Economists are impersonal SOB's. We have to be. Practical solutions to complicated, heated problems require a certain lack of emotional attachment to either side. That's why my inner human cringes when I think about the idea of a market for whales, but my outer economist smugly nods in knowing pride.
…On page 139 of this issue [of Natue], three environmental scientists outline a plan to introduce tradable quotas for whale catches. Under the scheme, conservationists could buy (and retire) the quotas from whalers, giving industry a way to profit from the animals without killing them. In return, anti-whaling campaigners could be more certain that their actions were reducing the slaughter. Theoretically, such a scheme would allow both sides to benefit with no loss of face. As the researchers say, it could “open the door to reducing mortality without needing to battle over whether whaling is honourable or shameful”. And both the number of whales killed and the associated costs would go down.
And really, who could argue with that?
The article's authors — Christopher Costello and Steven Gaines of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Leah Gerber of Arizona State University in Tempe…
Proof that environmental economists are environmental scientists.
- Chris is an environmental economist.
- Nature includes Chris among the class of environmental scientists.
- Environmental Economists are Environmental Scientists.
QED
— use the per-animal profit of whaling ships to decide that about US$13,000 would be a fair price to buy the life of a minke whale, and $85,000 should secure a fin whale.
For comparison, high end mink coats sell for $2,000-$4,000. I wonder how many mink coats you get from each whale? And why does Nature spell mink with an 'e' on the end. Must be the British spelling.*
“Whale prices should therefore be within reach of conservation groups and even some individuals,” they suggest.
"Honey, would you like a whale for your birthday?"
The idea first surfaced in 1982, to little effect. But perhaps, three decades on, its time has come. Market approaches to environmental problems are now common, with carbon offsets bought by individuals to neutralize their greenhouse-gas emissions. Such systems have even been shown to be effective, reducing sulphur dioxide pollution from US power plants.
The SO2 program is dead. Long live the SO2 program!
To put a price on the head of a whale would be a different matter, of course. Committed anti-whaling campaigners would have to put aside moral objections and accept such a scheme's tacit legitimation of whaling as an enterprise to be rewarded, as well as the de facto official approval for the heavily disputed notion that whales (and other animals) are a resource to be exploited.
Screw morality…we're talking about efficiency.
Pro-whaling nations would need to be persuaded that the scheme would have more strategic benefit than their continuing political efforts to lift, or find ways to work around, the current commercial whaling moratorium.
Profit is a very persuasive argument. That's the beauty of Cap'n Trade.
via www.nature.com
*UPDATE: From the inbox "maybe you were making a joke i didn't catch on to but minke is a kind of whale. mink is a furry animal they make coats out of."
Was the joke that bad?
Leave a Reply