Environmental quality is a luxury good

[Axulus]

i.e. demand rises with income

This article discusses the determinants and the development of public concern for the state
of the natural environment. First, we review some theoretical approaches that try to
explain individual as well as cross-national differences in environmental attitudes.
Particularly, we discuss Inglehart’s theory of post-materialism, Dunlap and Mertig’s
globalization explanation, and the prosperity hypothesis. Second, we test these hypotheses
by applying multilevel analysis to the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) data
from the years 1993 and 2000. The results support, above all, the prosperity hypothesis.
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. The results indicate that environmental
concern is also closely associated with post-materialistic attitudes and various sociodemographic
variables. Comparing the environmental concern measured in the ISSP in
1993 with that in 2000 shows that environmental concern has more or less stabilized since
the early 1990s in the countries under scrutiny.

http://www.soz.unibe.ch/unibe/wiso/...5586/e15854/files15855/Franzen_Meyer_2010.pdf

 

[bilby]

Well it is pretty clear from these data that caring about the environment results in economic growth, and that therefore environmental awareness and concern should be encouraged, if only on economic grounds.

 

[Togo]

So, it's like education and healthcare?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, it's like education and healthcare?

And not getting kidnapped while a kid and turned into a child soldier or bride. Not a thing the cheese-eating liberals need to worry about in their fancy country clubs.

 

[laughing dog]

I find the use of the definition of "luxury" good in the OP rather odd. For most goods in the world, the demand rises when income rises. In economics, a common definition of a luxury good is one where demand rises more proportionally than income.

However, at some level, environmental quality cannot be thought of as a luxury good. Avoiding a dangerous or poisonous physical environment is a necessity.

 

[Nexus]

Perhaps there is a hierarchy of needs in humans.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I find the use of the definition of "luxury" good in the OP rather odd. For most goods in the world, the demand rises when income rises. In economics, a common definition of a luxury good is one where demand rises more proportionally than income.

However, at some level, environmental quality cannot be thought of as a luxury good. Avoiding a dangerous or poisonous physical environment is a necessity.

If it's a luxury, it obviously can't be a right.

 

[KeepTalking]

In the context of "luxury good", 'good' means merchandise.

In what way is the environment merchandise?

 

[Nexus]

In the context of "luxury good", 'good' means merchandise.

In what way is the environment merchandise?

P1: Environmental quality is a luxury good
P2: Poor people don't have a right to luxuries

C: Poor people don't have a right to environmental quality

The logic is sound but the premises are unsupported.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the context of "luxury good", 'good' means merchandise.

In what way is the environment merchandise?

"Goods" in this context don't have to be physical things.

Would you not say a massage is a luxury good?

 

[KeepTalking]

In the context of "luxury good", 'good' means merchandise.

In what way is the environment merchandise?

"Goods" in this context don't have to be physical things.

Would you not say a massage is a luxury good?

No, I would say it is a service, and not necessarily a luxury. I have certainly never paid for a massage, and have received many. But let's say a massage is a luxury service. In what way is the environment a service?

 

[arkirk]

"Goods" in this context don't have to be physical things.

Would you not say a massage is a luxury good?

No, I would say it is a service, and not necessarily a luxury. I have certainly never paid for a massage, and have received many. But let's say a massage is a luxury service. In what way is the environment a service?

Actually, when your environment allows you air with the right percentage of oxygen in it, you are receiving an ecological service from (not your bank) but your environment. They are not luxuries. Your entire life is a constant interchange between the ecosystem in which you exist and you. These exchanges are called by ecologists ecological services. Where we get in trouble is when we pollute and interfere with these services through the medium of industrial greed and waste. How do we get out of trouble? Recognizing the extent of the services we as a race are receiving and protecting these systems from harm.

Actually the Koch brothers are at the top of Axulus' list in terms of income and are off the chart in terms of the environmental damage their companies do worldwide. Addictition to the accumulation of wealth seems to make people crazy.

 

[NobleSavage]

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

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Goods" in this context don't have to be physical things.

Would you not say a massage is a luxury good?

No, I would say it is a service, and not necessarily a luxury. I have certainly never paid for a massage, and have received many. But let's say a massage is a luxury service. In what way is the environment a service?

But we don't refer to "luxury services" like we do "luxury goods", thus it seems clear to me that "luxury good" must include services.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Exactly.

 

[ronburgundy]

By that "thoughtful" economic analysis, avoiding rape, assault, theft, terrorist attack and most all other crimes or harmful outcomes is a "luxury good", meaning that having any kind of law enforcement or military is a "luxury good".

IF that is the case, then of what theoretical or practical utility does this classification have?

 

[untermensche]

i.e. demand rises with income

It depends.

If somebodies position or income is dependent on them not caring then even high income individuals will not care.

To capitalists all things are commodified.

But the environment is not a commodity.

The individual cannot pay a price and breath cleaner air at the park.

 

[Bronzeage]

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

Your food, shelter, and clothing are part of your environment, but that's not really what the question is all about. This is an ownership and property issue.

The modern economy is based on private property and the property owner's right to do as he pleases with his own property. If I own land with a tree growing on it, I can cut down the tree, saw it into lumber and sell it. I can't go on my neighbors land and cut down his tree. I also can't dump all the sawdust on his property, without his permission. That's pretty straight forward, because we all agree on who owns what land.

The problem comes on stuff that is owned by everybody, which we call public property. This includes the air and the water. If I own a tannery, I'll be using a lot of foul smelling chemicals. The smell will negatively affect the standard of living of my neighbors. If I dump the chemicals in the street, it's another degradation of their quality of life. They may want to move to a more expensive neighborhood, where the air and streets are clean. The difference of cost of living in my neighborhood and the clean neighborhood is easy to calculate. If I had to follow procedures to prevent fouling the air and the ground, I would have to increase my capital investment. It's also the amount of money my neighbors have invested in my business.

So there you have it. Environmental quality is not a luxury good, it's a stolen good. It's always easier to steal from the powerless, so poor people suffer first. Polluters are thieves with power.

 

[arkirk]

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.

 

[bilby]

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.

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.

 

[arkirk]

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.

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.