Tigers turn into Hermes bags
When your grandchildren ask one day: “What happened to all the tigers and orangutans?” you can answer them: “They were turned into Hermes bags and Lamborghinis.” According to an illuminating article on the super-rich of Indonesia, acquisition of such vacuous status symbols by greedy people running mining and oil palm businesses is financed through the destruction of Indonesia’s few remaining rainforests (“Indonesia’s unbalanced commodities boom fuels discontent,” March 17, page 9). Bummer. That’s where the tigers and orangutans live, but when Hermes brings out that new US$50,000 sky-blue handbag, it instantly becomes a “must-have” item because so-and-so on the social ladder of status already has one.
While I do not want to delve into the emotionally stunted lives of people who acquire Hermes bag after Hermes bag, I want to make the point that if we want to save any of the commons (global atmosphere or biodiversity, or even our own local forests or city parks in Taiwan), we must realize that an economic model based solely on individual choices runs counter to society’s need for sustainable activity. One example is climate change, which is “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen,” according to the World Bank’s Nicholas Stern (www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/marketfailures.html). Well, actually, our entire economic system is a market failure because it does not include the external costs of resource extraction and pollution.
In his article “Nature’s role in sustaining economic development,” the economist Partha Dasgupta demonstrates how much of so-called economic growth is not based on improving quality of life, but on resource extraction and pollution, which harms other people somewhere further down the line. The total wealth of many of the world’s poorest nations is actually declining because of the destruction of their natural capital (eg, rainforests).
So shall we go on rewarding the rainforest destroyers? Paul Hawken in The Ecology of Commerce proposes an entirely different economic model. Instead of rewarding those who destroy the atmosphere or the rainforest (and, in effect, steal from the less powerful and future generations), our economic reward system should be rebuilt to reward preservation, sustainability and long-term investment. Taxes would be levied not against “goods,” such as earnings or investments, but against “bads,” such as resource extraction and pollution. In a free-market system regulated by “green” taxes, businesses would quickly adopt sustainable practices and the most sustainable products would win out. Naturally, economic inequality is toxic to long-term sustainability, because poor people cannot afford such “green” taxes, while rich people keep buying too many Hermes bags.
All this has been known for decades, as philosophers, economists and ecologists have laid out the framework for a truly sustainable society.
However, in a last gasp of economic insanity, we seem to be hell-bent to convert whatever natural beauty is left in this world into pointless status symbols for the super-rich, thanks to all those economists who are still stuck in the world of two centuries ago, when the free market was surrounded by unlimited resources.
Flora Faun
Taipei
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
RSS