In reference to http://blog.mises.org/16687/defeat-the-epa-with-this/
I went to Lowes yesterday looking for this stuff and wasn't able to come up with anything. I asked a few people and one person asked, "What is phosphate?" To which I replied,"well, it apparently used to be in dish washer soap but was banned." His response was, "If it's banned, we don't sell anything close to it." I chuckled a little and said, "No, it was banned from being used in dish washer soap." Anyway, no one was really able to help me. Headed over to the grocery store and found this stuff called Finish - Glass Magic. Its phosphorous content is 21%. I'm assuming then that this wasn't a full on ban. Anyway, I'm still going to look out for the stuff from Tucker's blog.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/06/16-states-ban-phosphate-laden-dishwasher-soap/1
I live in one of the states that apparently instituted the ban.
You can get pure TSP on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Savogran-10621-Trisodium-Phosphate-TSP/dp/B0001GOGQW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304479162&sr=8-1
Just add a little to a box of regular powdered dish detergent.
i checked out the mises blog post and it seems surprising to me they make it sound like the EPA is just out to make it harder for people to wash dishes.
nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus are huge problems in many water systems. specifically, they foster algae blooms that can lead to massive fish kills. its a big chunk of why there is a massive deadzone forming the gulf of mexico and elsewhere like the chesapeake bay. we're talking about destroying ecosystems and commercial fishing in these areas.
http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/
i can see why they might want to downplay this though. this is an externality problem that would be very hard for a market to solve even if property rights were well defined. transaction costs would be huge because nutrients are flowing from everywhere: not only point sources like municipal waste water facilities (that nominally treats the sewage that comes from households that contains phosphates in dish soap) but non-point sources (like farms where fertilizer runs off). how would one even identify them let alone nagotiate a contract withthem? Maayybe if you owned the miss. river AND the gulf of mexico you could nagotiate with point sources, but non-point sources still comrpise the vast majority of loading.
Anyway, it is one thing to openly assume away externality problems like this in theory. but to openly encourage people to engage in destructive behavior? seems at best distasteful. it seems like the literal equivalent of saying people should leave their lights on all night (even while you're sleeping) just to stick it to those green-do-gooders that think carbon emissions contribute to global climate change.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
If a non-point source is found to be destroying another person's private property, wouldn't they have a case against the person who owns the land of the non-point source? I don't see how it would be difficult for the market to find a solution to your problem.
Student-
Doesn't the problem with phosphate come in when it becomes highly concentrated in an area where it is rare? Better water management would solve that problem wouldn't it? I think the idea that we have to manage every little ecological problem, or the possibility of every little ecological problem, is ridiculous. What is the optimal state to begin with? I think that the level of risk that people want to take and the level of damage that people want to endure can be decided on the market through consumer choice and prices.
Anyway, it is one thing to openly assume away externality problems like this in theory
This is something that has been bothering me lately. It is one thing to wish to reframe or contextulize the intellectual debate, but what is odd is how many libertarians seem to ignore the fact that the apperatus we have now is what people depend on in their day to day life and calculations. It is bizarre to think that a radical paradigm change could, would, or should happen to the general homeostasis of society.
Even if the EPA is inefficient and ultimately a very very bad thing; it is simply what we have to work with for the time being.
jmorris84
well just to be clear, it isn't "my" problem. the consequences of nutrient pollution are well documented and the persistence of those consequences around the globe are a testiment to how difficult the problems have been to solve in the past.
second, the key thing to know about a non-point source is there is no single point of emissions. think about it this way. when it rains, the rain falls everywhere, not just the land next to the stream. so the nutrients arriving at the edge of the stream come not only from the land right next to the stream, they are washed down from the land upgradient as well. so if you are thinking about suing someone for the damages nutrients have caused to the gulf, you will have a hard time figuring out who is liable (except, in a sense, pretty much everyone is) and for how much.
Who do we sue for volcanic eruptions? I mean come on student, you can't expect me, at least, to care about attempting to micromanage nature. I mean, it seems like what you're saying basically is that we don't even have the capability of dealing with these problems at the moment.
