DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Lt_Apple** · 07-04-2012, 02:28 AM

You've separated the two "costs"nicely TUG.

The first, of the direct costs to the environment (apart from construction / running etc) will depend on the specifications for operation and will not necessarily be more or less healthy than the old ad hoc systems.

In fact it might be easier to "control" just one huge corporation / operation in the long run, compared with the existing "given" of all the competing interests that have so much angsting about (say) marine parks today.

The second will depend largely on how communities (through government) regulate these things.

It cannot be any worse than what the mining industry's FI/FO is doing to the local mining communities o(r those from which they are drawing their labour).

Similar issues arose as a consequence of the broadacre planting of blue gums ... no-one making profits from those had any intention of paying the real costs to communities which were wiped out in many cases.

As always, the devil is in the detail.

We don't seem capable of sorting the private / public business of fair allocation of costs of natural resources which are being "used" by some for person kinds of profit-making.
(No, I don't see the "trickle down effect"as being anything like what its supporters claim).

07-04-2012, 02:28 AM	#9
Lt_Apple Join Date Dec 2008 Posts 4,489 Senior Member	You've separated the two "costs"nicely TUG. The first, of the direct costs to the environment (apart from construction / running etc) will depend on the specifications for operation and will not necessarily be more or less healthy than the old ad hoc systems. In fact it might be easier to "control" just one huge corporation / operation in the long run, compared with the existing "given" of all the competing interests that have so much angsting about (say) marine parks today. The second will depend largely on how communities (through government) regulate these things. It cannot be any worse than what the mining industry's FI/FO is doing to the local mining communities o(r those from which they are drawing their labour). Similar issues arose as a consequence of the broadacre planting of blue gums ... no-one making profits from those had any intention of paying the real costs to communities which were wiped out in many cases. As always, the devil is in the detail. We don't seem capable of sorting the private / public business of fair allocation of costs of natural resources which are being "used" by some for person kinds of profit-making. (No, I don't see the "trickle down effect"as being anything like what its supporters claim).
	Quote