That is precisely where we disagree, Ludwig.

>>The essential difference here is that growth in population and demand is good for the medium term for many businesses, but it could be very bad in the longer term.<<

This abstract concept of yours - "growth in population" - is in fact extremely real to those businesses. They are called customers. If a company policy on water usage endangers the very existence of the market they rely on, then that policy will quickly change. It cannot be any other way.

You have this image of business as some sort of faceless, mindless juggernaut, that has one fixed idea - making a dollar today - that excludes all other thought processes. It may surprise you to hear that these decision-makers are actually people too - some even have [gasp] wives, husbands, families etc. for whom they need to provide a future. They are as aware of the impact of their decisions as anyone, perhaps more so because they rely upon continued success at their work for their livelihood. Mistakes in business are punished by being sacked (look it up in the dictionary if the concept is foreign to you), or going bankrupt.

>>It seems that many companies plan for the medium-term future, and don’t take into account the longer term future at all.<<

Is that just a breezy generalization that lacks substance, or can you point some out to us? The shareholders in those companies have a right to know.

Pericles and JKJ,

I'm willing to read your information, and I won't pretend that I'm particularly knowledgeable on this issue. Mine appears to be a basic reasoning that sustainability in the first instance is dependent and constrained by environmental limits.

JKJ,

There's been a little project taking place in India for a while called the Green Revolution. Much profit has been made, population has increased, environmental degradation is rife. It appears to be environmentally unsustainable. Even disregarding soil degradation, ground water depletion is a very real threat to the continuation of present practices.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html

Agricultural collapse is a real possibility if water continues to be used at the present rate. The present rate and style of agricultural practice is unsustainable if it leads to collapse, no matter what profit or capital and asset gains are currently being amassed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nested_sustainability-v2.svg

People's preferences may decide what works in the market place, but human preferences, whether guided by the free market or government, can't regulate a healthy and bountiful environment, one that is capable of delivering resources with continuity, if some wisdom isn't introduced to override basic human excess.

The problems in India and China arise from over-population, and sustainability problems are enhanced by the link in modern times to globalised business arrangements whereby corporate profits are derived from Indians and Chinese over-burdening their environments.

Yes, the Chinese and Indian people are striving to make their lives better to indulge their preferences, but if the whole show is "unsustainable" at an environmental and ecological level, then their economies will eventually have to pay the piper.

Poirot

There's no doubt it’s a complex issue, and it may be that current usages are unsustainable.

But that’s not the issue here, which is, whether government can presumptively do better at sustainably managing resources when we take into account *both* present and future utility, or whatever we call the ultimate welfare criterion.

“ground water depletion is a very real threat to the continuation of present practices… Agricultural collapse is a real possibility if water continues to be used at the present rate.”

Notice that ground- and agricultural water are public goods? That removes or greatly reduces the ability of people to calculate how to economize their use. The effect is, that the profit or assets accrue privately, while the losses or liabilities accrue in the commons.

That doesn’t mean that private ownership could solve the ultimate problem. But it does mean that public ownership is actively worse *both* in terms of present and future utility.

“human preferences … can't regulate a healthy and bountiful environment… if some wisdom isn't introduced to override basic human excess.”

True, and if that wisdom doesn’t exist, or is outweighed by unwise motivations, then that disposes of the matter, government or no.

The point is, government does not presumptively represent greater wisdom or selflessness. It has all the same disabilities as the market *and* nullifies or restricts the people’s ability to rationalise scarce resources based on a) relative scarcity, b) everyone’s subjective preferences, and c) a lowest common denominator. Government is actively worse at handling the problem.

“The problems in India and China arise from over-population…”

Do remember that that “problem” means other people’s lives, their families, their everything, who otherwise would not exist, or would live and die in poverty and disease.

“if the whole show is "unsustainable" … their economies will eventually have to pay the piper.”

That’s true and it may be we’re all going to hell in a hand-cart. My point is only that it is vain and flatly incorrect to think that government can presumptively solve the problem. It has less, not more of a handle on it.

JKJ,

Firstly, thanks for your positive engagement.

I haven't got time right now, but will try and raise the issue of the privatisation of water when I get time...there's a concerted push around the world to do just that.

Yes, I'm mindful that referring to other people's lives as "the problem" is simplifying the issue more than is comfortable - but I think you understand what I'm trying to say.

<< You’ve also got the onus of proof back-the-front >>

Firstly, Jardine, why do you need proof?? You broadly know what sustainability is, surely. You broadly know what the role of government is, I presume. You broadly know that our government is taking us very much in an unsustainable direction, and I’m sure you can envisage the consequences of that.

Secondly, it is you who needs to very strongly support your really quite amazing claim that government can’t manage a paradigm of sustainability. I don’t expect proof but I would like some strong corroborating evidence or argument… which I am just not getting.

<< …when I ask you to define sustainability, you refer me off to an article whose only definition is it means “the capacity to endure”, and then explains how there’s no accepted definition. >>

Upon your request, I defined sustainability. I directed you to a very thorough definition of sustainability with copious explanation of everything involved. Wow, it is awfully rich to criticise me for that!

If you want to reject it, go right ahead, but it works strongly against your whole argument as far as I’m concerned. To maintain the argument that government is incapable of dealing with sustainability because it can’t know what it is or what it means is just silly!

<< And then you ask me to prove how government can’t do it, before you’ve defined it or explained how government can do it! >>

At this point I feel strongly inclined to leave this obviously pointless discussion.

continued

<< Okay, the basic idea of sustainability is that we are currently using too much resources, and leaving not enough for future generations and other species. Fair enough? >>

No! That is but one small part of it. The much more immediate concern in Australia is that of balancing supply and demand of resources, and of money!

Our economy is totally unsustainable! We are forever trying to grow the economy. We want ever-greater GDP. We want an ever-greater rate of mining, etc, etc. But at the same time, we have ever-growing demands for the expenditure of that national income, which is caused primarily by way of very rapid population growth, which creates enormous demand for all manner of infrastructure and services!

For all our amazing income due largely to the incredible mining boom of the last two or three decades, we haven’t been able to keep up with population growth!! We are getting further and further behind with the quality of most infrastructure and services!

Jardine, you are insisting that government can’t deal with sustainability when you apparently only have a very vague idea of what it is!

That is really quite amazing!

If our government would just see fit to reduce immigration to net zero, we’d be half way there, just in that one move!

<< …and you want to comply with Ludwig’s definition of sustainability, which Ludwig hasn’t stated yet… >>

This is getting really weird. You’ve been directed to a comprehensive definition and explanation of sustainability and yet you are insisting that I haven’t stated the definition yet! Your whole tenet is apparently based on logical argument, but you then come out with most glaring hooter of an example of completely illogicality!

Hey, our government is doing a really good job of managing a paradigm of antisustainability. But, wait a minute, that is just as hard to totally define as sustainability. So by your 'logical' reckoning, our government should therefore be incapable of managing antisustainability! And yet they are doing a damn good job it!!