Re: A Question I got via PM
[ QUOTE ]
How can this not be clear after 30 seconds of thinking about it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because while there is value in preserving a resource, there is often much greater value in exploiting it. When a forest is controlled by a private landowner, he may see the forest as nothing but valuable lumber. If he sells the lumber, he will become wealthy. If a regulator sells the lumber, he doesn't even get a bonus (barring corruption).
The private landowner may choose to preserve the forest for future sale and hope the asset appreciates, but the value of that forest is likely tied up in the lumber available, so the next owner will also have strong incentive to exploit it.
As far as global warming goes, I'm usually able to predict what the anarchist arguments will be, particularly on a topic I'm interested in like the environment and I have no idea where Borodog is going with that.
|