Phaedros
I think that the level of risk that people want to take and the level of damage that people want to endure can be decided on the market through consumer choice and prices.
But through what process (in a world of ill defined property rights and/or high transaction costs) do the damages from nutrient pollution become included in the prices of products containing those chemicals?
And you're right that better water management is part of the solution. Most WWTPs could do more to reduce nutrients in thier effluent. But, it is typically very expensive for them to do so. and even if they pursed these expensive treatment options, the bulk of the problem (non-point sources) would largely go unaddressed.
1) The "who to sue" is a legal and not an economic issue, so unless there is an extant court you are referring to the question is meaningless
2) What is so difficult to conceptualize about a person or group of people unable to deal with a catastrophe? It happens all the time. Pompeii, Plague, Tsunami, the list is endless
3) What are the limits in the language of economics?
Well, unlike volcanic eruptions WE are the ones actually pouring these nutrients into our lakes and rivers. The products we buy (like dishsoap), the fertilizers we use on our fields, heck even by putting down pavement we are working to put more nutrients into our waters (large areas of impervious paved area like in cities means rain water and the chemicals it picks up run off into surface water rather than soaking into the soil).
So I don't mean to make it sound like there is nothing we can do. There are at least 3 things.
#1 Use products that contain less phosphorus and nitrogen [using dishsoaps without phosphates for example!]
#2 Treat our sewage to reduce nutirents (points sources like WWTPs)
#3 Treat our non-point source run off for nutrients. For example, you can plant trees along the banks of streams in rural areas. This will 1) slow down the runoff before it reaches the stream and 2) the treats will eat up some of the nutrients as food. Or, if you are talking about urban areas, you can build stormwater ponds where rain runoff can collect and nutrients can settle before moving onto surface water.
Federal, state, and local governments are already engaged in all 3 of these activities.
You'll have to enlighten me further I guess on what the transaction cost has to do with anything, buying a banana has a transaction cost, that's reality I guess. However, the real problem is as you say, ill-defined property rights. That is a problem of politics I think, or rather it is a government induced problem mainly. The main way, I think, that markets will deal with the phosphorous thing is that as reserves of phosphorous become lower and lower, prices will rise and people will use it less. Until that happens what ways are there of dealing with the phosphorous that has concentrated in areas around the coastlines? Well, one way I could think of that will never ever happen is a sort of homesteading project where people who clean up areas of the ocean become its owners. That, of course, will never happen so people will not have any incentive to do it without being paid. I guess if environmental groups are really, really concerned they should put their money where their mouth is. That is, on the free market purchase labor and resources in order to clean it up. William-
I'm not sure what you mean at all so we can just leave it at that lol.
Anyway, it is one thing to openly assume away externality problems like this in theory This is something that has been bothering me lately. It is one thing to wish to reframe or contextulize the intellectual debate, but what is odd is how many libertarians seem to ignore the fact that the apperatus we have now is what people depend on in their day to day life and calculations. It is bizarre to think that a radical paradigm change could, would, or should happen to the general homeostasis of society. Even if the EPA is inefficient and ultimately a very very bad thing; it is simply what we have to work with for the time being.
William, I am in total agreement. Nominally, I agree with many of the folks here that everything else being equal more personal freedom is better. But, at the same, I recognize that the institutions we have today weren't just forced upon out of no where. They developed over time as imperfect solutions to very real problems. And I am more confident that improvements in these institutions over time will have a better chance of improving our lives and moving us toward more personal freedom than trying to recreate society from whole cloth.
I'm not convinced really that those things need to be done. Some might believe it should be done because they don't like this or that. If that's what they believe then they can do it. Are you sure that these solutions won't present new problems, or even worse ones? For example the sewage treatment solution, what are you using to reduce nutrients? It seems strange, to me at least, that now we're fighting nutrients, I mean what's next? There's too much water? Anyways, I get the issue, but I think that it's hard to say what the optimal environment is and how we achieve that environment.
Shit I misread your post completely, lol. I've been sick and bed, I guess the medicine is getting to me.
