They also are constantly attacking and slowing the development of alternative energy programs they cannot control and have been doing it for more than 40 years I know of. They are sick in the head and their money allows them their sickness.

If the true cost of consumer goods were borne by the actual consumer, market forces would tip the scales in favor of renewables and cleaner technologies. What we have now is an industrial code which favors some fuels over others. We place restrictions on a lot of coal production and by-products. This is actually the results of coal being out maneuvered by the oil industry, not any great environmental consciousness on our part. While coal mine owners have to abide by clean water regulations, natural gas producers managed to get an exemption from the same rules. This happened just before fracking technology was put into wide spread practice. Up to that point, natural gas production used practically no water at all. Fracking uses millions of gallons of water. The oil and gas from fracking is produced at a premium. If the cost of treated the contaminated water was included, it would simply be unfeasible.

The public is given a stark choice. Either accept tainted water and cheap fuel, or find some alternative. Actually, we weren't given the choice at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does this mean the people who profit from the production of coal and oil can dispose of their waste products anywhere they please, with no regard for how it effects other people?

I am always amused when Loren tells me to think more deeply!

Well, try doing it. You're only looking one level deep. While the items you named aren't made of coal or oil they require substantial energy to produce and oil to run vehicles to move them around. Thus they involve fossil fuels.

We are at the end of a long road of development when it comes to fossil fuels. They are deeply dug into our thinking and indeed into our infrastructure. To suddenly just quit using either of these two fuels would be catastrophic. To continue to build and operate coal plants and built more and more automobiles to run on gasoline and trucks on diesel is equally a formula for disaster. The Koch brothers think this is just fine for their bottom line and are spending billions to keep the bubble machine going. They are lucky they have so many followers who deny the denialism of the fossil fuel industry. They also are constantly attacking and slowing the development of alternative energy programs they cannot control and have been doing it for more than 40 years I know of. They are sick in the head and their money allows them their sickness.

[Citation needed]--you're simply assuming they are slowing the development of alternative energy.

There aren't magical techs that are being suppressed. Furthermore, there is a big demand for better energy storage devices--we have so many battery-powered devices in day-to-day life. Big business wants better batteries!

- - - Updated - - -

Non-sequitur.

Okay, respond as if it were unrelated to the previous discussion. What part of the public good must be sacrificed to allow a private entity to exploit or degrade public resources? I like my car and my polyester slacks as much as the next guy, but I paid for them. They weren't a gift. Does a manufacturer have a right to pollute my drinking water so he can sell shirts at low low prices?

If I have to buy bottled water because he saved money by dumping his waste byproducts, has he made me an involuntary investor in his business?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be environmental regulations.

 

[Axulus]

In case the absurdity of the OP isn't well illustrated by the fact that it leads to the conclusion that not being rape or beaten every day is a "luxury good",
let's look at the definition of "luxury good"

Are you saying that people with less income don't care as much about getting raped or beaten every day than people with more income? Do you have data to support this notion?

Also, a more formal definition of "luxury good" requires more than a simple linear correlation between demand and wealth, it requires a non-linear exponential relation, such "the demand increases more than proportionallyl as income rises". That would mean that double the wealth means "double the concern". But the graph shows the opposite, namely that the demand goes up less than proportional to an increase in wealth, which is the definition of a "neccessary good".
For example, in the OP graph, country "at" has 300% the GDP of country "cl", yet its "environmental concern" is only 7% higher, when it must be more than 300% higher to be a "luxury good".

In sum, the OP tell us nothing about whether the product is "essential" and the correlation shown meets the definition of a "necessity good" and not a luxury good.

Why would it need to be a non-linear exponential relation?

The main point is that to get the world to care about the environment (especially India and China) we must make sure they get wealthy enough first.

 

[arkirk]

Are you saying that people with less income don't care as much about getting raped or beaten every day than people with more income? Do you have data to support this notion?