Oh well: exit William
From wikipedia-
"Dead zones are reversible. The Black Sea dead zone, previously the largest dead zone in the world, largely disappeared between 1991 and 2001 after fertilizers became too costly to use following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of centrally planned economies in Eastern and Central Europe. Fishing has again become a major economic activity in the region.[12]"
I just thought of something after initially posting this. I think maybe there's a lack of entrepeneurial spirit as well. I mean given the above why couldn't groups like Greenpeace make proposals to fishing companies or whatever about how they can clean up a given area and make it more profitable by increasing the number of fish in that area. I kind of know why they might not do that. They might not do it because they're so ideologically blind that they would then cry about too much fishing or something.
Phaedros,
Well, i tried to include an example of how transaction costs matter here earlier. Imagine one person owned the entire miss river and the gulf of mexico in the same way a person might own a piece of land. would that solve this problem? well, the person could offer to pay the polluter some sum to reduce their emissions in someway. That is the transaction. The problem is that in this case EVERYONE is a polluter is some way. and it is very hard to figure out which individual would be more responsible than another. That is the transaction cost. And since the cost of figuring out who you would need to pay to reduce emissions is so high the transaction never takes place.
The main way, I think, that markets will deal with the phosphorous thing is that as reserves of phosphorous become lower and lower, prices will rise and people will use it less.
I am not sure I would call that a market solution. Lets just use this non-renewable resource carelessly, destroying our aquatic ecosystems in the process, until it becomes too expensive to use anyways (phosphorus, btw, is a chemical that is as essential to our food cycle as water)? I would say that is **exactly** the situation I would want to avoid in the first place.
Dead zones are reversible.
Yes that is true. As I understand it, the problem is that nutrients create algae blooms which use up the oxygen fish and other organisms would normally use (thus making the water uninhabitable for them). If you take out the nutrients, you take out the food for the blooms and it can be come safe for aquatic life again.
But the clear message is that we can't undo the damage without reducing nutrient loading in one way or another. Regulations on removing phosphates from dish soap is one way of doing that.
Is the type of algae bloom generated by excess phosphates non-toxic in terms of humans? If not, is there means (economical ones) to make the algae non-toxic?
The reason for the questions is that maybe the angle we're not seeing as to the problem is why hasn't anyone tried to take the side-effect itself and exploit it for something that is useful for humans, but not damaging to open ecologies? Granted, this won't work on run-off from fertilizers (I remember one bad year in my state, where the algae bloom left a sulfurous stink in the drinking water), but it could deal with sewage sources, which are by their nature concentrated and easily controlled.
Algae is generally a good nutrient rich source for various uses (fertilizer again, as foodstuff when processed for humans and/or other animals, and industrial uses like paints). I hope you see where I'm going with this...
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Everyone I talked to about this says that the whole algae bit is wildly overblown. The alleged danger to fish is inconclusive. The contribution of laundry-based phosphate is negligable as compared with farms and their fertilizers. And, in addition, there are other ways to deal with it. Why do they have to attack civilization? It's the state's way, because the state hates our market-created conveniences.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
Let me add something else. I believe that our desire for cleanliness is more important that the welfare of animals swiming around in the sea, which is giant toilet bowl in any case. If it affects fishing, that's one thing. There are ways to work this stuff out in private markets. But that's not what all the fuss is about. There are many people who believe that the standard should be that nature - as a perfect being- must never be disturbed by anything mankind does. This view is very common and frankly evil.
Everyone I talked to about this says that the whole algae bit is wildly overblown.
Who exactly are you talking to? Your recent article on excluding phosphate from detergents mentions "the scientific evidence on the issue of algae's effect on fish runs in all directions", but i oddly see no links.
And I would agree that there are much better and more effective ways to deal with this problem (controlling non-point source loading is probably the biggest and most difficult issue). And the process of reaching a solution really already begin. States like North Carolina have pioneered the creation of nutrient credit markets (very neat, but very hard to implement) and in-lieu offset payment programs.
Obviously, you probably would not approve of these solutions as they represent state involvement. And the state hates our market-created conveniences (side thought: if "the state" can have feelings, can those feelings be hurt). So if you believe there are other ways to deal with it. What do you think they are? Specifically, how do you think a voluntary solution can be reached when transaction costs are so high (as Phaedros and I were discussing above)??
Student:i can see why they might want to downplay this though. this is an externality problem that would be very hard for a market to solve even if property rights were well defined.
Please explain why it's necessarily a problem that needs to be solved at all, let alone solved in a particular way (and why would that be?).
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Student, I'm with you on hoping that Tucker can provide a link as well. It was a pretty bold statement to make, which I'm not saying he is lying about or whatever, but it would be helpful to have a source to help solidify the position that he has on this issue.
Student:William, I am in total agreement. Nominally, I agree with many of the folks here that everything else being equal more personal freedom is better.
Cleanup in aisle 3. Someone just dropped a pant load of BS.
Student:But, at the same
More freedom is good, BUT...
Student:I recognize that the institutions we have today weren't just forced upon out of no where.
You can recognize anything, its still BS.
Student:They developed over time as imperfect solutions to very real problems.
Nonsense, they are control systems designed to keep people enslaved and stupid.
Student:And I am more confident that improvements in these institutions over time will have a better chance of improving our lives and moving us toward more personal freedom than trying to recreate society from whole cloth.
This ignorant statement presumes that the state creates society or that people's lives can be improved through more efficient and benevolent tyranny.
Student:Specifically, how do you think a voluntary solution can be reached when transaction costs are so high (as Phaedros and I were discussing above)??
The burden of proof is always on you to prove that intervention is warranted. Always.
WHat first tipped me off was the comment at the end of this article http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/another-triumph-greens_536862.html?page=3 where the Washington State ase is discussed. you can look up the studies to which he refers
and this is consistent with everything I've read since, and I invite you to do the same. It turns out that the cause and effect relationships are extremely complex and I'm not even sure they matter in any case.
The point of this ban was not to save the planet. The point was to feed the resentment of those who hate our prosperity - and that's why it is consistent with every other thing they are doing to our households from bulbs to toilets. Wise up and stop trusting the central planners.
William:Even if the EPA is inefficient and ultimately a very very bad thing; it is simply what we have to work with for the time being.
Why?
jtucker: WHat first tipped me off was the comment at the end of this article http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/another-triumph-greens_536862.html?page=3 where the Washington State ase is discussed. you can look up the studies to which he refers
Thank you, sir!
Because that would put in a realm of intellectualism that I do not wish to be in. Other than my would be empty speculations, I perform no day to day actions to bring down the EPA, there is nothing "real" about anything with me and the EPA. It does not come into my thoughts or conflicts in real life, so it is what I am working with. What else can I, or anyone else who isn't in action say about it?
And it isn't just the EPA, it is the plethora of other customs and institutions that I am just not a part of. If it bothers me, and I am in an actual position to do something about it I will, but that is not the case right now.
EDIT
William:Other than my would be empty speculations
As much as I love your posts, by your own philosophy all of your speculations are empty, which makes me laugh when you make them, and when called to explain them, you have to remind us (or perhaps yourself) that they are meaningless.
This quote from the article is classic!
"Jim Correll, of CH2M Hill, the engineering firm hired to build the new plant, explained in 2006 that the state’s requirement was not scientifically possible. “The technology does not yet exist to do anything like what we expect the DOE to require,” he told the Spokane Journal of Business."
At least the state is good for providing a good laugh every now and then. :p
Hmm well I don't really have answer for the moment, besides this would be strayig from the topic on hand - If there are a couple major themes of mine on this forum one of them is the nature of intellectualism and its dangers and its boundries and its limits. This is something that I take very seriously and I always am playing around with and reworking it in my head.