Also, a more formal definition of "luxury good" requires more than a simple linear correlation between demand and wealth, it requires a non-linear exponential relation, such "the demand increases more than proportionallyl as income rises". That would mean that double the wealth means "double the concern". But the graph shows the opposite, namely that the demand goes up less than proportional to an increase in wealth, which is the definition of a "neccessary good".
For example, in the OP graph, country "at" has 300% the GDP of country "cl", yet its "environmental concern" is only 7% higher, when it must be more than 300% higher to be a "luxury good".

In sum, the OP tell us nothing about whether the product is "essential" and the correlation shown meets the definition of a "necessity good" and not a luxury good.

Why would it need to be a non-linear exponential relation?

The main point is that to get the world to care about the environment (especially India and China) we must make sure they get wealthy enough first.

Spoken like I would expect a person with no empathy to speak. All they have to do is to understand that a ruined environment is never a benefit to anybody. They may have to shove a few wealthy people out of the way to make this happen. The environment is just what it is allowed to become and ALL OF SOCIETY EXISTS WITHIN ITS BOUNDS.

 

[ronburgundy]

Are you saying that people with less income don't care as much about getting raped or beaten every day than people with more income? Do you have data to support this notion?

"care as much" is the key to the pointlessness of your OP. "Conerns" are relative to the perceived immediacy of the threat. The poorer people are, the more immediate threats they face, including starvation. Thus, the less "concern" they have at any single moment (which is all that was measured in your "concern about the environment data". Thus, people facing immediate starvation or homelessness on a daily basis will have less relative concern about potential but not immediately occurring rape and assault. This is clearly evidenced by the extent to which the poor are more willing to put themselves into situations where their odds of rape and assault are much higher (prostitution and engaging in other crimes, staying with abusive husbands, living in areas where rape and assault are more common, etc), in order to satisfy their more pressing need for food and shelter.

Also, a more formal definition of "luxury good" requires more than a simple linear correlation between demand and wealth, it requires a non-linear exponential relation, such "the demand increases more than proportionallyl as income rises". That would mean that double the wealth means "double the concern". But the graph shows the opposite, namely that the demand goes up less than proportional to an increase in wealth, which is the definition of a "neccessary good".
For example, in the OP graph, country "at" has 300% the GDP of country "cl", yet its "environmental concern" is only 7% higher, when it must be more than 300% higher to be a "luxury good".

In sum, the OP tell us nothing about whether the product is "essential" and the correlation shown meets the definition of a "necessity good" and not a luxury good.

Why would it need to be a non-linear exponential relation?

Because you claim to be applying a concept from economics, and that is the defining feature of a luxury good within economics. You assert that your graph is data supporting your claim, but it is in fact data supporting the exact opposite claim, because it shows that massive increases in wealthy predict only tiny increases in concern for the environment. That fits the definition of a necessity good. Virtually all goods, including necessity goods have some degree of positive correlation between demand for them and wealth. Wealthy people buy more units and pay more per unit of food, shelter, security (including from rape and assault), and every other good that no reasonable person would claim are "luxury goods". Thus a mere positive correlation between demand and wealth is just as true of non-luxury as luxury goods.
By conceptual definition, luxury goods are non-essential and thus people struggling to buy essentials have zero demand for them (note that demand is nowhere near zero for any of the countries in your graph). Generally middle class people don't buy much luxury goods either.
For example, the amount people spend on yachts and personal limo drivers is around zero and fails to increase from people with zero income on up through the middle class. You have to get to rather high incomes before there is an change, then all of a sudden it jumps up. That is a non-linear relationship.

The main point is that to get the world to care about the environment (especially India and China) we must make sure they get wealthy enough first.

That is fine, but it is also true that to get poor people in the US to care about their basic health and avoiding foods and other things that will kill them (the very epitome of a necessity without which death occurs) we must make sure they are wealthy enough. Poor desperate people not caring enough about something to spend or give up what little wealth they have to do something about it is not at all evidence that the thing in question is a "luxury". I just don't see how making that categorization is valid or helps this point. If you are arguing that our policies should strive to increase the wealth (which btw includes relative wealth) of poor people within and outside the US, then I agree. Note, that requires massive reduction in wealth inequalities since it is inherently impossible for the world's poor to get much wealthier without the world's richest getting less of what they currently are taking.