Those have been some of my favorite topics covered by Mises, Hayek, and Schumpeter
WHat first tipped me off was the comment at the end of this article http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/another-triumph-greens_536862.html?page=3 where the Washington State ase is discussed. you can look up the studies to which he refers and this is consistent with everything I've read since, and I invite you to do the same. It turns out that the cause and effect relationships are extremely complex and I'm not even sure they matter in any case. The point of this ban was not to save the planet. The point was to feed the resentment of those who hate our prosperity - and that's why it is consistent with every other thing they are doing to our households from bulbs to toilets. Wise up and stop trusting the central planners.
Wow.
Student:Wow.
Your most intelligent post yet.
Ug. No. I can't leave it at that.
Your op-ed said:
the scientific evidence on the issue of algae's effect on fish runs in all directions
The unspecified study mentioned in the weekly standard piece:
Last month the University of Washington released a study suggesting that some of the phosphorus being discharged into the Spokane River never actually worked as fertilizer for algae to begin with. Some of the effluents making their way into the river contained phosphorus in complex molecular forms which are not bioavailable. Algae lack the enzymes necessary to break down this phosphorus, meaning it is essentially harmless.
See how the two don't match? One is about the impact of algae on fish. the other is about the effect of phosphorus on algae. Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees that difference.
And the results of that washington study don't surprise me. I've read various articles in the past about how different species of algae react to nutirents differently. So if your orginal claim was as weak as your current claim of "the cause and effect relationship between nutrients and harmful algae blooms is complex" i would have just said fair enough and moved on (though "complex relationship" does not mean "a total mystery" nor does it mean "a relationship that doesn't actually exist").
Honestly, if you just wanted to come up with ANY justification for your op-ed, why didn't you just google for 2 extra seconds? You would have found this very old article in Science (one of the worlds most cited scientific journals):
The distribution of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus and bioassay experiments both show that nitrogen is the critical limiting factor to algal growth and eutrophication in coastal marine waters. About twice the amount of phosphate as can be used by the algae is normally present. This surplus results from the low nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in terrigenous contributions, including human waste, and from the fact that phosphorus regenerates more quickly than ammonia from decomposing organic matter. Removal of phosphate from detergents is therefore not likely to slow the eutrophication of coastal marine waters, and its replacement with nitrogen-containing nitrilotriacetic acid may worsen the situation. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/171/3975/1008.abstract
The distribution of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus and bioassay experiments both show that nitrogen is the critical limiting factor to algal growth and eutrophication in coastal marine waters. About twice the amount of phosphate as can be used by the algae is normally present. This surplus results from the low nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in terrigenous contributions, including human waste, and from the fact that phosphorus regenerates more quickly than ammonia from decomposing organic matter. Removal of phosphate from detergents is therefore not likely to slow the eutrophication of coastal marine waters, and its replacement with nitrogen-containing nitrilotriacetic acid may worsen the situation.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/171/3975/1008.abstract
I understand it wouldn't allow you to just shrug away the entire problem of nutrient pollution, but is that really so bad?
PS* I have no idea how the findings of this article stood the test of time. But it seems like a better start than a weekly standard op-ed. just sayin'
And on a final note. Tucker, you still haven't said how you think a voluntary solutuon would arise in the presense of such high transaction costs (not to mention ill defined property rights).
Am I the only person on this board that actually is interested in thinking about that question? I mean, no one around here shys away from explaining how a voluntary agreement can be made in the exchange of goods in a market setting. Why not extend that same analytical perspective to non-market settings? Isn't understanding the nature of social interactions what got you interested in economics in the first place!?!?!
Or maybe it was just the politics. Its always the politics.
I am not interested in defending intervention. I am not an evangelical and have no interest in converting people to my view point (which is actually not all that well defined with regards to politics anyways). :P
Instead, what I have tried several times on this board to do was start a conversation about how and when environmental problems can be solved through voluntary means. It seems like a very interesting subject to me (environmental econ will be my research focus when i enter phd this fall) and I would think self-identified anarchists would have a few ideas on the subject.
So when I press Jeff or Phaedros for more specific answers than "the market will figure it out", it is mostly because I myself am curious. It is an interesting intellectual issue (whether such solutions are possible) but it could also have important implications (many forms of pollution cross political boarders, making traditional "tax it or cap it" solutions difficult or impossible to implement).